**Offcial FX thread** Hardocp, Toms Hardware , ANANDTECHS is up with MIN FPS, and Now Hexus.net added

[Adul]

http://www.hexus.co.uk/review.php?review=497&page=1

anandtech[/a]
Intel Pentium 4 3.06GHz (Hyper-Threading Enabled)
Motherboard
Intel D850EMV2
Intel 850E Chipset
RAM
2 x 256MB PC1066 Kingston RIMMs

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1779

Extremetech

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz
Intel 850EMV2 motherboard using Intel 850E chipset
512MB PC800 RDRAM

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,846356,00.asp

hard ocp
Nforce 2
athlon XP 2800+
pc3500 DDR

final thoughts


Appreciate that the results we're reporting here aren't the last word about GeForceFX. In fact, aside from our preview, this report is the opening chapter in what is to be an ongoing story between these two silicon gladiators. nVidia is still a month out from shipping GeForceFX, and that time is no doubt being spent tuning drivers, squishing bugs dead, and eeking every last ounce of performance possible out of this new flagship offering.

But given what we've seen here today, will that be enough?

Soon, ATI will likely be debuting products based around its upcoming R350 GPU, a "kicker" product in the R300 line designed to be a competitive riposte to the GeForceFX. But in kind, nVidia has NV35, the follow-on to GeForceFX, waiting in the wings.


http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIxLDI=
Thier conclusion

The Bottom Line: The GeForceFX 5800 Ultra is a very hot and noisy beast that may give you a bit of an edge over the current king of the hill, the ATI 9700 Pro in some applications. If you are an NVIDIA fanboy, this of course has your name all over it. At the current US$400.00 price point, the GFFX simply does not seem worth it to us. If NVIDIA can work some driver magic and pull an extra 20% increase in frame rate out of the bag like we have seen in the past; they had best start pulling. Either that or pull out the NV35 chipset, and quick.

This year will be interesting as both ATI and NVIDIA know it is all about having the best VidCard on the market when DOOM]|[ hits.


Toms Hardware
Test system AMD Athlon XP 2700+
ASUS A7N8X Deluxe (nForce 2)
Memory 2 x 256 MB, PC 333 (2/2/2/5)

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/index.html


NVIDIA takes the crown! No question about it - the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra is faster than the competition from ATI's Radeon 9700 PRO in the majority of the benchmarks. However, its lead is only slight, especially compared to the distance that ATI put between its Radeon 9700 PRO and the Ti 4600. Still, when compared to its predecessor, the GeForce4 Ti, the FX represents a giant step forward.

and

It will be difficult for NVIDIA to push its GeForceFX 5800 Ultra. Radeon 9700 PRO cards are only slightly slower, and, because they've been out on the market for months now, they're much less expensive. Also, because they deliver 3D performance with much slower clock speeds, they do not require extensive cooling - and that's nice for your pocketbook as well as your ears.


The Tech Channel
its german
http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1109/


other stuff related to
one thumb has a quick commentary on it
http://www.onethumb.com/index.mg?EntryID=12

Hothardware has a preview, no benches.
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/gffxshowcase.shtml

Thread at rage3d
rage3d thread

Threads at Nvnews
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=a7dbae26bf073928fd8a6063f6ed5553&threadid=6678

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=a7dbae26bf073928fd8a6063f6ed5553&threadid=6702

 

[pillage2001]

Dead link dude. QuiCk!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[magomago]

looks like nvidia already jumped on it

 

[Adul]

damn i was on the first page

well here is a copy and paste

Thermal Issues

click on image for full view

In addition to unleashing one of the most complex processors ever built, nVidia also got into the mechanical engineering business in creating its Flow FX thermal management system. The heat sink on the GeForceFX board we testesd is massive, so much so that the first PCI slot next to the AGP slot in our test system gets eaten, and the GeForceFX card was right on top of the 3Com NIC in the second PCI slot. Although neither ATI nor nVidia will tell us how many watts their latest 3D cards are pulling through the 12V power hook-up, nVidia is recommending no less than a 300-watt power supply, and one of nVidia's add-in board partners is actually recommending a 350-watt power supply to ensure that the GeForceFX remains fed and happy.

click on image for full view

The other painfully noticeable factor here is fan noise. The GeForceFX has already been nicknamed in some site forums as The DustBuster.

