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

[magomago]

No, I still think everyone is stunned...just in a different way

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: 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!

LoL, what am I hanging on to? Some definitive proof based on actual benchmarks? Am I supposed to take YOUR word for it? Your predictions have been the same for the last 5 months, and again, based on nothing other than your need to cheerlead for your favorite team. If anything, you should've hoped the FX performed better than the 9700pro and drop its price. Then you could upgrade your Radeon 7500 and add some meaningful comments about the products you so earnestly endorse.

Chiz

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: 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.

The Radeon 9700 PRO is now down to $295 @ newegg!

Is that adding insult to injury?

 

[OS]

geesh, I'm glad I didn't buy that geforce fx tshirt. :Q

WTF happened?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Aren't there supposed to be two versions of the FX coming out? If the other has a 256 bit memory interface that card will kick ass. It's pretty obvious with that 8-light 3DMark score being so high it has the GPU power, it just doesn't have the memory bandwidth to feed it.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Aren't there supposed to be two versions of the FX coming out? If the other has a 256 bit memory interface that card will kick ass. It's pretty obvious with that 8-light 3DMark score being so high it has the GPU power, it just doesn't have the memory bandwidth to feed it.

the one reviewed is the fast one.
The other will actually have lower core/memory speeds but it will also be cheaper

 

[j@cko]

omg... this is garbage... don't know what to say.. but GF-FX rili performs horrible.... maybe some driver optomization will fix it?...

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Aren't there supposed to be two versions of the FX coming out? If the other has a 256 bit memory interface that card will kick ass. It's pretty obvious with that 8-light 3DMark score being so high it has the GPU power, it just doesn't have the memory bandwidth to feed it.

the one reviewed is the fast one.
The other will actually have lower core/memory speeds but it will also be cheaper

That's NV35 with the 256-bit memory interface, which some have reported to be taped out already. Yes, GF FX is late, but Nvidia wasn't exactly sitting around twiddling its thumbs waiting for TMSC to get its .13 micron yields up to spec. NV31 and NV34 will be the "value" parts, one will be a lower clocked part, the other probably a same clock CPU with 4 pixel pipes instead of 8.

Chiz

 

[cioxx]

So when is Anand going to publish the review?

The NDA expires at 3AM PT.

 

[Adul]

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.

Nvidia always seems to get it right with thier NVx5 revs. so i would have to assume that card to be a killer.


58 db is kind of loud for a freaking fan

 

[apoppin]

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?

Keep hitting back or else go to the Table of Contents. It will eventually load (us dial-uppers are patient).

It looks like the ONLY place where the NV30 shines is in its "Geometry" and memory speeds. The R300 slams it with his res + AA & AF enabled because of its memory interface.

Too bad . . . I was expecting this but hoped for a bit more from Nvidia (so the 9700 prices would drop) . . .

You can have The DustBuster.

 

[Bovinicus]

LoL, what am I hanging on to? Some definitive proof based on actual benchmarks? Am I supposed to take YOUR word for it? Your predictions have been the same for the last 5 months, and again, based on nothing other than your need to cheerlead for your favorite team. If anything, you should've hoped the FX performed better than the 9700pro and drop its price. Then you could upgrade your Radeon 7500 and add some meaningful comments about the products you so earnestly endorse.

What do you use to differentiate actual benchmarks from these benchmarks? Are Anand's benchmarks the only ones you pay attention to? Do you think no one else is capable of doing something that thousands of people do every day? I am confused as to what makes these benchmarks invalid in your eyes besides the fact that they are not what you expected.

You are not taking anyone's word for it. You are reading hardcore evidence and are in denial that NVIDIA's latest card did not perform up to expectations. Furthermore, you are trying to protect the FX by saying no one uses 1600x1200 resolution. So what? Do you think the performance of the card is going to drastically increase in comparison to the 9700 Pro by dropping the resolution? Even so, there is no point in buying a $400 video card IF you don't plan on playing with high resolutions, FSAA, and AF. Otherwise, you may as well just buy $100 video card.

 

[BD231]

Can't win'em all. The NV30 is not as good as it should be, but it's still pretty darn fast, takes at least 2'nd place in the graphics market (maybe not sale wise though). Hopefully N-Vidia ditches the brute force soon, ever since I got that first Ge-Force 1 I've always thought their cards run way to hot and cooling solutions were way to loud. It's times like these you feel glad that there's that "other guy" company as another viable choice. Unless N-Vidia were to somehow keep kicking themselfs out of pace they'll be just fine.

 

[SithSolo1]

Originally posted by: OS
geesh, I'm glad I didn't buy that geforce fx tshirt. :Q

WTF happened?

omg ROFL!

You're avatar is perfect for that comment.

 

[magomago]

. Otherwise, you may as well just buy $100 video card.

Bingo! That and you'd need a pretty beefy pc else you will be a bottleneck.

