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

[Markfw]

Chiz, ever since Nvidia wouldn't play nice with my other video cards on my local lan (the computer with an nvidia card would disconnect fron the lan game) I have hated them. That was two different cards that did the same thing. You sound like the fanboy that won't die ! Good luck if you stay with them. I go with the one that plays fair and works good. ( and I don't fault them for being a little finicky in a complicated configuration like you do.)

 

[PraetorianGuards]

Here's hoping that the 9700 goes down in price significantly! Gotta get ready for Doom3

 

[HendrixFan]

chizow, with my 9700 I run all my games at 1600X1200 with 2XAA and 8XAF, though I do bump it up to 4XAA for Age of Mythology. I used to run at 1280X1024 with 4XAA, but I went with 1600 and 2XAA because it looks better on my 21" monitor. I would ONLY drop down to 1280 if I had at least 4XAA on. For a video card review that pertains to my gaming usage, I would need higher res benches with AA and AF.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: 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

Elaboreate on. You AREN'T going to see ANY difference at lower resolutions. Why not run the tests at 640x480? 500FPS isn't really that impressive for Quake at that resolution, anyway.

People ACTUALLY USE the highest resolutions that play smoothly. At least "gamers" do (I don't particularly care for my desktop at that resolution).

 

[308nato]

Well, I will give it another day before I decide 100%, but I think I will cancel my pre-order. It is an intriguing bit of hardware and I would love to play around with it some...but...I may just pick up something off FS/FT for my new rig to tide me over till the next round. The lack of bandwidth has killed the NV30 I am afraid.

It seems that BB has been randomly canceling a lot of pre-orders for the card themselves tonite so they may decide for me. I wonder if Nvidia has cut back on production numbers knowing that the cards performance v the R300 would leave a lot of product on the shelves? That is purely a musing on my part and based in no part on fact.

This is disappointing, but, I think I will get by.


EDIT: What I tried to say (very poorly) is it seems very odd to me that the orders were cancelled the day the benchmarks were released.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Despite this review, the folks over at Rage3D are guessing as to how much sunshine the likes of Anand and Tom are going to blow up nVidia's a$$ tomorrow morning:


Just hope I don't see crap like this:

3dmark2001 @1024x768 - Radeon Pro = 16000
3dmark2001 @1024x768 - GFFX = 16500

Reviewer: "As you can see the GFFX crushes the Radeon Pro in this benchmark"

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: 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.

From a digitimes article published a month ago:

Recently, the Canadian graphics chip supplier has received samples of its V350 and M10. Judging from the satisfactory results, ATI?s new-generation R400 is expected to be able to make its debut in mid-2003 as planned, company chairman and CEO Ho Kwok-yuen said.

linky

I hope it won't be too long, hopefully they can do the August announcement, on the shelves in Sept deal like they did with the 9700 Pro. That would be some major sweetness

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Despite this review, the folks over at Rage3D are guessing as to how much sunshine the likes of Anand and Tom are going to blow up nVidia's a$$ tomorrow morning.

Reading that forum is like reading while taking a dump. It is a nice way to kill some time but you generally take nothing of value away from the experience.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I just love the fact that ATi is debuting their .13mu product line with a value/mobile solution for the masses...unlike NV30.

 

[apoppin]

I

Originally posted by: 308nato


It seems that BB has been randomly canceling a lot of pre-orders for the card themselves tonite so they may decide for me. I wonder if Nvidia has cut back on production numbers knowing that the cards performance v the R300 would leave a lot of product on the shelves?

It doesn't look like you will actually be able to get your hands on one for another month. With "yields"recently reportedly as being "low", it evidently takes a while to ramp up production.

However, does anyone - based on the info so far - really think the GF-FX is worth over $100 more than the Radeon 9700Pro?

 

[Bovinicus]

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).

You obviously don't realize that the 9700 Pro was also beating/equaling the FX in several benchmarks WITHOUT FSAA or AF enabled. Neither of these cards should be constrained at 1600x1200, but the FX is still trailing behind the 9700 Pro. What makes you think that 1280x1024 or 1024x768 with FSAA and AF will be less bandwidth intensive than 1600x200? They are not, and the Radeon 9700 Pro will perform well in those resolutions too. We know that it does already, as there are a plethora of 9700 benchmarks available.

Oh yes, and the reason many people don't use 1600x1200 is because their video cards cannot handle it. If I had a video card that could handle it, I would probably be more inclined to use higher resolutions. The other thing you are forgetting is the Radeon 9700 Pro is $100 less than the GeForce FX is. So, why am I going to pay an extra $100 for a card that probably performs about the same in lower resolutions and does worse in higher resolutions? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Snoop]

Despite this review, the folks over at Rage3D are guessing as to how much sunshine the likes of Anand and Tom are going to blow up nVidia's a$$ tomorrow morning.

