There's been a couple of FX reviews around the net, and majority of them generally tell the same story. When no quality features are turned on, the FX performs better, but with AA and Aniso, the R300 performs better. Arguments range from young Nvidia drivers to ATI's 256-Bit memory interface. So what is it, what actually explains the results we've seen around the net. Insights please!
R300 vs. NV30 - What makes what better?
- Thread starter ironique
- Start date
assuming that radeon drivers will not be able to deliver much more performance from the 9700, some think that
the FX will surpass all performance tests once the drivers mature.
What bothers me is that nvidia has had operational FX silicon for probably more than 5-6 months. yet the drivers are still immature? I don't know if I buy the driver thing...unless of course Carmack helps them with some programming bottlenecks.
noone doubts the memory interface limitation. it was a bad but probably necessary maneuver for now.
its all speculation now, but Nvidia can't be satsified. they gotta be banking on the next part.
the FX will surpass all performance tests once the drivers mature.
What bothers me is that nvidia has had operational FX silicon for probably more than 5-6 months. yet the drivers are still immature? I don't know if I buy the driver thing...unless of course Carmack helps them with some programming bottlenecks.
noone doubts the memory interface limitation. it was a bad but probably necessary maneuver for now.
its all speculation now, but Nvidia can't be satsified. they gotta be banking on the next part.
nvidia: "slap"!!! "i demand satisfaction! i challenge you to a duel"!!
ati: "i accept your challenge. meet me in Q3 2002!!"
nvidia: ...
the fx is better as far as polygon power goes, but the 9700 beats it in bandwidth and most other respects such as noise. as for young drivers, the fx is extremely complex and i wouldn't put it past nvidia to pump up performance by as much as 20%.
remember that this isn't really a fair comparison; the 9700 came out almost 6 months ago. it would be like comparing a geforce 2 to a geforce 3.
to me, the r350 vs. the fx is a more equal comparison...and from what i've heard as far as rumour goes, ati is going to come out on top here. there is talk of 2 tmu's, higher clock speeds, and 256mb of video memory running at 400mhz ddr.
Well if you wanted one today you could actually buy an R300 based card. The FX is still no where to be found.
Spring, 9900PRO, 0.13 micron, 375MHz core clock, 8x2 TMU
9900, 0.15 micron, 375MHz clock, 8x1 TMU
All rumours from xbitlabs
9900, 0.15 micron, 375MHz clock, 8x1 TMU
All rumours from xbitlabs
Exactly, that's why I believe the whole driver excuse is BS. They say that they needed to wait for TSMC to get its .13 micron process up and running, and that's what caused this delay. If this is true (and I don't really have a reason to doubt it as the new FX isn't anything to write home about architecturally) then they have had months to fix this stupid driver issue. It should have come out blazing in its first review/test. I have always bought Nvidia cards from the beginning, but this cycle or two ATI gets my money.
You guys are getting WAY too technical. It comes down to simple math. R300 vs NV30, 300 vs 30. The ATI is therefore 10x better than the FX.
sash1
Diamond Member
- Jul 20, 2001
- 8,897
- 1
- 0
LoL, this has to be the best logic ever!
nVidia has always been able to improve performance via new drivers, and I'm sure they will be able to with the FX.
Oh really? I don't recall the 9700 being quieter than the human heartbeat...
Actually, i believe the GeForce FX was targeted towards the R300 core, however nVidia dropped the ball and couldn't release it around November. If nVidia got the FX out on time, then they'd be in direct competition, which is what they were intended to be.
So in fact, the comparison is fair.
My thoughts exactly. ATI was just able to get their part out first. nVidia was being bitch slapped by Microsoft and with their Xbox deal and the XGPU, they fell behind in R&D and naturally had set backs. I bet ATI caught wind of this and decided to rush their R300 on .15 micron instead of trying to shrink to .13 like they knew nVidia was going to push. Doing this only bought ATI more time and they also probably got a little lucky with the setbacks nVidia has been having. IMO the R300 and NV30 are practically on the same level, with the NV30 supposedly having the upper hand as it is a later product.
You make it sound as if the R350 and R300 are very different chips. They are not, and will not be very different. The R350 will simply be a refresh of the R300 to give it a performance boost. I don't believe the R350 will be merely an overclocked R300 (although it is possible), but it won't be radically different (if it is I'll be very very very surprised). They way you put it is as if saying a GeForce 2 Ultra is on an equal playing field with a GeForce 3. It's not, it's really more like a GeForce 4 Ti and a GeForce 3 vs. a Radeon 8500 (the 8500 (NV30 in this example) being faster than GF3 (R300 in this example) but slower than GF4 (R350 in this example)). Although why are we even judging where these products place when the R350 and NV30 currently are not available for sale? Not only do we only have rumors about the R350, we have benches of the GF FX pre release. I remember the Radeon 8500's performance prior to its release...
Pure speculation. Nobody knows the specs for sure. Some say .13, some say .15......yada yada yada.
I don't think Nvidia could have even released this thing with a .15 micron process, just look at the extreme colling measures they need to get the .13 micron ultra version out. The regular version IMHO doesn't even compare to the 9700pro which is what it is going to end competing with street price-wise. As for the driver excuse, I don't think it will work this time as Nvidia has had over 6 months with working silicon for this product, and they were waiting for TSMC to get its act together, so if they couldn't build a better for over 6 months, I don't believe they will now. They were already behind, they had every reason to try to make the GeForce FX as competitive with the 9700pro driver-wise as possible when it comes out. Just because in the past they have been able to improve performance with driver doesn't mean they will be able to now, the circumstances are completely different. In the past Nvidia products have blown away ATI's products, that isn't exactly repeating itself now.
Originally posted by: AunixP35
LoL, this has to be the best logic ever!
nVidia has always been able to improve performance via new drivers, and I'm sure they will be able to with the FX.Oh really? I don't recall the 9700 being quieter than the human heartbeat...
I remember it being totally silent, due to the use of big heatsinks that some cards have, and they're retail cards. Since they only use heatsinks, there's no noise from them, so noise is totally irrelevant. Oh, and that also makes the 9700 PRO quieter than the human heartbeat....
Yeah, that's why I put at the bottom "All rumours from xbitlabs", because that's what they are, I never said they were definate.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter