Thoughts on Geforce FX line.

[Shalmanese]

The only hope that nVidia has is to hold a massive publicity coup on the scale of the Intel MMX episode and convince Joe Average that DX9 is needed for the latest anything and any DX8 card is obsolete.

 

[nRollo]

"The only hope that nVidia has is to hold a massive publicity coup on the scale of the Intel MMX episode and convince Joe Average that DX9 is needed for the latest anything and any DX8 card is obsolete."
LOL- yeah, that's their "only hope". They'll go from being number one by a good margin to bankruptcy by June because some of the line is a little slower than their competition. Look what happened to ATI putting out slower cards (Rage 32, MAXX, Radeon VIVO, Radeon 8500)- they found out that the people won't stand for it!
Oh....I forgot, they did business as usual for years and are still going strong....


People like to point fingers at success and try to diminish it for some reason. I doubt half the companies you guys work for are a tenth as successful as nVidia.

 

[blahblah]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
What will save the Geforce FX line will be the FX5200 and FX5200 Ultra, they make an excellent upgrade for people using video cards like the Geforce2 MX and IMO will sell extremely well. Everyone thought the GF4 MX440 would flop but it's been one of Nvidia's top sellers and the same will be true for the FX5200 range. As for the FX5600, the future for that isn't so bright unless Nvidia make some changes to the retail version.

To be honest, I too think NVidia will be successful with the 5200 series simply because the general public is too stupid to know better (Okay, they are not educated/informed with current tech). And the GF4 MX series just proved this.

However, as a consumer, it's never good for company to rip us off. How would you like it if Tropicana had two lines of Orange Juice, Premium and regular. And you find out later that the only different between the two is the price. (As the case with GF4 MX series is just a rebadged GF2 and when it came out cost more than the better performing GF3)

People like to point fingers at success and try to diminish it for some reason. I doubt half the companies you guys work for are a tenth as successful as nVidia.

How successful do you think NVidia is going to be if they keep up this PR BS and not focus on actual product development?
Honestly, everyone here is after the best bang for the buck, when a company start to screw with you, then it's not good. Let's just hope the NVidia get their act together and release an awesome card in NV35. After Competition is what's best for the consumers.

We have already seen some back lash with GF4 MX Marketing Gimick. And if they keep this up, they(Nvidia) will pay for it in the long run.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CelticDemolition
well, the thread is "thoughts on the geforce fx line"....

how easy is it to find an fx 5800 ultra? i thought nvidia was not going to ever mass produce them. seems that, as 9800 pro will be much more prevalent, higher supply should dictate a lower price. and as i'm sure you know, the cards arent gonna be $399. since the 9800 pro is a .15 part, ati can produce for much cheaper than nvidia can crank out their 5800 ultra. so which will be cheaper? i dunno if i'm right or not, but that makes sense to me...

personally, i feel compelled to steer way clear of the fx line, what with the lackluster performance, "cinematic era" hype, and lower image quality. so if i had $400, i would get me an ati card.

however, with tsmc's .13 troubles all but solved, nv35 should be much better than nv30. unfortunately for nvidia, ati doesnt have to worry about .13 troubles cuz nvidia went through them. so i'm pretty excited for the next generation of hardware. sounds like its gonna be quite a race.

You would be right about Nvidia not mass producing 5800 Ultra's. That's what the OEM's are for. MSI, Gigabyte, etc.etc. all will offer Ultra's.

 

[Keysplayr]

I get a real kick out of everyone on these forums. We act like we all own stock in these companies. It's pretty funny IMO.
I don't know what it is, we just can't help it.. Call it a sickness. Everyone imposing their opinions on others, calling themselves right
and others wrong, when it's all really just relative. I am guilty of this myself. I just find myself getting drawn into these "debates" if
you will. Just sit back, relax, and have a good laugh. It really helps.

Keys

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I get a real kick out of everyone on these forums. We act like we all own stock in these companies. It's pretty funny IMO.
I don't know what it is, we just can't help it.. Call it a sickness. Everyone imposing their opinions on others, calling themselves right
and others wrong, when it's all really just relative. I am guilty of this myself. I just find myself getting drawn into these "debates" if
you will. Just sit back, relax, and have a good laugh. It really helps.

Keys

I do own stock in some computer companies like a few of the members here.

 

[Keysplayr]

That's fine, but do you own a sense of humor?

Keys

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
That's fine, but do you own a sense of humor?

Keys

you've already been wrong once in this thread, are you going for the double?

 

[Keysplayr]

Nem,
I was wrong only in that I misread the previous content. Not in the contents of my post itself. And I did correct myself.
And I wasn't aware that you were keeping score. But, if you must....

I will not respond to any further post directed at me, from you. I know how quickly things can escalate around here.

