Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Hardware

GeForce FX Reviews Roll In 359

Posted by timothy from the no-more-enn-dee-eh dept.
Defender2000 writes "GeForce FX NDA lifted today, reviews are up at ExtremeTech, Tom's Hardware, and HardOCP. So far, it is indeed better overall than the 9700Pro, but not enough for it's price. Perhaps NVIDIA has something up its sleeve for the long term?" There's also a review at Anandtech, about which reader StrongBad writes "Unlike the rest of the reviews, however, wonderboy gets down and dirty with the FX's antialiasing and anisotropic filtering methods using some nifty on mouseover java commands."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GeForce FX Reviews Roll In More

GeForce FX Reviews Roll In

Comments Filter:

  • NOISE (Score:5, Interesting)

    by qoncept ( 599709 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:12AM (#5167027) Homepage
    The geforcemx noise levels [tomshardware.com] are ridiculous. I can't believe how voodoo5/3dfx-goes-out-of-business the card seems. Brute force instead of finesse, they went more overboard than I can believe, and the results aren't very impressive.

    • Re:NOISE (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ahem. I think you mean GeforceFX, not GeForce MX. My MX doesn't even have a fan :)

    • Performance & no noise is possible (Score:5, Interesting)

      by egghat ( 73643 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @11:11AM (#5167299) Homepage
      Sapphiretech is able to build a state-of-the-art ATI Radeon 9700 Pro without any active cooling. Seems nearly unbelievable if you compare these to the new FX cooling monsters.

      Check it out [sapphiretech.com] for yourself.

      Combine these with a good, noise dampened case, Verax coolers and a Barracuda V and you should get a PC that is much more quiet than most of the PCs on the market and faster than these too.

      Bye egghat.

    • no no no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 27, 2003 @12:54PM (#5167911)
      First, as mentioned the last time the FX came up, manufacturers can put any kind of cooling they want on the FX. I've heard there are production models that look just like any other graphics card.

      And this card is ALL finesse and no brute force. That is why it loses in traditional tests. PROGRAMMABLE PIXEL SHADERS. The Radeon 9700 can only do a tiny fraction per pass that the FX can do per pass. This is what most of their R&D was spent on. Look it up

      http://www.nvidia.com/docs/lo/2413/SUPP/Shaders. pd f

      It will vastly improve the effects possible in consumer graphics.
    • The sound difference is pretty amazing. And judging from the Sapphiretech card its at least possible to use a quiet alternative method of cooling. Looking at the FX I don't see how that's going to be an option. Couple the sound problem with the loss of a pci slot, performance that isn't significantly faster, and cost, I don't see how you could buy an FX over a 9700 right now. Of course I haven't paid attention to how the 9700 works on linux, but for windows use the 9700 seems to be the no brainer.

  • Yes but (Score:2, Interesting)

    by inteller ( 599544 )
    ....the review that I saw over at Tom's hardware had this thing as some sort of 2-card incarnation. Call me old fashioned but didn't this 2 card crap always fail? I mean...that is like sooooo 3Dfx.

    • Re:Yes but (Score:5, Informative)

      by robbieduncan ( 87240 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:22AM (#5167068) Homepage
      It's only 1 AGP card. The Ultra version simply requires a PCI slot for the massive cooler the card needs.

    • Re:Yes but (Score:3, Informative)

      by The_Rift ( 257762 )
      it's 2 slots wide because of the massive cooling system it needs, Nvidia have said they'll be releasing a normal card with a lower clockspeed later.

      It does however mean you lose a PCI slot, which is just stupid.

    • Anand vs. Tom (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bascheew ( 220781 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @02:43PM (#5168488)
      Ok everyone do me a favor, after you've read the Tom's [tomshardware.com] review PLEASE read the Anandtech review. [anandtech.com]

      I started to feel sick to my stomach when I realized how sloppy and shallow Tom's review was done. Anand truly is "the wonderboy"; he reveals some highly critical issues and has some sweet rollovers comparing the antialiasing and anistropic filtering of each card. He reveals that at the same visual quality settings, the 9700 Pro tops the FX in almost all the benchmarks. "NVIDIA takes the crown! No question about it..." Oh paaleease Tom, research the product before you post! Kudos to Anandtech.