Rage3d- who gives a rat #*$# what they think

its just a collection of Fanboy retards who bitch and cry like a bunch of 2 year olds (reminds me of some people here ) about anyone saying anything negative about their beloved/worshiped company

 

[everman]

Well they are not even retail drivers for the FX whereas the 9700pro's drivers are much more mature. But even with that, this seems to be an indication that the FX will have a very tough time vs the R350. I hope to get a 9700 for a pretty nice deal soon

 

[magomago]

Nvidia should have went 256bit DDR2

If it did, I would have to sell my kidney (assuming the sale of body parts is legal...) just to afford one

 

[308nato]

However, does anyone - based on the info so far - really think the GF-FX is worth over $100 more than the Radeon 9700Pro?

Unless you really like to take interesting new things apart and F them up....




....no.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Wish I could stay and keep up with the thread, but I'm off to bed. It should be quite interesting to read in the morning!

 

[Judgement]

Too many postes in the thread for me to read through them all so this might have been mentioned, just want to make sure one that came to mind was mentioned.

One major thing is the drivers, from what history shows us we can expect a huge performance increase with the next release, and even next few releases of drivers from Nvidia. I guess history doesn't have to repeat itself, but I think the safer bet would be to say it will.

 

[Bovinicus]

Man, this thread is filling up with posts FAST. I have never seen a thread get so many responses so quickly on any forum anywhere. There are 66 posts in the first 84 minutes of thead uptime. That is an average of almost .8 posts per minute. That is crazy!

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
Man, this thread is filling up with posts FAST. I have never seen a thread get so many responses so quickly on any forum anywhere. There are 66 posts in the first 84 minutes of thead uptime. That is an average of almost .8 posts per minute. That is crazy!

I guess you weren't in OT on 9/11

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
Man, this thread is filling up with posts FAST. I have never seen a thread get so many responses so quickly on any forum anywhere. There are 66 posts in the first 84 minutes of thead uptime. That is an average of almost .8 posts per minute. That is crazy!

I've read them all

 

[Dean]

New Nvidia Marketing Plan below....






The GEFORCE FX

As Fast as a jet! As loud as a Jet!!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Judgement
Too many postes in the thread for me to read through them all so this might have been mentioned, just want to make sure one that came to mind was mentioned.

One major thing is the drivers, from what history shows us we can expect a huge performance increase with the next release, and even next few releases of drivers from Nvidia. I guess history doesn't have to repeat itself, but I think the safer bet would be to say it will.

HUGE Performance increase? :Q Doubtful.

Let's say they get a 15% improvement (while the guys at ATI only manage a 5% one out of the 9700pro). That seems reasonable and in line with Nvidia's track record. Is it worth it to spend $100 more for the GF-FX than the 9700Pro ESPECIALLY when we KNOW the R350 is right around the corner?

EDIT: My bedtime too . . . I am looking forward to the rest of the reviews!

 

[ls32]

These reviews are all nice, but what I am waiting to see is how the radeon 9700 and nv30 compare when they are doing dx9 features or running in high color depth (like 128 bit fp) rather than 32 bit integer color modes. From what I have noticed though, is that the nv30 performs as well as the radeon 9700 in most tests but then with AA/AF enabled oddities occur. For example, both the radeon 9700 and nv30 get pretty much equal performance in ut2k3:

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%

But what this test shows is oddly the radeon 9700 pro barely takes a performance cut in dungeon siege with AA and AF, but the geforceFX takes a huge cut. Hopefully for nvidia and ati's sake nvidia can come out with some drivers that can unlock some more performance out of the geforceFX the way the detonator XPs worked for the geforce3 and det 40s to a lesser extent with the geforce 4s.

I think for now (until drivers ship or dx9 games show a different pattern), though, that the evidence is clear that if you want a high performing card, the radeon 9700 is the clear winner because it is competitive or wins in almost all of these tests, has a better price, and most of all it does not sound like a jet engine.

(hope that made for a good first post )

 

[SithSolo1]

Originally posted by: Snoop

Despite this review, the folks over at Rage3D are guessing as to how much sunshine the likes of Anand and Tom are going to blow up nVidia's a$$ tomorrow morning.

Rage3d- who gives a rat #*$# what they think

its just a collection of Fanboy retards who bitch and cry like a bunch of 2 year olds (reminds me of some people here ) about anyone saying anything negative about their beloved/worshiped company

We'er not all fanboys over there, though I admit about 90% of us are.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: ls32
These reviews are all nice, but what I am waiting to see is how the radeon 9700 and nv30 compare when they are doing dx9 features or running in high color depth (like 128 bit fp) rather than 32 bit integer color modes. From what I have noticed though, is that the nv30 performs as well as the radeon 9700 in most tests but then with AA/AF enabled oddities occur. For example, both the radeon 9700 and nv30 get pretty much equal performance in ut2k3:

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%

But what this test shows is oddly the radeon 9700 pro barely takes a performance cut in dungeon siege with AA and AF, but the geforceFX takes a huge cut. Hopefully for nvidia and ati's sake nvidia can come out with some drivers that can unlock some more performance out of the geforceFX the way the detonator XPs worked for the geforce3 and det 40s to a lesser extent with the geforce 4s.

I think for now (until drivers ship or dx9 games show a different pattern), though, that the evidence is clear that if you want a high performing card, the radeon 9700 is the clear winner because it is competitive or wins in almost all of these tests, has a better price, and most of all it does not sound like a jet engine.

(hope that made for a good first post )

Welcome to the guy with a medieval haircut.