 

[CelticDemolition]

Originally posted by: Rollo
" what with the lackluster performance, "
"Lackluster" is the word alright- it's only as good as anything currently available! WTF are they thinking, that we'll buy a card just because it's the fastest one available?!

no, actually, the 5200 and 5600 are quite a bit SLOWER than what is currently available in the budget sector. the 5600 cant even beat out the 4200, which has been out for how long now? the only thing going for them is dx9.

so, yeah, i would say that any card that has to intentionally sabotage its image quality simply to keep up with year old cards has 'lackluster' performance. but that could just be me.

edit:

 

[BFG10K]

My thoughts on the current FX line is that it's inferior to the current Radeon line competing with it, both in terms of price and performance.

Perhaps the NV35 will be the card to turn it around for nVidia.

 

[Conky]

5800 FX Ultra > 9700Pro.

The 9800Pro will likely be > 5800 FX Pro.

And as far as the noise, I doubt I will hear the FX over my 90cfm Delta screamer on my Alpha heatsink or the 100+cfm intake fan on the front of the case. I don't mind a little fan noise because I can just crank up my Klipsch speaker set and drown them all out! I'm a guy and not some complaining old lady about noise.

I think the sweet spots as far as price/performance will be the 5600 FX Ultra and the 9700Pro after they release the 9800Pro and are forced to adjust the price down. I won't spend over $200 on a videocard in any case. My GF4-ti4600 still works just fine.

 

[blahblah]

People often overlook the heat issue.

The 5800 FX Ultra generates alot of heat too, and this can't be good for your over all system.

As for price, hopefully it will drop, if not, I am not sure why people would spend $400 on it when you can get something with similar performace for $100 less. (ie 9700 Pro at BB, Circuit City and so on)

 

[BFG10K]

5800 FX Ultra > 9700Pro.

The 9700 Pro beats the FX 5800 Ultra where it counts and it has better image quality too.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: Rollo
"The only hope that nVidia has is to hold a massive publicity coup on the scale of the Intel MMX episode and convince Joe Average that DX9 is needed for the latest anything and any DX8 card is obsolete."
LOL- yeah, that's their "only hope". They'll go from being number one by a good margin to bankruptcy by June because some of the line is a little slower than their competition. Look what happened to ATI putting out slower cards (Rage 32, MAXX, Radeon VIVO, Radeon 8500)- they found out that the people won't stand for it!
Oh....I forgot, they did business as usual for years and are still going strong....


People like to point fingers at success and try to diminish it for some reason. I doubt half the companies you guys work for are a tenth as successful as nVidia.

My company is 'exactly' 1/10 as successful as nVIDIA...but, one day we too will have a billion dollars gross renvue with little profit to show for it. Ooooh, that'll be the day I jump for joy in the streets.


Note the dripping sarcasm...

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
5800 FX Ultra > 9700Pro.

The 9800Pro will likely be > 5800 FX Pro.

And as far as the noise, I doubt I will hear the FX over my 90cfm Delta screamer on my Alpha heatsink or the 100+cfm intake fan on the front of the case. I don't mind a little fan noise because I can just crank up my Klipsch speaker set and drown them all out! I'm a guy and not some complaining old lady about noise.

I think the sweet spots as far as price/performance will be the 5600 FX Ultra and the 9700Pro after they release the 9800Pro and are forced to adjust the price down. I won't spend over $200 on a videocard in any case. My GF4-ti4600 still works just fine.

I think you mean:-

5800 FX Pro < 9800Pro.
5800 FX Ultra < 9700Pro
5600 FX < 9600 Pro
5200 Ultra > 9200 (yay)

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Nem,
I was wrong only in that I misread the previous content. Not in the contents of my post itself. And I did correct myself.
And I wasn't aware that you were keeping score. But, if you must....

I will not respond to any further post directed at me, from you. I know how quickly things can escalate around here.

If you weren't trying to start a flame war then why the personal attack?

 

[Shamrock]

there is no 5800 Pro!!!!

you mean
5800 Ultra

and regular 5800

 

[nadrrkhan]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dguy6789
all I know is, that it is much faster then the 5800 ultra, should be a much bigger jump then the 9700 pro to the 9800 pro. If all goes according to plans, it will be much faster then all of the other cards. But we will just have to wait and see.

Ahem, would you just take a look at these benchmarks please. GFFX 5800 Ultra VS 9800pro They are from Toms Hardware guide. Be objective. Non biased if you can. The 9800 pro and the GFFX 5800 ultra are on each others heals. Just look through the entire benchmark and you will see them neck and neck most of the time. Other times the 9800 pro will pull ahead greatly, and other times the GFFX 5800 ultra does the same thing.

