Maximum PC: GeForce FX (beta) Exclusive w/ benchmarks

[John]

The GeForce FX is very fast - particularly when memory bandwidth isn't an issue. Remember that the GeForce FX's 128-bit memory bus runs at 500MHz, but has a maximum bandwidth of just 16GB/sec. Meanwhile, the Radeon 9700's 256-bit memory interface accomodates 19.8GB/sec, even though it runs at just 325MHz....

The pic of the card shows a very unique looking radiator cooling apparatus that will block PCI1.

Benchmarks ran on an Alienware prototype system

P4 3.06GHz
512MB PC1066
(2) Seagate Baracuda V's - Serial ATA Raid 0

[*]Q3 1600x1200 2xAA

GF FX - 209 fps
9700 Pro - 147 fps

[*]UT 2K3 Asbestos 1600x1200 2xAA

GF FX - 140 fps
9700 Pro - 119 fps

[*]3DMark Game 4

GF FX - 41 fps
9700 Pro - 45 fps

 

[Duvie]

Hmmm...not much of an advantage if they continue to drag their feet getting it out and ATI can get their r350 or souped up 9700pro variation out around same time...

Isn't memory likely to be more taxed as the newer games get more and more detailed then core speed alone??? If so I think more benches need to be ran on games across the board to see what the true lead is though I remember a few weeks back Nvidia claimed huge leads...I don't see them...

 

[LukFilm]

42% faster in Q3, 17% faster in UT2K3, 9% slower in 3DMark, 6 months late to the market = FAILURE.

 

[PCMarine]

What's with the 1600x1200 2xAA? Who even plays at those settings?

 

[Gondo]

Sounds nice, but how is the video quality? I removed my Ti 4600 and went 9700 Pro. I like the
visual quality of the ATI card much better, that is what matters most to me. I upgrade video cards
more now for what looks better to me, as both nVidia and ATI top cards are fast enough. To be
honest with you, I can't tell the difference between 80fps and 350. Now granted, I will upgrade
for speed, if a game comes out that I am addicted to, that needs the horsepower, but it seems
that video card technology greatly outpaces the 3D apps, by quite a long time. There are only
a handful of apps that even make a recent video card break out in a sweat.

 

[John]

I found this interesting:

Our hunch is that turning on 4x AA at 1600x1200 would diminish the GeForce's performance lead over the Radeon, or maybe even nix it entirely. But that's just a guess based on the scores we acheived, and the fact that nVidia wouldn't let us run anything that would stress the memory pipeline.

:Q

 

[Krk3561]

Article seems fake. Why would NVIDIA pick a test that the GFFX would lose in?

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: John
I found this interesting:

Our hunch is that turning on 4x AA at 1600x1200 would diminish the GeForce's performance lead over the Radeon, or maybe even nix it entirely. But that's just a guess based on the scores we acheived, and the fact that nVidia wouldn't let us run anything that would stress the memory pipeline.

:Q

i find it to interesting has well

 

[Gondo]

Benchmarks are neither here nor there in my opinion. It all really boils down to what you do with
your system. AMD will always beat Intel in some things, and Intel will beat AMD in some things.
Same with Nvidia and ATI. The real winner, would beat the competition by a good margin all the
way across the board, but that just doesn't happen. I am not a fan, or against anything in the
computer world, but you just build the system that is tailored to your needs.

For example, I run a P4 3.06 at the moment. It might not be the most efficient out there, but
it serves my purpose, as I run a folding client, sometimes 2 at the same time, and I can still use
my system, without a huge performance loss. Computers are very personal, everyone's is different.

The GF FX looks interesting, I can't wait till it hits the streets, so I can judge it by it's own merits.

I see alot of people dog the latest Matrox card, but it really depends what you do. It is not a 3D card
it is frankly the best 2D card that money can buy. And if nVidia or ATI could licence that 2D technology
and add that to a 9700 Pro or GF FX, now that would be a card that I would pay alot of money for.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: LukFilm
42% faster in Q3, 17% faster in UT2K3, 9% slower in 3DMark, 6 months late to the market = FAILURE.

I would have to agree with you there...

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: John
I found this interesting:

Our hunch is that turning on 4x AA at 1600x1200 would diminish the GeForce's performance lead over the Radeon, or maybe even nix it entirely. But that's just a guess based on the scores we acheived, and the fact that nVidia wouldn't let us run anything that would stress the memory pipeline.

:Q

i find it to interesting has well

Doesn't surprise me at all...Nvidia has always been most concerned with raw FPS. Look how long they stuck with Quincunx and we had to wait for GF4 for even an attempt at improved FSAA. I guess no one remembers the GF2 vs. V5 arguments regarding visual quality with AA. :Q

Chiz

 

[PCMarine]

And if you really twisted our arms, we?d bet money that it[R350] will be running on a 0.13-micron core and using 256-bit DDR II memory.

Yea right, Ati having switched to .13 AND DDR II memory by Febuary...Right...

 

[GTaudiophile]

Sorry, folks, but I think the GeForceFX will be DOA. My prediction!