Despite running over 100 million transistors on 0.15-micron process, ATI is still able to use a fairly standard thermal solution on its Radeon 9700 Pro GPU. With Flow FX however, the card's massive fan has two speeds, idle and take-off. When you fire up any 3D app that pings either Direct3D or OpenGL, the Flow FX fan guns its motor up to full speed to cope with the increased thermal output coming from the GPU as a result of the more intense workload. However, Flow FX's throttling appears to be no more sophisticated than:

IF 3D app running, THEN fan at full throttle
ELSE run fan at idle speed.

The fan isn't really throttled per se, as that would suggest some kind of analog control to regulate fan speed. Rather, it's digitally switched between idle and full-open, so when it changes to high speed, the change is very abrupt. Interstingly, it does wind down more gracefully when returning to the idle speed once you exit the 3D app and things in the GPU core begin to cool down a bit. In fact, it kind of sounds like that creepy noise in The Matrix when Neo gets extracted from the Matrix for the first time. The first time I realized what the fan sounded like, I did a very Keanu-like "Whoa."

We did some sound pressure level measurements of the Flow FX system while we were testing. We put a Radio Shack decibel meter on a tripod and positioned the meter's microphone in the same position: approximately where your left ear would be when sitting in front of your monitor.

We used C-weighting for this measurement, which like A-weighting, emphasizes the range of human hearing (20Hz ? 20KHz) but C-weighting has an attenuated high end. The C-curve is "flat," but with limited bandwidth, with -3 dB corners of 31.5 Hz and 8 kHz, respectively. [Source: Rane Pro Audio Reference

Here's what we found:

Radeon 9700 Pro's baseline sound level was about 54dB SPL (sound pressure level). When we fired up a 3D app, there was no change in the sound level. It remained at 54dB SPL.

The GeForceFX is a different story, however. Its baseline sound level was also around 54dB SPL, but upon starting up a 3D app, the Flow FX fan kicked into high gear, and the sound level rose to around 58dB SPL. Recall that decibels are on a logarithmic scale, so this 4dB increase represents more than a twofold increase in the sound level of the overall fan noise output of the test machine we used.

Admittedly, noise level doesn't top the list of considerations for anyone buying a GeForceFX, but a 2X increase in overall fan noise level is pretty serious. If you've already got enough fans getting air in and out of your CPU case to power a wind farm, then the GeForceFX will be right at home in your rig.
< back next >

 

[pillage2001]

Reading now. FX suck the big one.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Adul
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,846356,00.asp

reading now

looking for more

ATI has certainly raised the stakes with Radeon 9700 Pro, and if GeForceFX was coming into this brawl looking for a knockout, it didn't get one. Actually, what we saw is that the memory sub-system of GeForceFX hits a pretty hard wall when you combine a high resolution and bandwidth-hungry rendering features like FSAA and AF...

For nVidia, GeForceFX represents a return to at the very least performance parity with ATI. For ATI however, Radeon 9700 Pro looks strong versus GeForceFX, and these results show just how much performance ground nVidia had lost to ATI when Radeon 9700 Pro first shipped.

Glancing at the benches, R300 was able to come out on top in many cases, somestimes beating NV30 by as much as...


Pixel Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by %134
Advanced Pixel Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 87%
Dungeon Siege with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 80%
Comanche 4 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 105%

 

[pillage2001]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Adul
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,846356,00.asp

reading now

looking for more

ATI has certainly raised the stakes with Radeon 9700 Pro, and if GeForceFX was coming into this brawl looking for a knockout, it didn't get one. Actually, what we saw is that the memory sub-system of GeForceFX hits a pretty hard wall when you combine a high resolution and bandwidth-hungry rendering features like FSAA and AF...

For nVidia, GeForceFX represents a return to at the very least performance parity with ATI. For ATI however, Radeon 9700 Pro looks strong versus GeForceFX, and these results show just how much performance ground nVidia had lost to ATI when Radeon 9700 Pro first shipped.

