GeForce FX review + benchmarks (German)

[VBboy]

Not to replicate the post in the General Hardware, but according to benchmarks on http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1109/0.html, GeForce FX is not all that. I was afraid my Radeon 9700 Pro would suck

 

[ROTC1983]

I am going to take a looksie at it. I will let ya know

UPDATEYeah, they actually received a test Geforce FX 5800 (I forgot which one was the highend one.).

 

[Vette73]

And on top of this Ati is already doing some test samples for their next card, I think the 9900 or something??


Nivida is slipping. They better have some crazy drivers to make up for lack of hardware.

But that is what they get for putting the cursed 3dfx into it

 

[Shockwave]

Damnit, one of these days I'm going to have to learn German methinks.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Damnit, one of these days I'm going to have to learn German methinks.

From what I saw the FX is faster but not by much.

 

[Vic]

Benchmarks work in any language.
While not mind-blowing, the GF-FX is faster, therefore it will sell. Actually, this is almost good news, because it means that (with mostly similar performing products), ATi and Nvidia are going to end up in a price war.
Anyway, I know people who will drop hundreds just for one more 3dMark, and that means the FX will sell.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I posted the benches in GH. Here they are again:

3DMark2001 SE PRO @ 1024x768x32:
FX scores 15923
R300 scores 15505

3DMark2001 SE PRO @ 1280x1024x32:
FX scores 13817
R300 scores 13004

FX has 29 more FPS in QIII without FSAA
R300 has 16 more FPS in QIII with 4x FSAA
R300 has 1 more FPS in UT2003 Botmatch @ 1290x960
FX has .4 more FPS in UT2003 Botmatch @ 1600x1200
FX has 4.3 more FPS in Serious Sam 2 @ 1600x1200

 

[Shockwave]

Thatnks for posting the benchmarks!
i know there the same in any language, but I still like to read articles. I'm funny like that I guess.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the FX costs 650 Euros and the Radeon 9700 PRO costs 400 Euros.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the FX costs 650 Euros and the Radeon 9700 PRO costs 400 Euros.

Way overpriced!

 

[VBboy]

It can't be "overpriced" - it's not even available yet Does anyone remember that GF4 was supposed to retail at $600, but was priced down to $400 as soon as it shipped?

 

[SnapIT]

I'll wait with my judgement until i can see the quality and benches in Dx9 games...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the FX costs 650 Euros and the Radeon 9700 PRO costs 400 Euros.

Way overpriced!

GF-FX preorders at $399.99
Essentially the same price as the 9700Pro.

edit: excuse me, the exact same price

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the FX costs 650 Euros and the Radeon 9700 PRO costs 400 Euros.

Way overpriced!

GF-FX preorders at $399.99
Essentially the same price as the 9700Pro.

edit: excuse me, the exact same price

NM

 

[VBboy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the FX costs 650 Euros and the Radeon 9700 PRO costs 400 Euros.

Way overpriced!

GF-FX preorders at $399.99
Essentially the same price as the 9700Pro.

edit: excuse me, the exact same price

I bought 9700 Pro 3 month ago for $320 from MWave.com, so $399 is way outdated.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Vic
Benchmarks work in any language.
While not mind-blowing, the GF-FX is faster, therefore it will sell. Actually, this is almost good news, because it means that (with mostly similar performing products), ATi and Nvidia are going to end up in a price war.
Anyway, I know people who will drop hundreds just for one more 3dMark, and that means the FX will sell.

Actually, it will sell, but only because of name recognition on the part of the ignorant masses. ATI will be releasing the R350 at the same time, 10% faster than the FX at $150 less. Nvidia is in some serious sh1t. I'm afraid they're going the way of 3DFX, which is fittingly ironic, but I'd hate to see it happen because one major player in the grahics card industry is bad for innovation and progress.

 

[VBboy]

I will probably also be louder because in general squirrel-cage blowers are louder than regular fans.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic
Benchmarks work in any language.
While not mind-blowing, the GF-FX is faster, therefore it will sell. Actually, this is almost good news, because it means that (with mostly similar performing products), ATi and Nvidia are going to end up in a price war.
Anyway, I know people who will drop hundreds just for one more 3dMark, and that means the FX will sell.