Dont you dare say a word about the noise the GFFX 5800 ultra makes. that is not the issue. It is strictly performance. Oh and by the way, the GFFX 5800 ultra is outperforming the 9800 pro in Anistropic Filtering according to these benchies.. Not AA though. Yet.

Tell me what you think then after you see it.

I suggest that you take a look at the test in its entirety. IMO if you pay top bux for these boards you expect to see the best picture quality, and all effects that are at your disposal. It means that this is the page you should'nt miss http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030311/geforcefx-5600-5200-24.html

 

[nadrrkhan]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
5800 FX Ultra > 9700Pro.

The 9800Pro will likely be > 5800 FX Pro.

And as far as the noise, I doubt I will hear the FX over my 90cfm Delta screamer on my Alpha heatsink or the 100+cfm intake fan on the front of the case. I don't mind a little fan noise because I can just crank up my Klipsch speaker set and drown them all out! I'm a guy and not some complaining old lady about noise.

I think the sweet spots as far as price/performance will be the 5600 FX Ultra and the 9700Pro after they release the 9800Pro and are forced to adjust the price down. I won't spend over $200 on a videocard in any case. My GF4-ti4600 still works just fine.

I think you mean:-

5800 FX Pro < 9800Pro.
5800 FX Ultra < 9700Pro
5600 FX < 9600 Pro
5200 Ultra > 9200 (yay)

I agree, and I wish nvidia lets go of that ULTRA sufix. Pinning it on everything does'nt mean it is something triffic. It used to mean in the past, when you knew that Ultra meant something extra. Now if they wanted to make such a part with some extra power over, say, 5800 Ultra they wil probably call it 5800 ULTRA ULTra Ultra ultra oh yeah and GIGA

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Rollo

"If nVidia has stopped smoking there crack and there act together"
Er, yeah. they're smoking crack, and having the largest video market share, the largest console contract, the best AMD motherboard chipset, and the highest profitability. Of course, none of this compares to having a card that appeals to about 2% of the market and is sometimes faster than your competitor.

Sure, it's sometimes faster than your competitor. In fact, in very specific situations (in UT2003, essentially only two of the six tested setups).

Let's face the facts shall we:
Based on Anand's benchmarks, we know :
1. The GeForce FX5800 Ultra offers performance relative to the R9800 Pro of (UT2003 without AA/AF):
at 1024x768x32: 95.6%
at 1280x960x32: 103.1%
at 1600x1200x32: 109.7%
2. The GeForce FX5800 Ultra offers performance relative to the R9800 Pro of (UT2003 with AA/AF):
at 1024x768x32: 67.7%
at 1280x960x32: 66.8%
at 1600x1200x32: 59.7%

Now, the scores without AA/AF are such that the Radeon 9800 Pro still scores 120FPS at 1600x1200x32, a more than playable speed.
The scores with AA/AF are such that at 1600x1200x32, nobody will consider the cards to be very playable, but at 1280x960x32, the R9800 Pro's 110FPS score means that it is now pheasible to play at 1280x960 with The Radeon's Performance 8xAF + 4xAA.

In case you don't quite get it, the Radeon 9800 Pro makes it very possible to now play UT2003 fully AA/AF enabled at REASONABLE SPEEDS (Key words). The GeForce FX5800 Ultra can't.

So it's a tradeoff: get an at most 9% lead in non-AA/AF setups at 1600x1280x32, or a 33.2% lead in AA/AF at playable speeds at 1280x960x32?

If I were upgrading now, I know what my answer would be.

Granted, ATI has problems with the R9700 Pro and wavy lines, but I haven't seen anyone confirm whether this is a problem with the R9800 pro as well.

Hopefully nVidia can keep things interesting by releasing another one of their magic driver updates to increase performance by a sudden 25% (which has always made me wonder why the drivers are written so poorly at release as to cause a 25% performance loss on the cards).

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nadrrkhan

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dguy6789
all I know is, that it is much faster then the 5800 ultra, should be a much bigger jump then the 9700 pro to the 9800 pro. If all goes according to plans, it will be much faster then all of the other cards. But we will just have to wait and see.

Ahem, would you just take a look at these benchmarks please. GFFX 5800 Ultra VS 9800pro They are from Toms Hardware guide. Be objective. Non biased if you can. The 9800 pro and the GFFX 5800 ultra are on each others heals. Just look through the entire benchmark and you will see them neck and neck most of the time. Other times the 9800 pro will pull ahead greatly, and other times the GFFX 5800 ultra does the same thing.

Dont you dare say a word about the noise the GFFX 5800 ultra makes. that is not the issue. It is strictly performance. Oh and by the way, the GFFX 5800 ultra is outperforming the 9800 pro in Anistropic Filtering according to these benchies.. Not AA though. Yet.

Tell me what you think then after you see it.

