What in the world is up with Nvidia?!?!

[Gamingphreek]

How in gods name do every single FX card lose to the 9600XT. I can understand once or twice.... but the whol god dang thing!?!?!?!? WTF is going on, bad drivers? Yeah the 59xx series cards are 4 pipeline uless multi texturing which is equivelant to the 9600XT EVERY OTHER stat is superior to the 9600XT. What the hell is going on. Some one just help me.

If you wonder why im at a loss for words... how does 998 points sound on my nice 5900XT.

Also how are 12 and 8 pipe cards tying each other. I think there is something wrong like the pipelines aren't being completely filled or something.

SOmeonoe just explain.

-Kevin

 

[Rage187]

the FX sucks for dx9.

 

[Gamingphreek]

No kidding ... but that is ridiculous. The 59xx cards are superior or on par everything with the 9600XT. They should at least come close!!!

Someone please just interpret what in the world is happening.

-Kevin

 

[Insomniak]

FX blows for DX9 and shaders. You didn't know this?

 

[Gamingphreek]

I do know this. However a 9600XT doubling all the 59xx cards is a bit off. Does ATI have the better drives. I mean yeah they suck at DX9 but i should definately be getting more that an avg of 3fps. While a 9600XT gets like 8. IM WATCHING A SLIDESHOW :-( :-( :-(

-Kevin

 

[Blastman]

Take a look at the 5950U running the same standard DX9 path (with no opts probably such as pp-hints) as a 9600XT in HL2-source ?

FS ..10x7 ?

9600XT ?61.0
5950U ?43.5

3Dmark2005 ? techrerport

9600XT ?1564
5950U ? 1279

 

[Gamingphreek]

Im not doubting what is happening... im asking why is it happening. THe 59xx is in everyway superior (theoretically) than the 96xx. I dont want to know "The FX sucks at DX 9". I want to know why and if there is anything that can happen through drivers or anything in general that will help. I mean a 256bit card, a card clocked significantly higher, i card with much higher fill rate, a card with SO MUCH more memory bandwidth, and a card with 256mb of RAM is getting is arse handed to it by a card with 128bit memory, much less bandwidth, significantly lower clockspeed, 128mb of RAM, much lower fillrate etc.

-Kevin

 

[ZobarStyl]

It's common knowledge that ATi has better overall DX performance and that the GF FX series in general is a DX 9 disaster. This is really nothing we didn't already know, it's just making it even more obvious is all.

 

[lordtyranus]

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2031

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Im not doubting what is happening... im asking why is it happening. THe 59xx is in everyway superior (theoretically) than the 96xx. I dont want to know "The FX sucks at DX 9". I want to know why and if there is anything that can happen through drivers or anything in general that will help. I mean a 256bit card, a card clocked significantly higher, i card with much higher fill rate, a card with SO MUCH more memory bandwidth, and a card with 256mb of RAM is getting is arse handed to it by a card with 128bit memory, much less bandwidth, significantly lower clockspeed, 128mb of RAM, much lower fillrate etc.

-Kevin

The test is run@10x7 so the extra ram shouldn't factor in much, and TR said "Obviously, 3DMark05 is very polygon and pixel shader intensive" so I'm not surprised. I too would enjoy reading the exact explanation for it though

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2031

LOL! After using the 5800U@525/1050 in Farcry I think that link is probably self explanatory FX doesn't do PS2 worth a doodoo.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Im not doubting what is happening... im asking why is it happening. THe 59xx is in everyway superior (theoretically) than the 96xx. I dont want to know "The FX sucks at DX 9". I want to know why and if there is anything that can happen through drivers or anything in general that will help. I mean a 256bit card, a card clocked significantly higher, i card with much higher fill rate, a card with SO MUCH more memory bandwidth, and a card with 256mb of RAM is getting is arse handed to it by a card with 128bit memory, much less bandwidth, significantly lower clockspeed, 128mb of RAM, much lower fillrate etc.

