Where did I read that there will be no more FX reviews?

[Wedge1]

Could somebody link me to the site where there will be no more reviews of the FX series until they resolve the DX9 issue?

Can't remember where I read that.

 

[Jeff7181]

The "DX9 issue" isn't something to be resolved... the next generation of nVidia cards will be fully designed for DX9 where you can expect to see performance comparable to ATI's.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by: Wedge1
Could somebody link me to the site where there will be no more reviews of the FX series until they resolve the DX9 issue?

Can't remember where I read that.

it was a member @ b3d posting...

 

[Wedge1]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
The "DX9 issue" isn't something to be resolved... the next generation of nVidia cards will be fully designed for DX9 where you can expect to see performance comparable to ATI's.

Yeah I recognize that they will be re-engineering a new graphics chip altogether, but it seems that there was a site where the author refused to bother reviewing the FX series of cards since they did not apply or comply with Window's latest version of Direct X. I was simply asking if anybody else read this statement by this author and where might that site be?

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by: Wedge1

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
The "DX9 issue" isn't something to be resolved... the next generation of nVidia cards will be fully designed for DX9 where you can expect to see performance comparable to ATI's.

Yeah I recognize that they will be re-engineering a new graphics chip altogether, but it seems that there was a site where the author refused to bother reviewing the FX series of cards since they did not apply or comply with Window's latest version of Direct X. I was simply asking if anybody else read this statement by this author and where might that site be?

like I already said

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7948&highlight=review

 

[DefRef]

It's amazing how far up ATI's sphincter some people are that they can turn "poor DX9 performance" into "non-compatability". As I've analogized before, just because a Chevy Cavalier isn't as fast as a Porsche Turbo doesn't mean it's not a car.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by: DefRef
It's amazing how far up ATI's sphincter some people are that they can turn "poor DX9 performance" into "non-compatability". As I've analogized before, just because a Chevy Cavalier isn't as fast as a Porsche Turbo doesn't mean it's not a car.

perhaps it has something to do with not delivering on promised performances ?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Sazar

Originally posted by: DefRef
It's amazing how far up ATI's sphincter some people are that they can turn "poor DX9 performance" into "non-compatability". As I've analogized before, just because a Chevy Cavalier isn't as fast as a Porsche Turbo doesn't mean it's not a car.

perhaps it has something to do with not delivering on promised performances ?

Or perhaps it has something to do with the GeForce FX not supporting every single DX9 pixel shader. If it doesn't have that hardware support, it must either be not rendered, or rendered by software... making your high end card do the same thing the GeForce4 MX series of cards does.

 

[Wedge1]

Originally posted by: DefRef
It's amazing how far up ATI's sphincter some people are that they can turn "poor DX9 performance" into "non-compatability". As I've analogized before, just because a Chevy Cavalier isn't as fast as a Porsche Turbo doesn't mean it's not a car.

Sorry if my choice of words were wrong in describing Nvidia's DX9 problem. Since I don't understand the technicalities of the issue, I simply used the words "comply" and "apply" when, in fact, I am certain that the cards still work under DX9.

Maybe it was a poor choice of wording, but I'm not trying to advocate ATI by making that statement, so there is no need to infer that I am.

 

[Wedge1]

Originally posted by: Sazar
like I already said

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7948&highlight=review

Thanks Sazar, I missed it the first time.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Sazar

Originally posted by: DefRef
It's amazing how far up ATI's sphincter some people are that they can turn "poor DX9 performance" into "non-compatability". As I've analogized before, just because a Chevy Cavalier isn't as fast as a Porsche Turbo doesn't mean it's not a car.

perhaps it has something to do with not delivering on promised performances ?

Or perhaps it has something to do with the GeForce FX not supporting every single DX9 pixel shader. If it doesn't have that hardware support, it must either be not rendered, or rendered by software... making your high end card do the same thing the GeForce4 MX series of cards does.

ah come on... the marchitecture is not that bad.. if nvidia had not hyped it to be something that it is not the cards would still be getting decent press instead of the derision those that actually understand whats going on give it... and the behind the scenes wrangling does not make things any better...

 

[nRollo]

Well, the hits on that site will fall into the toilet.
LOL

"Today we have a review of ATI cards vs. ATI cards. As you all know, only ATI cards give you the best DX9 functionality for that one game out that uses it in 25% of it's effects! Obviously, this is the most pressing issue in the world of video cards today! So line up like little sheep for our predictions of what the world will be like when there are some actual DX9 games, and how your current best DX9 card will look like a Voodoo 1 at that point!