Glancing at the benches, R300 was able to come out on top in many cases, somestimes beating NV30 by as much as 80%:

Dungeon Siege with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 80%

AHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

 

[Adul]

Baseline: GeForceFX ahead by 6%
With FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 30%

Baseline 1 Light: GeForceFX ahead by 29%
1 Light with FSAA & AF: GeForceFX ahead by 14%

Baseline 8 Lights: GeForceFX ahead by 97%
8 Lights with FSAA & AF: GeForceFX ahead by 71%

Baseline Vertex Shader: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 24%
Vertex Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 26%

Baseline Pixel Shader: GeForceFX ahead by 39%
Pixel Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by %134

Baseline Advanced Pixel Shader: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 46%
Advanced Pixel Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 87%

Baseline Nature Scene: GeForceFX ahead by 8%
Nature Scene with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 28%

3d GaME GAUGE
Baseline 3D GameGauge: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 5%
3D GameGauge with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 29%

Jedi Knight II and Serious Same SE

Baseline JK2: GeForceFX ahead by 3%
JK2 with FSAA & AF: GPUs are even

Baseline Serious Sam SE: GeForceFX ahead by 13%
Serious Sam SE with FSAA & AF: GeForceFX ahead by 29%

UT2003 and Dungeon Siege

Baseline UT2003: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 6%
UT2003 with FSAA & AF: GeForceFX ahead by 3%

Baseline Dungeon Siege: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 15%
Dungeon Siege with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 80%

Comanche 4, NASCAR 2002 and IL-2 Sturmovik

Baseline Comanche 4: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 3%
Comanche 4 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 105%

Baseline NASCAR 2002: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 26%
NASCAR 2002 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 44%

Baseline IL-2 Sturmovik: GPUs are even
IL-2 Sturmovik with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 48%

 

[magomago]

post it all1!!! + scores

 

[GTaudiophile]

Here are ATi's largest leads:


Pixel Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by %134
Advanced Pixel Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 87%
Dungeon Siege with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 80%
Comanche 4 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 105%

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

The FX slams the Radeon in a couple of benchmarks but most of the time they're neck and neck. Once AF/AA get turned on ATI lays the smack down in a lot of cases. I'm not impressed by thsi showing, nVidia took 6 extra months to get this product out the door and it doesn't look all that strong beside the 9700 pro. I certainly wouldn't pay an extra ~$100 or so to get that kind of boost in performance, and I'm not too sure too many people would

barring any spectacular boosts in performance in the production drvers, booooo nVidia.

 

[GTaudiophile]

File not found

You have requested an ExtremeTech page that does not exist.


nVidia take them down or is it AT Effect?

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
The FX slams the Radeon in a couple of benchmarks but most of the time they're neck and neck. Once AF/AA get turned on ATI lays the smack down in a lot of cases. I'm not impressed by thsi showing, nVidia took 6 extra months to get this product out the door and it doesn't look all that strong beside the 9700 pro. I certainly wouldn't pay an extra ~$100 or so to get that kind of boost in performance, and I'm not too sure too many people would

barring any spectacular boosts in performance in the production drvers, booooo nVidia.

BUT, IT DOUBLES HAS A $400 BLOW DRIER.

 

[Bovinicus]

I am very surprised at the GeForce FX's performance. The Radeon 9700 Pro seems to actually be the performance leader in most situations. This is especially true with FSAA/AF enabled, which is a must on a $400 video card nowadays. Well, I hope ATi still plans on slashing their prices; I really want a 9700 Pro.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

File not found

You have requested an ExtremeTech page that does not exist.


nVidia take them down or is it AT Effect?

i went through each page already.

now that it is cached i shall read each page.

it is the internet effect taking shape

 

[magomago]

Oh my farking gosh....

The GeforceFX crashed and burned!

My friend was planning on buying one and he held off on upgrading his oc'ed geforce2 instead.

I'll have to talk to him to wait that extra month for the R350, and then look at what he wants

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
The FX slams the Radeon in a couple of benchmarks but most of the time they're neck and neck. Once AF/AA get turned on ATI lays the smack down in a lot of cases. I'm not impressed by thsi showing, nVidia took 6 extra months to get this product out the door and it doesn't look all that strong beside the 9700 pro. I certainly wouldn't pay an extra ~$100 or so to get that kind of boost in performance, and I'm not too sure too many people would

barring any spectacular boosts in performance in the production drvers, booooo nVidia.

BUT, IT DOUBLES HAS A $400 BLOW DRIER.