  • ATI and the future... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by natron 2.0 ( 615149 ) <ndpeters79@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:12AM (#5167029) Homepage Journal
    The Nvidia FX is amazing, but it will be interesting to see what ATI can do with the next gen Radeon if they too can get down to .13 microns...

    • Is it all that amazing? Yeah - the frame rates and such are impressive but I can't help but think nVidia finally dropped the ball with this product. It is several months later than the ATI product and doesn't perform that much better than the ATI part overall to justify the delay or cost. If you read some of the reviews you'll see there is a lot of questions around manufacturer's ability to actually hit the $399 price point nVidia has set due to memory, layered PCB design and heat management concerns. Not to mention the expected price drop ATI will put on their part now that they have competition at the high end. Doesn't seem to me that anyone but die hard nVidia fanboys will be too impressed by this release. Six months ago it would have been something else.

    • Amazing?!? Did you actually read the reviews? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @12:13PM (#5167675)
      If you had looked at the benchmarks, you would have seen that this huge, loud overpriced card gets spanked by ATi's 9700Pro. This is terrible. We wanted a price war and we're about to get a massacre. ATi doesn't even have to worry about the "next gen Radeon" if the six-month-old Radeon is beating NVidia's 1.5 lb roaring monster which is not even released yet.

      Somewhere in Canada there is a lot of high-fiving going on today. Plans for reducing the price of the 9700Pro are being scrapped. Due to recent NVidia incompetence, the ATi profittaking is about to begin... which means we the customers lose.

      • Somewhere in Canada there is a lot of high-fiving going on today. Plans for reducing the price of the 9700Pro are being scrapped. Due to recent NVidia incompetence, the ATi profittaking is about to begin... which means we the customers lose.

        Only if we the customers rush out like greedy assholes and buy the most expensive card in sight. I wait for video cards to come down below $100; that means I can get a GF4 to replace my GF3 as soon as I can afford it. The GF3 gets a little chunky at high resolutions sometimes, but otherwise it does a dandy job of playing all my games at about 1024x768x32bpp. UT and Mechwarrior IV both run great at that res. Simcity 4 is chunky but I have a 1.4 gig tbird and I hear that it's CPU limited on a P4 2 gig. Project Nomads, well, it just sucked. But it was also chunky at 1024x768 though not at 800x600.

  • people, Java != Javascript (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DataDevil ( 1762 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:13AM (#5167035)
    He probably means javascript rollovers instead of java effects..

  • The 10,000 barrier (Score:5, Funny)

    by Big Mark ( 575945 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:15AM (#5167040)
    The Graphics card that breaks the 10,000 product number will take up two PCI slots as well as the AGP one, need an IDE channel all to itself, and may or may not require you to sell your first born.

    They probably wont go with the last one though. Who is going to have both children AND a next-gen graphics card? :-P

    -Mark

  • And the winner is... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wiggys ( 621350 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:16AM (#5167049)
    ATi!

    1) It's cheaper than the new Geforce FX.
    2) Performance on average is almost as good.
    3) It doesn't sound like a jumbo jet.
    4) It doesn't gobble up a PCI slot

    I'm amazed nVidia have "released" this card now (well, a vapour release... you can't actually buy them yet). The performance is barely faster than the ATi card... when ATi released their 9700 it would WAY faster than nVidia's fastest (Ti4600).

    It's also interesting to note that ATi's drivers seem to behave better than nVidia's... now that's something I didn't think I'd hear myself saying 12 months ago.

    • Aww, c'mon. Be fair. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Open_The_Box ( 620252 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:39AM (#5167147)
      The drivers are still at the same development point as the card. More worrying is the poor memory interface which the Extreme Tech article pokes the big-stick-o-blame towards.

      I'm willing to give nVidia the chance to improve their drivers and work out the bugs before I make a final decision.

      The huge PCI gobbling cooling solution just doesn't do it for me though. I mean, sure. If you're using it mainly for games and you don't want to be bothered by the noise doubling+ when you use any 3D functions then you can just turn up the volume and deal with it but can you imaging doing any serious graphical rendering?

