GeForce FX review + benchmarks (German)

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

Which, IMO, is true. The V5 wasn't too much faster than the V3 and was slower by far than the competing Nvidia model. And both the V5 and V3 used the same graphics chip, the VSA-100, which is why comparing the GF-FX to the V5 doesn't work. The V5 was a recycled version of old technology, "lipstick on a pig" you might say.
The GF-FX is brand new technology. The first real change from Nvidia in 4 generations. Of course the first release is going to suck a bit. So did the first release of the P4. But how's that P4 now? It's always like this.
The point is that the GF-FX is not slower than the competing ATi model, so it'll sell. If one extra FPS or 3dMark is to be had, the "lunatic fringe" will be there, shelling out high dollar. That extra FPS wasn't there with the V5, and 3DFX died.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

Which, IMO, is true. The V5 wasn't too much faster than the V3 and was slower by far than the competing Nvidia model. And both the V5 and V3 used the same graphics chip, the VSA-100, which is why comparing the GF-FX to the V5 doesn't work. The V5 was a recycled version of old technology, "lipstick on a pig" you might say.
The GF-FX is brand new technology. The first real change from Nvidia in 4 generations. Of course the first release is going to suck a bit. So did the first release of the P4. But how's that P4 now? It's always like this.
The point is that the GF-FX is not slower than the competing ATi model, so it'll sell. If one extra FPS or 3dMark is to be had, the "lunatic fringe" will be there, shelling out high dollar. That extra FPS wasn't there with the V5, and 3DFX died.

Say what?