You're right! If my hair is ever wet I can fire up UT and stick my head behind my PC for quick styling

 

[BD2003]

People are talking like this is the end of nvidia. Ati trailed behind nvidia exactly like this for a few cycles and look at them now.

They will both be around for the forseeable future.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: BD2003
People are talking like this is the end of nvidia. Ati trailed behind nvidia exactly like this for a few cycles and look at them now.

They will both be around for the forseeable future.

i never said it was. I know better then to think a company like nvidia would die after one product cycle. Has long has they don't loose money, it is all good.

 

[chizow]

We would normally have put the GeForceFX through our usual battery of tests at the two standard test resolutions, 1024x768x32 and 1600x1200x32. But this being the clash of the titans, we wanted to really sock it to 'em. So, with that in mind, and because of the severely limited time window in which we had to test, we tested at 1600x1200x32, and gathered baseline values without either FSAA or Anisotropic Filtering (AF) enabled. We then added 4X FSAA and 8X AF to both the GeForceFX and the Radeon 9700 Pro to see who would it would hit harder.

How many of you actually run games at 1600x1200x32??? Maybe I should re-phrase and ask how many of you actually have monitors that support 1600x1200 w/out the use of a magnifying glass. I'll wait til a thorough review is by a reputable site.

Chiz

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Adul
Baseline: GeForceFX ahead by 6%
With FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 30%

Baseline 1 Light: GeForceFX ahead by 29%
1 Light with FSAA & AF: GeForceFX ahead by 14%

Baseline 8 Lights: GeForceFX ahead by 97%
8 Lights with FSAA & AF: GeForceFX ahead by 71%

Baseline Vertex Shader: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 24%
Vertex Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 26%

Baseline Pixel Shader: GeForceFX ahead by 39%
Pixel Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by %134

Baseline Advanced Pixel Shader: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 46%
Advanced Pixel Shader with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 87%

Baseline Nature Scene: GeForceFX ahead by 8%
Nature Scene with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 28%

3d GaME GAUGE
Baseline 3D GameGauge: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 5%
3D GameGauge with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 29%

Jedi Knight II and Serious Same SE

Baseline JK2: GeForceFX ahead by 3%
JK2 with FSAA & AF: GPUs are even

Baseline Serious Sam SE: GeForceFX ahead by 13%
Serious Sam SE with FSAA & AF: GeForceFX ahead by 29%

UT2003 and Dungeon Siege

Baseline UT2003: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 6%
UT2003 with FSAA & AF: GeForceFX ahead by 3%

Baseline Dungeon Siege: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 15%
Dungeon Siege with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 80%

Comanche 4, NASCAR 2002 and IL-2 Sturmovik

Baseline Comanche 4: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 3%
Comanche 4 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 105%

Baseline NASCAR 2002: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 26%
NASCAR 2002 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 44%

Baseline IL-2 Sturmovik: GPUs are even
IL-2 Sturmovik with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 48%

ATi Wins: 17
FX Wins: 11
Ties: 2

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: chizow
We would normally have put the GeForceFX through our usual battery of tests at the two standard test resolutions, 1024x768x32 and 1600x1200x32. But this being the clash of the titans, we wanted to really sock it to 'em. So, with that in mind, and because of the severely limited time window in which we had to test, we tested at 1600x1200x32, and gathered baseline values without either FSAA or Anisotropic Filtering (AF) enabled. We then added 4X FSAA and 8X AF to both the GeForceFX and the Radeon 9700 Pro to see who would it would hit harder.

How many of you actually run games at 1600x1200x32??? Maybe I should re-phrase and ask how many of you actually have monitors that support 1600x1200 w/out the use of a magnifying glass. I'll wait til a thorough review is by a reputable site.

Chiz

You're hanging on until the bitter end I see.

My prediction: NV30 is DOA!

 

[Bovinicus]

Many of us may not run games in resolutions of 1600x1200, but certainly many of us would like to use FSAA and AF, which the GeForce FX seems to handle worse than the 9700 Pro.

 

[magomago]

True true...only recently i moved up to 1024*768

 

[TheWart]

Wow, all I can say is Nvidia better be planning some AGGRESSIVE pricing strategy.

This is so funny, I remmeber staying up late for reviews to come out of the 9700, and everyone was stunned, this is almost the exact opposite.