    • Re:And the winner is... (Score:4, Informative)

      by zBoD ( 86938 ) <BoD@JRAF.org> on Monday January 27, 2003 @11:12AM (#5167303) Homepage Journal
      I've had 3 ati cards in my life, and 3 of them had drivers and software as stable as a tau lepton.

      I currently have an All in wonder 8500dv. The player crashes while I'm *watching tv*. It also crashes while I'm *watching a dvd*.
      I also try to use it as a tivo-like, but for that I have to reinstall the "windows media format" codecs very often (of course you have to reboot when you do that)... they just disappear and I can't record tv.

      _VERY_ annoying :)
    • It's also interesting to note that ATi's drivers seem to behave better than nVidia's... now that's something I didn't think I'd hear myself saying 12 months ago.

      Tell me about it! ATi used to have nasty drivers, and not all that impressive hardware.

      I used to laugh at people with ATi cards...
      Now I'm considering being one of those people! :)
    • I just broke my streak of 3 consecutive nvidia card purchases and picked up an ati9500np (softmodded9700 =) and these reviews make me happy I made the choice.

      I can't help but get a sense of deja-vu though, the geforceFX has all the markings of that last monstrosity 3DFX released just before they went out of business.

  • One more step towards obsolescence (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Amroarer ( 645110 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:17AM (#5167050) Journal
    I find reviews of new-and-shiny hardware more and more depressing these days, as they only serve to remind me how far behind the curve my PC is falling.

    It seems such a short time ago that TNT2 was a chipset to be proud of... [sigh]

    • Thing is, the industry convinces you that you need a 3.06 HT enabled P4, 2 gigs of DDR 400 and a Radeon9700 or GeForceFX to get buy. And people believe it.

      I put together a couple little rigs for my kids for christmas, based around the Shuttle FV-25 flex atx board. They have 1 gig Celerons (Tualitan series with 256k cache), and 256 megs of PC133 each. The video is an onboard Savage Twister chipset.

      I'd planned on just letting them do stuff like watch DVDs, play some of the cheesy flash-based edutainment games and whatnot. But I was surprised just how well modern games run on the things.

      They even run Unreal Tournament 2k3 with no problems. Granted, it doesnt run at 1600x1200 with 8xFSAA and wizzlebling texture humping, but it runs and its playable.

      I think it just annoys me that they've bred a generation of people calling themselves 'computer experts', and thinking that just means owning the very latest products.

  • Waste of time and money (Score:4, Interesting)

    by unterderbrucke ( 628741 ) <unterderbrucke@yahoo.com> on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:18AM (#5167055)
    Anyone who is buying this is just wasting their hard-earned money and time. Especially since it costs near $400.
    All the GeForce FX does it improve effects using the DirectX 8 dynamic pipeline improvements, and it's been 2 years and 3 generations of cards since DirectX 8 came out, and there have been only 2 cards using the dynamic pipeline.
    Also, the GeForce FX is a monstrosity. In order to keep it cool, there is a huge fan mounted on it, which causes it to take up an AGP slot and PCI slot, and the card still isn't cooled adequately.
    In short, if you're buying this, you're either rich and/or stupid. It doesn't even support Linex fully yet.

    • Re:Waste of time and money (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @11:15AM (#5167325) Homepage
      All the GeForce FX does it improve effects using the DirectX 8 dynamic pipeline improvements

      Huh?

      It's a DX9 compliant part... it can do quite a bit using DX9 that DX8 can't. The same is true for the ATI 9700.

      No, there aren't any DX9 games available yet. And there weren't and DX8 games out when the GF3 was released. But if you're buying with an eye toward the future then you'd be smart to buy a DX9 compliant card, whether it's the ATI 9700 or GFFx. That or buy a $100 GF4 Ti4200 now and the 9700/Fx a year or so from now for $150ish.

