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

[Nemesis77]

Thanks for the min FPS Anand ! That was an awesome review!

I just noticed that R9700 considerably beat FX in that benchmark as well! This doesn't look good for NVIDIA. This doesn't look good at all!And I haven't even listened to the sampes of the noise yet (I'm at work, so....)!

On second though 9700 didn't beat FX in min FPS. It massacred it! Hell, FX lost to regural 9700 as well :Q! No FX for me! Right now, it sucks! I hope for NV's sake that they'll be able to squeeze more performance from the drivers, but they would need miracles to ipmrove them enough to make FX a desireable product! Hell, the noise and the cooling-solution is enough to turn me away from it!

 

[tbates757]

Tom's conclusion is started with: "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."

The author sounds like such a tool, every review I find it harder and harder to take reviews seriously at that site. The author is clearly trying to make it sound like this is some monumentous product, it doesn't sound objective at all. Something about that really struck a chord with me

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tbates757
Tom's conclusion is started with: "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."

The author sounds like such a tool

Well, it IS tomshardware we are talking about, so what did you expect?

 

[SteelyKen]

Interesting Tom compared the FX to the V6000. They both are oddities of a sort - one taking up 2 slots with a gargantuan fan and the other sporting 4 GPUs on a MCA-sized card.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: SteelyKen
Interesting Tom compared the FX to the V6000. They both are oddities of a sort - one taking up 2 slots with a gargantuan fan and the other sporting 4 GPUs on a MCA-sized card.

and a total flop, he can be witty at times

 

[RanDum72]

Hammer's 64 bitness has nothing to do with the width of the memory bus, which is what the Radeon's 256 bit bus refers to.

I know that. What I'm trying to say is the different approaches in increasing speed/performance. Its like a highway, does a 6-lane highway with a 60mph speed limit move traffic better than a 3-lane one at 90mph? In the CPU's case, the 64-bit Hammer can be compared to a 32-bit P4. The P4 has higher clock speeds but the Hammer can process more 'chunks' at the same time.
With the Radeon 9700 vs. FX, the Radeon is clocked lower but it has a wider memory bus. The FX is clocked higher but is limited to a 128-bit memory bus.

 

[Gunbuster]

Whats the word on Nvida "making" the cards themselves and then selling them on to the vid card brands?

Sure will suck if all the brands are stuck with the exact same loud cooling system

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: RanDum72

Hammer's 64 bitness has nothing to do with the width of the memory bus, which is what the Radeon's 256 bit bus refers to.

I know that. What I'm trying to say is the different approaches in increasing speed/performance. Its like a highway, does a 6-lane highway with a 60mph speed limit move traffic better than a 3-lane one at 90mph? In the CPU's case, the 64-bit Hammer can be compared to a 32-bit P4. The P4 has higher clock speeds but the Hammer can process more 'chunks' at the same time.
With the Radeon 9700 vs. FX, the Radeon is clocked lower but it has a wider memory bus. The FX is clocked higher but is limited to a 128-bit memory bus.

Read this.
Very good info, written by Sochan, who definately knows his stuff.

Oh and to avoid making this post entirely off-topic, the FX sucks.
I don't usually say products suck, since most have some niche to fill, even if they're not for me(say Parhelia), but really, what use could the FX possibly have, save for an ultra high end gaming card?
And as an ultra high end gaming card, it just plain sucks compared to the 9700 Pro, slower when push comes to shove, more expensive, louder(haven't listened to the mp3's, but I don't think I need to either), occupies an extra PCI slot...yuck!

Come on now nVidia, WTF happened to the company that was once the awe of most any company in the industry, with perfect execution, great products, etc?

 

[Dean]

Stop harping on Nvidia people!! It costs considerably less per pound than the 9700pro

 

[Double Trouble]

All I can say is WOW :Q. The FX falls waaaaay short of what I was expecting from the "next big thing" from nvidia. They've built up a reputation for solid products with solid drivers and excellent performance. Unless they manage to pull about a 50% increase in performance from the drivers, this thing is DOA.

Without even looking at the performance, it strikes me that a huge card that needs extra power connectors, a huge fan with lots of noise and that produces even more heat (do we want even more heat in our cases???) is a terrible thing. Not only that, it even eats up an extra slot on the mobo. The only way that would be 'worth it', is if the performance was such that it would blow away anything currently in existence. In reality, it only bareby bests the 9700 Pro, which isn't a power hog producing lots of heat.

