First GF FX REVIEW

[germanjulian]

its not looking to good (its the best FX version as well)

http://www.warp2search.net/article.p...thread&order=0

[germanjulian]

OK IT SUCKS! its way to expensive and doesnt give much more performence then the rad 9700

According to Thilo Bayer his sample board works with some basic hardware monitoring. The GeForce FX is adapting to the working environment you are currently running it in. This means:

1.) Working in 2D mode (a.k.a. desktop / office): core clock = 300Mhz / memory clock = 600Mhz
2.) Working in 3D mode (a.ka. games): core clock = 500Mhz / memory clock = 1000Mhz

Mr. Bayer describes the FXFlow cooling system to be annoyingly loud and recommends 'ear plugs', which was to be expected. Furthermore his writings state that the A2 stepping is the final retail revision of the GeForce FX GPU/VPU. His card is apparantly no sample but a production card.


Basically most benchmarks the FX is about 10% faster in some special occasions even more

suprisingly it is slower then the rad 9700 with 4AA and 8 Antisop Filtering. I mean thats just laughable (15FPS)

in ut2003 the rad is also normally faster (WHAT???)

nvidia lost the game this time, who will buy one of these babies if they can get the same performance nearly for half the price and definatly half the noise

[germanjulian]

oh and you will need a 400W PSU!

it east a wopping 75W!!!!????

ffs is nvidia crazy? do they seriously think we run servers?

[killer_teddy]

Apparantly it will be loads better than the rad 9700 because if you look at the mem bandwidth it has 48GB/Sec compared to the rad's 19.8. And 256 of DDR2 RAM. I've seen some pretty good reviews.. well they convinced me anyway. But I wont get one until it's plenty cheaper or its rivals have brought out something better.

[KraZy_SkitZy]

Well NVidia.... You guys gotta get your act together on this thing, or you'll end up like 3DFX (Maybe you guys inherited their downfall)... But to put a positive face on it, if they worked on their drivers for it, it may give it the edge it supposedly had on paper..... But keep in mind ATI has an Ace up their sleeve (Radeon 10,000 )

[RamonGTP]

Killer_teddy... I'd like to see some of the promising reviews you speak of, cuz I haven't see any... I've seen a lot of "preview" articles, and a lot of articles throwing out numbers, but that doesn't tell us anything. After reading this actual review of the card, I can say i'm pretty disappointed in the FX. I only saw a couple of benchmarks in which the FX had a significant lead over the 9700Pro... Most of the benchmarks had them **** near dead even, and some still had the 9700Pro doing better than the FX... Heck, I'd rather get a 9700Pro overclock it slightly, get better performance in probably 80-90% of whatever I use it for, and still save me a PCI slot, and all the noise thats going to come with the FX... And i'm an nVidia fan believe it or not, but I'm also realistic... If I was in the market for a new video card, it would not be an nVidia one after reading that.

[germanjulian]

amazing how you read a few FX reviews seiming this one is the first...........

oh and drivers will make it faster but not by much............

have u read the review? memory bandwith ist everything!

FX= Overhyped, overpriced

[AlexGee]

Just read Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1779) and hardOCP (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIxLDI=) reviews and it really looks bad for Nvidia. The AA and AF performance compares poorly to 9700 pro. Looks like NVIDIA's only hope is for a driver 'miracle' to give it something like a 20% boost. The Anandtech article is really interesting. Note the part about comparing 9700 and FX performance and balanced modes "ATI's Performance mode is virtually identical to NVIDIA's Balanced mode. " This is the big thing Anand found. Using that guideline FX actually bombs in real world benchmarks falling well behind 9700 pro.

This is assuming you turn on AA and AF at a medium level but as Anand points out why would you buy one of these cards and not turn on AA and AF?

The other thing I noticed is how the MINIMUM frame rates are so much better for 9700 in so many tests. Who needs 175 FPS? It's those places where it dips to like 35 or less that kill you in FPS games - places where you are trying to shoot 4 people at once and stay alive.

And that's not all - the FX is HOT, even with that massive heat exchange system, adding lots of heat to your system and it's LOUD to boot. I'm not an Nvidia hater, always had NVIDIA until recently and I love the Nforce 2 chipset, but this is dang dissapointing for those of us hoping for some hot and heavy competition ala AMD and Intel or like previous Nvidia and ATI wars.
I doubt many ppl buy the FX UNLESS drivers improve dramatically, which they might. For right now good thingthey have other products out and new ones in the pipe.

Anandtech's final words (first paragraph):
"So there you have it, NVIDIA's response to ATI's Radeon 9700 Pro - but does anyone else feel unfulfilled by the GeForce FX? A card that is several months late, that is able to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro by 10% at best but in most cases manages to fall behind by a factor much greater than that."

[Kerepla]

Geforce FX will kick ***.... its just not optimized yet... watch

[AlexGee]

Originally posted by Kerepla
Geforce FX will kick ***.... its just not optimized yet... watch

Do I detect a tone of wishful thinking . . . there is word that ATI also has a driver update up thier sleeve. We'll see.

[AllGamer]

i've seen a few review also but as you said, all of them comes down to the same

5% to 10% marginal performance inclease Only during AA 2x at 1600x1280

but in Normal (no AA), or in 4x AA, 8x AA, 16x AA, at 1600x1280 then ATI 9700 blows GF-FX right off to dust

and they have already the new ATI 1000? parked already, they are saving the Ace until nVidia shows a better hand

[anavel gato]

Originally posted by AllGamer
i've seen a few review also but as you said, all of them comes down to the same

5% to 10% marginal performance inclease Only during AA 2x at 1600x1280

but in Normal (no AA), or in 4x AA, 8x AA, 16x AA, at 1600x1280 then ATI 9700 blows GF-FX right off to dust

Don't forget the R9700 Pro is clocked at 315 (325?) Mhz and the GF FX at 500 Mhz. And you get a 5% to 10% increase in performance? It's a real shame.

[AllGamer]

there's another conversatio of this in http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthre...hreadid=128901

maybe we should merge this 2 threads

[zergboy5]

Hears a interesting link from tom hardware

http://www4.tomshardware.com/graphic...fx-boot-hq.mp3

Now thats a nosie card!

[BadBadNeil]

guess i'll be sticking with my GF4 4200 till I see something I like....