-Kevin

Answer

edit: looks like someone has posted the link while I was searching for it.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well will drivers do anything. I mean people are paying like 130 for 9600XT's and i payed 198 for my 5900XT, and its getting the crap beat out of it. Is there anything that can happen BESIDES me upgrading. I was going to hold out until like Q3 of next year, however i dont know if ill be able to.

-Kevin

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
How in gods name do every single FX card lose to the 9600XT. I can understand once or twice.... but the whol god dang thing!?!?!?!? WTF is going on, bad drivers? Yeah the 59xx series cards are 4 pipeline uless multi texturing which is equivelant to the 9600XT EVERY OTHER stat is superior to the 9600XT. What the hell is going on. Some one just help me.

If you wonder why im at a loss for words... how does 998 points sound on my nice 5900XT.

Also how are 12 and 8 pipe cards tying each other. I think there is something wrong like the pipelines aren't being completely filled or something.

SOmeonoe just explain.

-Kevin

ATI had significantly better shader performance last generation (remember the HL2/ partial precision debacle), and this explains the 9600XT's 'speed.'

Regardless, none of those cards (9600XT and every NV3x card) will be able to play games like displayed in the snippets in 3dmark 2k5; pretty much everything not from this generation (Nv4x and R420) will be crap, actually.

As for the 12 and 8 pipe cards tying eachother, it would probably be due to fillrate, just like how the 12-pipe X800 Pro performs similarly to the 16-pipe 6800GT (in games not named Doom 3).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Well will drivers do anything. I mean people are paying like 130 for 9600XT's and i payed 198 for my 5900XT, and its getting the crap beat out of it. Is there anything that can happen BESIDES me upgrading. I was going to hold out until like Q3 of next year, however i dont know if ill be able to.

-Kevin

With new games featuring the eye candy the FX doesn't do well already here, and more starting to show up, I'd definitely go for a new gen card were I you. No point in being forced to run an older path in HL2 and such, what with you being a gamer/enthusiast that can appreciate the effects.

 

[ZobarStyl]

Lol GP, 3DMark should not be the cause of your upgrade...the benchmark is only supposed to be representative of future games, not current, and who knows how accurate it really is. 3DMark is just a very pretty simulation with numbers, upgrading for it would be a serious waste of cash. I would still hold out on that upgrade if I were you; your 5900XT will do ok through Q3 in most things if you aren't trying to run at 1600x1200 4xAA and whatnot, and if you don't mind playing HL2 using DX 8 paths. My current card can't even run the last test of 3DM03, and I could honestly care less.

Games are what you buy your GPU's for, not 3DMark, unless you have serious E-penis issues.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Sell your FX while it still has some of it's value left is my advice.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well... should i email MSI and see if i can return my FX card pay the difference and get the 9800Pro. That would really be what i need to hold out until Q3 next year. I dont want to upgrade to this gen cards becausei will do a complete system upgrade. EVERYTHING. So i can have the latest HW run DX10 and all that. Do you think i will be able to trade up for the MSIRX9800Pro and pay whatever difference is there? Or do you think MSI will laugh at me and say hell no?

My guess is the latter. If so what should i do, i would rather go for a 9800Pro than waste a whole mess of money on a new card.

-kevin

 

[lordtyranus]

Sell your FX and buy $250 6800 OC at outpost.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Sell your FX and buy $250 6800 OC at outpost.

That's a rightous price GP, if you can get enough of your card's value back to make it happen.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I do know this. However a 9600XT doubling all the 59xx cards is a bit off. Does ATI have the better drives. I mean yeah they suck at DX9 but i should definately be getting more that an avg of 3fps. While a 9600XT gets like 8. IM WATCHING A SLIDESHOW :-( :-( :-(

-Kevin

No, you don't get it - the NV3x has TERRIBLE PS2.0+ support. When it comes to DX9, NV3x are basically the same as GeForce 4 Ti/GeForce 3 Ti

 

[Gamingphreek]

Actually i DO get it. I knew all along how bad they are, however the severity has finally hit me.