      I'll agree with you on the cooling issues, and it's pretty clear that nVidia blew it on this one. The ATI 9700 is a better card, cheaper, and has been out longer. The drivers don't seem to be an issue right now (although they may be in a year or two... ATI has a pretty crappy track record on extended support). The new revision of the ATI chip should be out in a month or two as well, and they've claimed 20-30% higher performance than the 9700... which really hurts nVidia.

      BTW, there are Fx drivers in the nVidia module (see Appendix A of the README - NV30 is listed). They're probably not completely tuned, but neither are the Windows drivers. Based on past history, you can expect significant driver improvements in 3-6 months.

      • Re:Waste of time and money (Score:5, Informative)

        by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @01:18PM (#5168047)
        > But if you're buying with an eye toward the future then you'd be smart to buy a DX9 compliant card, whether it's the ATI 9700 or GFFx. That or buy a $100 GF4 Ti4200 now and the 9700/Fx a year or so from now for $150ish.

        Yes, I' of the same opinion. In case any one is curious, here's the Bang for the Buck ratios. (Yes, I know a straight linear equation is accurate, but it's "good enough.")

        Performance from: Tom's Hardware VGA Charts - 3D Mark 2001 SE [tomshardware.com]
        Prices from: Price Watch - Video Cards [pricewatch.com]


        Video Card Name ...Performance Price .. Perf / Price
        Radeon 9700 Pro ... 15497 .... $225 ... 68.88
        GeForce 4 Ti4600 .. 13464 .... $216 ... 62.33
        GeForce 4 Ti4400 .. 12805 .... $187 ... 68.48
        GeForce 4 Ti4200 .. 12122 .... $112 .. 108.23
        GeForce 3 Ti 500 .. 10232 .... $206 ... 49.67
        GeForce 3 Ti 200 ... 8440 ..... $82 .. 102.93

        Cheers

        --
        People's morality is like water going down hill - it takes the shortest path to reach its goals
        - Poho
        • These numbers don't mean what you think they mean. Perf vs. Price is good, when you don't have a video card to begin with. When you already have a video card, you have to figure out what your Improved Perf. vs. Price ratio will be. A GF4Ti4200 has excellent price-to-performance ratio, but if you're coming up from an original GF3, then your 3DMark performance will probably sit somewhere between the GF3's on the chart. In a case like that, the Radeon 9700 Pro would probably be an ideal investment, since (off-the-cuff calculation) it would offer the best added bang to the buck.

  • nVidia goes for a new market! (Score:5, Funny)

    by wiggys ( 621350 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:20AM (#5167063)
    "Buy the new Geforce FX - not only will your games run smoother than ever before but you'll ALSO receive a free heater and vacuum cleaner built in!"

  • Directx 9 cards are all well and good... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wiggys ( 621350 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:22AM (#5167067)
    ...but the most important point that reviewers have so far overlooked is the fact that there are currently *NO* directx9 games out at the moment.

    Not only that, but the number of games which actually utilise a Geforce 3's features (let alone a Geforce 4) are few and far between.

    • Re:Directx 9 cards are all well and good... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trunks ( 35615 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:36AM (#5167126)
      Well, Unreal 2 [unreal2.com] is coming out in a week or two...I believe that will be the first DX9 game available.
      Not only that, but the number of games which actually utilise a Geforce 3's features (let alone a Geforce 4) are few and far between.
      The same thing was said about hardware T&L support way back when. Shaders is a BIG thing, and pretty much every major 3D game in development right now is utilizing shader support of some sort.

      ----------

  • Effiecient cooling solution. (Score:4, Funny)

    by stephenisu ( 580105 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:25AM (#5167072)
    I always wanted to put a vapor-phase cooling system in my computer. I have always decided against this due to the noise the compressor makes. Now we finally have a video card the is louder than a compressor when its 3-d pipeline is running (73db). I am going to have to install it this summer. For now my room is cold, and I may run a heat pipe from the card in front of my feet.
    • Based on the 2 reviews, the Db level is much lower than that.

      One reviewer said that it was 54 Db in 2D mode and 58 Db in 3D mode (opengl or DirectX) - Extreme Tech
      The 2nd reviewer said that the noise was at 56Db in 2D mode and 60 Db in 3D mode. - HardOCP

      Either way it's still way lower than 70Db, because every increase of 3 Db mean the sound is twice as loud (logarithmic scale). A GeForce FX is definitely not as loud as a compressor running at 70 Db, because that compressor would be actually 4 times louder than a GeForce FX.

