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

[RGN]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah, me too. ATi has not been on my roadmap for a while. I'm still thinking that the GeforceFX will be my next card. Time will tell.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: PCMarine
What's with the 1600x1200 2xAA? Who even plays at those settings?

Well, excluding 2xAA (because you can really tell at that high of a res) I play most of my games at 1600x1200.

Anyway back to topic.

It's waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy to early to tell. Nvidia can do a lot of things before Feb-March, especially in the drivers department.

We?ve seen this before, one site reporting A, B & C performance and another site reporting X, Y & Z performance. Drawing a conclusion just from a beta (who knows what else) performance is very foolish.

I will wait for Anands, Ace?s, and Hot before speculating, or even drawing any type of conclusion.

 

[chizow]

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.

Don't expect much more scaling out of the .15 process from ATI, for cost reasons alone. This thing is already 110 million transistors!!! From what I read, the 9700pro refresh will feature faster RAM, but nominal clock headroom.

As for GF FX and final silicon and drivers, I'm expecting considerable performance increases......look at what happened with the 9500pro between the engineering sample and the final. That card was getting dogged by the Ti4200, now its on par with a Ti4600!!!

As for being a failure, we'll let the market decide, not all the fanboy comments here. My guess is that Nvidia's GF FX will be a resounding success; call it Nvidia's marketing hype or whatever.

Until then, I'll happily be running my 9700pro (once I get these driver issues straightened out).

Chiz

 

[JellyBaby]

Look at the size of that heatsink! I wonder how much this card weighs? If that thing wraps around the board to the other side (ala Leadtek's GF4 cooling solution), I wonder if we'll hear about some FX's "snapping off" the AGP slot during shipping?

 

[GTaudiophile]

I bet Anand posts a review of the FX within 2 weeks. Then we'll know.

 

[bfonnes]

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: PCMarine
What's with the 1600x1200 2xAA? Who even plays at those settings?

Well, excluding 2xAA (because you can really tell at that high of a res) I play most of my games at 1600x1200.

Anyway back to topic.

It's waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy to early to tell. Nvidia can do a lot of things before Feb-March, especially in the drivers department.

We?ve seen this before, one site reporting A, B & C performance and another site reporting X, Y & Z performance. Drawing a conclusion just from a beta (who knows what else) performance is very foolish.

I will wait for Anands, Ace?s, and Hot before speculating, or even drawing any type of conclusion.

I second this.
Bfonnes

 

[BFG10K]

While there's nothing really impressive about those scores, they are done with unfinished drivers running on pre-release hardware so I definitely won't take those results too seriously.

 

[PCMarine]

As with above, I couldn't agree more.