There is this kid at my school who is trying to understand pcs and he got a 9700pro for his 900mhz Dell

That is why I was hoping the 9500pro would drop in price so i could pick one up b/c if i got anything better it'd be useless and my system would bottleneck it (and so would the 9700pro) with the release of the FX. Now ATI might as well leave prices as is.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BD231
Can't win'em all. The NV30 is not as good as it should be, but it's still pretty darn fast, takes at least 2'nd place in the graphics market (maybe not sale wise though). Hopefully N-Vidia ditches the brute force soon, ever since I got that first Ge-Force 1 I've always thought their cards run way to hot and cooling solutions were way to loud. It's times like these you feel glad that there's that "other guy" company as another viable choice. Unless N-Vidia were to somehow keep kicking themselfs out of pace they'll be just fine.

So, Who Here is Lining-up to Buy A GF-FX

Really curious . . . you can get a Radeon 9700Pro for around $325 now . . . is it worth the extra $75 to get the GF?

 

[Insane3D]

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

Quite a few of us actually. I can play a good deal of my games @ 1600 x 1200 x 32 @ 85hz with my Radeon 8500 and a KDS 19" Trinitron. Anyone with a halfway decent 19" or up monitor should be able to run 1600 x 1200.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BD231
Can't win'em all. The NV30 is not as good as it should be, but it's still pretty darn fast, takes at least 2'nd place in the graphics market (maybe not sale wise though). Hopefully N-Vidia ditches the brute force soon, ever since I got that first Ge-Force 1 I've always thought their cards run way to hot and cooling solutions were way to loud. It's times like these you feel glad that there's that "other guy" company as another viable choice. Unless N-Vidia were to somehow keep kicking themselfs out of pace they'll be just fine.

So, Who Here is Lining-up to Buy A GF-FX

Really curious . . . you can get a Radeon 9700Pro for around $325 now . . . is it worth the extra $75 to get the GF?

I just checked newegg. You can get FIC's card for $295! (So that's a $105 difference.)

 

[Soulkeeper]

hahahaha this is funny

******snip*********

With Flow FX however, the card's massive fan has two speeds, idle and take-off.

******snip*********

hahaha "take-off"
I bet it's loud as hell

 

[Actaeon]

Nvidia not looking too good. I was thinking of picking up the budget version of this card, but if it performs slower than R9700, why bother?

Hrm... Wheres R350?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus

LoL, what am I hanging on to? Some definitive proof based on actual benchmarks? Am I supposed to take YOUR word for it? Your predictions have been the same for the last 5 months, and again, based on nothing other than your need to cheerlead for your favorite team. If anything, you should've hoped the FX performed better than the 9700pro and drop its price. Then you could upgrade your Radeon 7500 and add some meaningful comments about the products you so earnestly endorse.

What do you use to differentiate actual benchmarks from these benchmarks? Are Anand's benchmarks the only ones you pay attention to? Do you think no one else is capable of doing something that thousands of people do every day? I am confused as to what makes these benchmarks invalid in your eyes besides the fact that they are not what you expected.

You are not taking anyone's word for it. You are reading hardcore evidence and are in denial that NVIDIA's latest card did not perform up to expectations. Furthermore, you are trying to protect the FX by saying no one uses 1600x1200 resolution. So what? Do you think the performance of the card is going to drastically increase in comparison to the 9700 Pro by dropping the resolution? Even so, there is no point in buying a $400 video card IF you don't plan on playing with high resolutions, FSAA, and AF. Otherwise, you may as well just buy $100 video card.

The point is, high resolutions + AA + AF are bandwidth intensive benchmarks, where simple math (and common sense) indicate the 9700pro will shine, and it does. Its the same argument for AA up until the GF4/9700pro where people compared AA benchmarks. It didn't matter, b/c in reality you couldn't run any of the latest games with 4x-8x AA without taking an unacceptable frame rate hit. The relevance lies in that the GF FX may very well have ample bandwidth to perform with AA and AF enabled at 1280 or 1024, but essentially is grasping for air at 1600. If you follow gaming benchmarks, you would know that they DO NOT scale linearly by simply increasing the resolution. The hits to framerate are exponential with each scaling. What this means is that you might see much tighter scores with AA and AF (which I do feel are standard now) enabled at the resolutions that PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE, which is why I'm waiting for a more thorough review (not one at 1600 x 1200).

I'll elaborate if you'd like me to.

Chiz

 

[Actaeon]

Meanwhile, I still agree with my previous statement I've said in another thread. Nvidia should have went 256bit DDR2. The R9700 has more bandwidth than NV30 using DDR2 at the uber-clock speeds is running at.

 

[sandorski]

This certainly doesn't seem good for Nvidia, kinda looks like they may have the superior TnL capabilities, but not much else. Still waiting for more reviews though.

 

[HendrixFan]

R350 is supposed to debut in March at Cebit, with cards appearing 3-4 weeks after that. It should have a much higher core than the R300 and increased memory bandwidth, along with the core tweaks that make it more than just a clock boost.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
R350 is supposed to debut in March at Cebit, with cards appearing 3-4 weeks after that. It should have a much higher core than the R300 and increased memory bandwidth, along with the core tweaks that make it more than just a clock boost.

I don't expect a huge boost with traditional cooling means. theinquirer predicts a core clock of 375-400Mhz/750-800Mhz memory clock. I would expect some core enhancements, though. I don't expect DDR-II or any other kind of exotic memory until R400.