  • Nvidia cards get TOO HOT (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slaker ( 53818 )
    I've been telling people for a long time to avoid nvidia cards because they get too warm inside a case. Now they've released a card with heat sinks on one side and some kind of toad-shaped fan thing on the other.

    Anyone ever spit (or put snow) on a hot stove?

    I'll bet the same thing would happen if you spit on those heatsinks while this card is running.

    Ridiculous.

    I'm not going to sit here and say that this card has more power than it needs. Someday, in about three years, there probably WILL be computer games that need that much power.

    But in the meantime, how much extra environmental work will the hobbyists and system builders using this SOB need to do to keep their PCs stable, cool and quiet? Seems to me that if nvidia invested all the extra time in designing a cooling solution such as the one that's been shown so far, maybe they could've done some extra engineering work to make sure they didn't NEED a cooling solution along those lines.

    • Re:Nvidia cards get TOO HOT (Score:5, Funny)

      by JohnFluxx ( 413620 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:37AM (#5167132)
      > Anyone ever spit (or put snow) on a hot stove?

      Don't do this! I've been fired twice for doing that. Same thing happens when you spit in the chip frier, and even the hamburgers.
    • I'm not going to sit here and say that this card has more power than it needs. Someday, in about three years, there probably WILL be computer games that need that much power.


      Carmack and Doom3. He is programming this game with the intention of using all of this cards capabilities.

      Hopefully there will be a new measure of performance other than Q3A or UT2003 fps scores.
    • I have the leadtek geforce 4 ti4600 card. Nice card.

      Right this moment the heatsink on the card is on the cooler side of warm to the touch. The PC has been running for about 17 days give or take.

      Now what was that crap about a hot stove?
      • He was talking about a GeForce FX

        Yeah, silly, considering he doesn't have one... but then again, neither do you!

        All he said was he bet that it would be like spitting on a stove, which is reasonable since his statement clearly indicates he is speculating.

  • 3D performance (Score:3, Interesting)

    by amigaluvr ( 644269 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:26AM (#5167078) Journal
    So many new cards seem to accentuate their 3D performance, is there anything done to really make for excellent 2D performance, or is that langiushing?. I know there is a much bigger market for 3D and its the sexy exciting thing, but is there more than can be done for the 2D work too?
    • Mostly 2d performance has been "Ok" scince the ATI Rage Pro. Windows doesn't really use 2d accelleration, and that's a big problem for wide acceptance. 2d performance is actually moving more in the 3d direction, at least for Enlightenment, wit h their newest engine that is still unreleased. It does seem like a really cool idea though. Enough ranting.

      • Re:3D performance (Score:5, Informative)

        by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:58AM (#5167230) Homepage
        Windows doesn't really use 2d accelleration

        Huh?

        Since when?

        Video cards have had 2D acceleration for the past 10 years, and it makes a huge difference. Letting the card do simple operations like BitBlt, line draws, etc. instead of the CPU doing all the work and then pushing it off to the DAC offloads a ton of work. You clearly do not remember when text scrolling in a window was orders of magnitude slower than scrolling it full screen. I do. I also remember the first card that reversed this for me - a Number9 Imagine128 that I won at Comdex. This was back when 3D acceleration meant an Onyx with RealityEngine for $500k+.

        2D performance is rarely an issue nowadays. If it is, then you're either doing something unusual in 2D or you're using amazingly crappy drivers.