Well i have never sold anything over the web, and im not 18 yet so i cant post on EBAY. I would have to sell it in the forums, and still im in foreign ground. I have never sold anything like this before, hell i dont even know what paypal is. My knowledge is limited to the actual HW itself not trading.

I would hop i could get 150-160 for my card but i dunno. That is why i want to send it back to MSI and just get the RX9800Pro, because i dont want to spend another 100$ i want to last until i upgrade my entire system.

I just need some advice lol.

-Kevin

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Well will drivers do anything. I mean people are paying like 130 for 9600XT's and i payed 198 for my 5900XT, and its getting the crap beat out of it. Is there anything that can happen BESIDES me upgrading. I was going to hold out until like Q3 of next year, however i dont know if ill be able to.

-Kevin

Its getting the crap beat out of it in "3DMark05". Not in current games. Have no fear.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
...i need to hold out until Q3 next year. I dont want to upgrade to this gen cards becausei will do a complete system upgrade. EVERYTHING. So i can have the latest HW run DX10 and all that. -kevin

DX10 isnt coming 'till Longhorn, and that isnt coming till late 2006. Which means DX10 cards will at best appear by late 2006 and early adoption rate would mean astronomical prices, like today's $400-500 cards. It seems a new trend in buying videocards is emerging. Buy midrange newest generation of cards for $200 or so and then once new generation comes out, buy midrange of those. That way you'll experience very playable framerates in most cases other than 1600x1200 4AA/8AF, of course if you want the bragging rights of 100frames vs. 50 then it is a different story. But even looking at the past, just like 9800/9700/5900 series will suck in PS2.0+ games, so will 6600 AND x800/6800 series (yeah sure the latter will be faster, but who cares if one will get 30frames and the other 15).

Lately i've been rethinking the logic for getting high-end hardware......unless I was made of cash.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Well will drivers do anything. I mean people are paying like 130 for 9600XT's and i payed 198 for my 5900XT, and its getting the crap beat out of it. Is there anything that can happen BESIDES me upgrading. I was going to hold out until like Q3 of next year, however i dont know if ill be able to.

-Kevin

Its getting the crap beat out of it in "3DMark05". Not in current games. Have no fear.

Sure, but if you want to be fair, there is no card out right now that isn't getting the crap beat out of it. I dont consider 15-25 frames (3dm05) playable for high end cards. This just goes to show that if anyone thinks a videocard will last you longer than 2 years and provide comfortable gaming experience, you are dreaming. In fact, videocards are obsolete the day they come out because look at now, the high-end cards still cant play all current games at 1600x1200 4AA/16AF comfortably (LOMAC, IL2, Doom 3, Far Cry come to mind), so how can you expect them to last you for 2 years when you already have to turn things down with current games? People complain that the software industry is 2 years behind the hardware one. But if software industry kept up with the hardware industry, no graphics card would ever be fast enough to play "present" games. Again referring to gaming history, usually it's the 2nd generation of cards that only starts to play the 1st generation of games well. IE. 4200 had 8.1 support but it took 5900/9800 series of cards to provide "playable" and comfortable gaming in DX8.1 games. 9800Pro has PS2.0 support but you need at least 6800GT/x800xt to enjoy PS2.0 games. Logically, it will take 1 full generation to be able to enjoy PS3.0 games. I imagine X800xt pe / 6800ultra will be displaying similar frames per second in Unreal 3 (2006) at 640x480 all low, as my weak 8500 does at Doom 3 now.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well yeah its not coming until then but i would be willing to bet that graphics cards supporting it will be out earlier... just like the 9700Pro and DX9.

Can someone explain help me with the above stuff (selling, E-mailing MSI etc)

-Kevin