Nope, if I was to purchase a top-o-the-line card right now, it would have to be the 9700 Pro....... nvidia had better have something big up their sleeves!

 

[GTaudiophile]

Me thinks the Canadians are waking up happy today! Their 6-month-old card still holds its own with R350 and RV350 still waiting in the wings!

Nice review, Anand! Thanks for being fair!

And, I guess I was right: FX is DOA!

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Thanks for the min FPS Anand ! That was an awesome review!

I just noticed that R9700 considerably beat FX in that benchmark as well! This doesn't look good for NVIDIA. This doesn't look good at all!And I haven't even listened to the sampes of the noise yet (I'm at work, so....)!

On second though 9700 didn't beat FX in min FPS. It massacred it! Hell, FX lost to regural 9700 as well :Q! No FX for me! Right now, it sucks! I hope for NV's sake that they'll be able to squeeze more performance from the drivers, but they would need miracles to ipmrove them enough to make FX a desireable product! Hell, the noise and the cooling-solution is enough to turn me away from it!

I wonder how imtim83 feels about this...since I think he wanted that bench to show off NV30 if nothing else...

 

[GTaudiophile]

I just don't know how in heck ATi's 15.mu core runs more efficiently and cooler than nVidia's .13mu, something that took 2 years to design!

 

[giocopiano]

Sorry, do I mean GeforceFX or NV30. Anand writes: "they've got a number of products in the pipeline with great potential (GeForce FX included)". What is more promising and how can it go any faster right now, or do they plan to integrate it into motherboards? (!)

 

[KDOG]

<------ glad he bought a 9500 Pro 128MB It aint the fastest, but I feel like I got my moneys' worth. Not like all the stupid people who are going to run out and buy this FX flop.

 

[giocopiano]

For a long time fans of 3dfx have been hoping their ideas might find their way into nvidia releases. Perhaps it turns out that the nvidia way was right after all and any 3dfx influence hasn't done them any good at all. Whether or not the card includes Rampage technology, big hot cards arriving on the market late, made by themeselves, is familiar 3dfx and just about what we are seeing here.
If the GeforceFX has to carry nvidia for two years like Geforce and Geforce3 technology each did, they will have problems, don't you think? Unlike their competition, they have pushed the most current silicon technology to its limits with nowhere higher to go now or in the near future.
And they hardly demonstrated an advantage for it.

 

[Biggs]

Erm, does anyone know the speed (or the whole specs for that matter) of the GeForce FX's fan and how does it fare against the infamous 60mm Delta "Black Label"?

 

[DX2Player]

Damnit! I wanted it to be a good product so there would be a greater incentive to enter into a price war. I hope the FX can boost its performance with drivers so I can afford an ATI card.

 

[GTaudiophile]

This from the HardOCP review:


One concern I have is the fact that the back heatsink is getting that hot and then the heat from it rises directly up to the CPU HSF area. There is no doubt that this GFFX will be dumping a lot of heat into your case, fancy exhaust fan or not. NVIDIA will not share their heat specs with us but one manufacturer told us off the record that the GFFX 5800 Ultra GPU would be generating somewhere between 60 to 70 watts of heat. That puts it into the realm of a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 CPU for comparison. So you CPU OCers out there might keep in mind that you are going to be mounting a card that generates as much heat as a new CPU, right under your already hot CPU.

 

[Ferocious]

I love my 9700 Pro.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Hmmm...The ATi Radeon 9500 PRO (retail) is down to $187 at mwave! Me wants

 

[NFS4]

Isn't it kinda funny how the GeForce FX is turning out to be just like the Voodoo 5 6000?? Too big, too long, too power hungry, too loud, and not all that fast?

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Isn't it kinda funny how the GeForce FX is turning out to be just like the Voodoo 5 6000?? Too big, too long, too power hungry, too loud, and not all that fast?

hehe so true, maybe if nvidia was so anxious to push the clock so high on this thing it wouldn't be the blue drier it is.

 

[Agent004]

I wonder if the clock weren't so high, how much worst will it perform.....

 

[kuk]

All review sites are getting hammered ... it's impossible to read Anand's and Tom's articles. But something cought my attention in page 3 of Tom's article. In the comparison table, both R9700 and FX are said to have $399 estimated prices. Something is not right ....