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: PCMarine

And if you really twisted our arms, we?d bet money that it[R350] will be running on a 0.13-micron core and using 256-bit DDR II memory.

Yea right, Ati having switched to .13 AND DDR II memory by Febuary...Right...

i'd have to agree on that one, not like to happen, maybe april?

Sorry, folks, but I think the GeForceFX will be DOA. My prediction!

\

I wouldnt make predictions until we see some benchmarking production Hardware and a large array of tests

 

[LH]

Sorry, folks, but I think the GeForceFX will be DOA. My prediction!

We will see soon enough, boards will be hitting the retail channel in two weeks.

 

[GTaudiophile]

It's well known, that IF ATi releases R350, it will be on the .15mu process. The part in question is RV350; rumor has it that it will use .13mu. Don't expect to see DDR-II until R400.

 

[Adul]

http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2003-01-03.html

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: LukFilm
42% faster in Q3, 17% faster in UT2K3, 9% slower in 3DMark, 6 months late to the market = FAILURE.

I would have to agree with you there...

I'll wait for the final product before I make my final decision, thanks. I mean, come on, this is a prototype board with beta drivers running on a prototype system! Why Nvidia even let them benchmark the card under those conditions is beyond me.

 

[TonyB]

who else is curious to see those same benchmarks done but without the FSAA? im wondering if the NVidia intellisample technology is all that its cracked up to be.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: PCMarine

And if you really twisted our arms, we?d bet money that it[R350] will be running on a 0.13-micron core and using 256-bit DDR II memory.

Yea right, Ati having switched to .13 AND DDR II memory by Febuary...Right...

i'd have to agree on that one, not like to happen, maybe april?

Sorry, folks, but I think the GeForceFX will be DOA. My prediction!

\

I wouldnt make predictions until we see some benchmarking production Hardware and a large array of tests

There's the R350 and the RV350.
They have both been taped out, the R350 is a revision of the R300, and is on .15 with DDR 2, the RV350 is the next new chip, that will succeed the current cards (R9xxx series). I think that's what it is anyway.
The R350 could be ready at any time. Rumours are a 8x2 pipeline, DDR2 and .15 micron.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: PCMarine

And if you really twisted our arms, we?d bet money that it[R350] will be running on a 0.13-micron core and using 256-bit DDR II memory.

Yea right, Ati having switched to .13 AND DDR II memory by Febuary...Right...

i'd have to agree on that one, not like to happen, maybe april?

Sorry, folks, but I think the GeForceFX will be DOA. My prediction!

\

I wouldnt make predictions until we see some benchmarking production Hardware and a large array of tests

There's the R350 and the RV350.
They have both been taped out, the R350 is a revision of the R300, and is on .15 with DDR 2, the RV350 is the next new chip, that will succeed the current cards (R9xxx series). I think that's what it is anyway.
The R350 could be ready at any time. Rumours are a 8x2 pipeline, DDR2 and .15 micron.

I don't think we will see an 8x2 pipeline while still at .15 micron, it would mean too many transisters (130-140 million??) and too large of a gpu with very low margins. I also do not think we will see DDR2 in the r350. I think we we see an enhanced version of the r300 with a faster core with some enhancements and faster memory.

 

[Lonyo]

I was just repeating some speculation, such as that on www.xbitlabs.com (which seems to be down at the moment). There are many rumours flying around about both these cards, and it'll probably be some time before we get accurate performance results. Most of the stuff going around at the moment isn't anything like what final results will be.

 

[Thor86]

These are still beta cards. Wait for the final retails to come out and tested with benchies from all hardware sites, and then we can make our judgements. I still think the Radeon will kick the !@$% out of the FX with AF and FSAA - IMHO.

 

[BD231]

ATI dose not need the .13 process right now if those scores are anywhere near the release scores of the FX, people are hiting 400mhz+ with the current 9700 core so scaling on the .15m process should be pretty easy for ATI. GeForce FX has already failed due to timing alone(failed at keeping the performance crown that is), ATI has most definitely closed the gap in terms of popularity, now it will all come down to who really has the best offerings. I'm amazed at how well ATI has put themselfs back in the technology fight, it's great to have more than one choice for performance in the video card market.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: BD231
ATI dose not need the .13 process right now if those scores are anywhere near the release scores of the FX, people are hiting 400mhz+ with the current 9700 core so scaling on the .15m process should be pretty easy for ATI. GeForce FX has already failed due to timing alone(failed at keeping the performance crown that is), ATI has most definitely closed the gap in terms of popularity, now it will all come down to who really has the best offerings. I'm amazed at how well ATI has put themselfs back in the technology fight, it's great to have more than one choice for performance in the video card market.

As much as I like NVidia, I have to agree w/BD231. ATI has done a remarkable job at putting themselves back in the running AFA the gaming market goes. And if you read up in the PC magazines, the gaming market is what's driving video development these days.

A year ago, I'd laugh hard if you asked me if my next videocard was going to be an ATI, these days I give you a "ummmmmm.....well, maybe!" We shall see.