I suggest that you take a look at the test in its entirety. IMO if you pay top bux for these boards you expect to see the best picture quality, and all effects that are at your disposal. It means that this is the page you should'nt miss http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030311/geforcefx-5600-5200-24.html

You cant just pick and choose your pages my friend. When they rate the cards in the end, it's based on overall performance. They give a "X" out of 10. Overall rating. Believe me, I didn't miss a single page.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: nadrrkhan

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
5800 FX Ultra > 9700Pro.

The 9800Pro will likely be > 5800 FX Pro.

And as far as the noise, I doubt I will hear the FX over my 90cfm Delta screamer on my Alpha heatsink or the 100+cfm intake fan on the front of the case. I don't mind a little fan noise because I can just crank up my Klipsch speaker set and drown them all out! I'm a guy and not some complaining old lady about noise.

I think the sweet spots as far as price/performance will be the 5600 FX Ultra and the 9700Pro after they release the 9800Pro and are forced to adjust the price down. I won't spend over $200 on a videocard in any case. My GF4-ti4600 still works just fine.

I think you mean:-

5800 FX Pro < 9800Pro.
5800 FX Ultra < 9700Pro
5600 FX < 9600 Pro
5200 Ultra > 9200 (yay)

I agree, and I wish nvidia lets go of that ULTRA sufix. Pinning it on everything does'nt mean it is something triffic. It used to mean in the past, when you knew that Ultra meant something extra. Now if they wanted to make such a part with some extra power over, say, 5800 Ultra they wil probably call it 5800 ULTRA ULTra Ultra ultra oh yeah and GIGA

YES! TNT2 Ultra = win, GeForce 2 Ultra = win (both were very expensive in their prime, but their performance explained why), now we've got 5200, 5200 Ultra, 5600, 5600 Ultra, and 5800, 5800 Ultra. Actually if you think about it, nVidia has submitted to ATI's numbering and marking tactics. Starting with the GeForce 2 MX 200 and 400, then with the GeForce 3 Ti 200 and 500, they've now grouped the number just as ATI has. 4200 with the first digit of 4 indicating it is a member of the 4th GeForce line with 200 classifying its class level in that particular line. Even the GeForce 4 MX's make sense with the GeForce 4 MX 420-460, with 4 representing it as a "GeForce 4" and the 20-60 representing the class in that line (of which 20-60 is pretty pathetic when compared to 200-800).

nVidia's numbering system makes MUCH more sense than ATI's as nVidia continues with the 5200-5800 with the first digits of 5 signifying the 5th line of GeForce and the 200-800 ranking their class in that particular line. ATI's number system made sense until they screwed things up with the Radeon 9000-9200, up until then the first digit represented the level of DX the chip supported. IMO the RV250 which ended up as the 9000 should have been at most the 8600 and the RV280 should have been the 8900 as 8700 and 8800 were taken up by the FireGL versions of the 8500... But it does seem ATI has started a trend with having a "Pro" line of boards being the most elite. 9000 and 9000 Pro, 9200 and 9200 Pro, 9500 and 9500 Pro, 9600 and 9600 Pro, 9700 and 9700 Pro, 9800 and 9800 Pro...with the Pro boards in some cases being significantly superior to their non Pro counterparts... nVidia merely has struck back by offering an Ultra and non Ultra board for each class in their new 5th line of GeForce products...

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dguy6789
all I know is, that it is much faster then the 5800 ultra, should be a much bigger jump then the 9700 pro to the 9800 pro. If all goes according to plans, it will be much faster then all of the other cards. But we will just have to wait and see.

Ahem, would you just take a look at these benchmarks please. GFFX 5800 Ultra VS 9800pro They are from Toms Hardware guide. Be objective. Non biased if you can. The 9800 pro and the GFFX 5800 ultra are on each others heals. Just look through the entire benchmark and you will see them neck and neck most of the time. Other times the 9800 pro will pull ahead greatly, and other times the GFFX 5800 ultra does the same thing.

Dont you dare say a word about the noise the GFFX 5800 ultra makes. that is not the issue. It is strictly performance. Oh and by the way, the GFFX 5800 ultra is outperforming the 9800 pro in Anistropic Filtering according to these benchies.. Not AA though. Yet.

Tell me what you think then after you see it.

keysplayers -

Actually Tom's methods of benchmarking the cards are totally different from Anand - Tom set the Aniso to "Quality" to match the Quality (Balanced) setting on the 5800 Ultra, which makes scores much more competitive, but as Anand showed, ATI's "Performance" mode is much faster and makes little to no difference in terms of visual quality. Put another way, almost nobody in their right mind would run the "Quality" mode on the ATI card (which Tom uses) since they can get equivalent AA quality at much higher performance, whereas nVidia's current "Agressive" mode doesn't seem to work at all.

So, it seems Tom has bedded with someone again on an review to skew the numbers.