Actually, it will sell, but only because of name recognition on the part of the ignorant masses. ATI will be releasing the R350 at the same time, 10% faster than the FX at $150 less. Nvidia is in some serious sh1t. I'm afraid they're going the way of 3DFX, which is fittingly ironic, but I'd hate to see it happen because one major player in the grahics card industry is bad for innovation and progress.

R350 will not be $150 less. I'd say it'll be slightly faster at about the same price as what ever the FX costs at the time.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic
Benchmarks work in any language.
While not mind-blowing, the GF-FX is faster, therefore it will sell. Actually, this is almost good news, because it means that (with mostly similar performing products), ATi and Nvidia are going to end up in a price war.
Anyway, I know people who will drop hundreds just for one more 3dMark, and that means the FX will sell.

Actually, it will sell, but only because of name recognition on the part of the ignorant masses. ATI will be releasing the R350 at the same time, 10% faster than the FX at $150 less. Nvidia is in some serious sh1t. I'm afraid they're going the way of 3DFX, which is fittingly ironic, but I'd hate to see it happen because one major player in the grahics card industry is bad for innovation and progress.

R350 will not be $150 less. I'd say it'll be slightly faster at about the same price as what ever the FX costs at the time.

More on R350 - Joe "Steejee" West - Hardware: ATI - (108)
[Spicy Story] Sounds like ATI has an Ace up their sleave: a top dog at ATI has told us that the R350 will debut in march, and as told before will be 10% faster than the FX, but the kicker will be that it's also $150 cheaper. The massive price difference is due to the fact the R350 will be a 10 layer PCB, while Nvidia's fastest will require 12 layers. Graphics wars are gonna be interesting in the coming months to say the least...

Source

 

[ElFenix]

well, i'm underwhelmed. it does well enough in CAD benchmarks, but get to the games and its not all that special.

 

[Moonbeam]

Estimates were, 40% faster.

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic
Benchmarks work in any language.
While not mind-blowing, the GF-FX is faster, therefore it will sell. Actually, this is almost good news, because it means that (with mostly similar performing products), ATi and Nvidia are going to end up in a price war.
Anyway, I know people who will drop hundreds just for one more 3dMark, and that means the FX will sell.

Actually, it will sell, but only because of name recognition on the part of the ignorant masses. ATI will be releasing the R350 at the same time, 10% faster than the FX at $150 less. Nvidia is in some serious sh1t. I'm afraid they're going the way of 3DFX, which is fittingly ironic, but I'd hate to see it happen because one major player in the grahics card industry is bad for innovation and progress.

R350 will not be $150 less. I'd say it'll be slightly faster at about the same price as what ever the FX costs at the time.

and i guess the world revolves around you

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: VBboy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the FX costs 650 Euros and the Radeon 9700 PRO costs 400 Euros.

Way overpriced!

GF-FX preorders at $399.99
Essentially the same price as the 9700Pro.

edit: excuse me, the exact same price

I bought 9700 Pro 3 month ago for $320 from MWave.com, so $399 is way outdated.

Yes, but I was comparing apples to apples, i.e. one BB price against another BB price. As we all know that BB is generally overpriced, I felt the point was easy to understand. I seriously doubt the FX will be found on pricewatch for $399 after it is released. The comparable performance with 9700Pro will cause a price war with between both manufacturers and the winner will be the consumers.
3DFX's mistake was not just in falling behind in the performance race, but falling WAY behind. By the time the V5 came out, it was almost 2 generations behind what Nvidia had to offer at the time and a generation behind ATi. If simply meeting and/or slightly beating the competitor a couple months late was enough to kill a graphics company, ATi would have gone out of business a long time ago.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic
3DFX's mistake was not just in falling behind in the performance race, but falling WAY behind. By the time the V5 came out, it was almost 2 generations behind what Nvidia had to offer at the time and a generation behind ATi. If simply meeting and/or slightly beating the competitor a couple months late was enough to kill a graphics company, ATi would have gone out of business a long time ago.

what you just said is that the V5 is barely faster than a TNT2.

 

[Bignate603]

It seems to me that the FX wins in the synthetic benchmarks but is not the decisive winner in the real world benchmarks. I'd like to see the quality of the screens though.