        • Re:3D performance (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Boone^ ( 151057 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @11:35AM (#5167482)
          I believe the 2D acceleration is a moot point (already been conquered), but 2D image quality is another. Many NVidia OEM companies who build their own boards (geforce4 and earlier) are in total control with regards to the component selection. It's been proven that IQ suffers when companies purchase cheap surface mount filtering parts to cut costs and make their card look better than another's. Those cheap parts work just fine when the DAC is drawing a 1024x768 screen in a 3D game, but fail miserably when drawing desktops at 1600x1200 (and up!) due to the increased bandwidth.
  • But did they pull a Quake/Quack type of trick?
  • But how about getting us a card that normal people can afford? I can't even afford a G4 right now - damn military...
    I realize that these things cost money, but let's get realistic... You have to keep the prices low, otherwise people won't buy the product...
    And I think that the 2 slot thing is jsut wrong...
    Why not simply put all the hardware on the OTHER side of the card. (I'm sure there's a reason for this) Then you don't need that goofy looking heatsink/fan combo...I would think that maybe you could reroute the heat that way....
    /shrug
    That's my take.... /suits up in flameproof suit
    • Since when did anything new in computing become affordable? Or a car, a t.v set - the list goes on. When there is competition and new stuff always coming out prices will always come down (barring external factors). You'll always get some stupid rich kid going out and buying all the latest and greatest. But as long as there is a demand prices usually stay high.

    • Re:that's great and all (Score:3, Insightful)

      by be-fan ( 61476 )
      New stuff is expensive. But new stuff makes old stuff be cheaper. Right now, a GF4 Ti 4200 can be had for just over $100. It's a great buy, and at that price, you can afford to upgrade much more often. Of course, there are people that actually do need this kind of power (the vertex and pixel shaders are amazing, just from a programming point of view) and they're willing to pay for it.

  • OMG (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scotay ( 195240 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:30AM (#5167095)
    I got my 9700 in the last week of August, and I simply can't believe that as of Jan 2003, NVidia has no compelling response.

    Extremetech even points to the 9700 AS BEING FASTER when the eye candy is ramped at the high resolutions.

    I can only imagine the puckered rectums and sleepless nights of Nvidia's engineering crew when the 9700 first came out. They must have really been caught by surprise. I suspect the last months have been spent furiously tuning their drivers to remain competitive. Which they have done - barely.

    I've been telling the fence-sitters to stop waiting and jump on ATI. No reason to wait anymore, even for an Nvidia fanboy.
    • GF FX:8XSAA, 8XAF; 27fps
      R9700pro:6XAA, 16AF; 62fps

      I think those were at 1024x768(unless they reduced the image size), and don't anyone dare arguing that the fx was using 8x AA, because the 9700pro LOOKS better, not to mention 2x+ fps, just look at the "wire" thing near the upper left of the screen, it is significantly better looking on the 9700.

    • Re:OMG (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @06:09PM (#5169817)
      No reason to wait anymore, even for an Nvidia fanboy.

      Really? Has ATI released industrial-quality OpenGL drivers for Linux?

      Great support for Linux is one reason to go NVIDIA...let me know when ATI's Linux 3D support compares to NVIDIA.

  • Endless Upgrade Train (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnugeekus ( 463988 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:32AM (#5167107)
    A month ago, I did something I hadn't done in years. I bought a new gaming console system. This is the first console system I've bought since my Colecovision. I have been, for the past twenty years or so, a die hard PC gamer. I turned my nose up at consoles.

    For the last month, I've been having a blast. I picked up a few games, and all of them have been fun. I haven't touched a computer game in a month, other than nethack and zangband.

    I'm now of the opinion that computer gaming is just a waste. Are there some good computer games? Yes. Do the very best computer games have better graphics than consoles, if you have good hardware? Yes. No console is beating out unreal tournament 2003 at 1600x1200 resolution. The console systems do have very nice graphics, though. More than good enough. And more importantly...

    For the first time in 20 years I don't have to worry about whether my hardware is good enough to run the game I just bought.

    PC gaming hardware is getting completely insane. $400 for a new 3d card? You can buy *two* console gaming systems for that! And a year from now, there will be a new $400 video card out, with endless articles about how it makes the $400 card you just bought last year look like garbage.

    Who needs it? I'm enjoying gaming again more than I have for a long time. I don't have to run an OS I don't like by a company I don't like just to play some game that won't work under winex and doesn't have a Linux port. I don't have to mess around with installing anything. I don't have to sit in a stupid office chair at a desk. Just pop the game in, turn the console on, chill on the couch, and have fun.

    I'm set til 2005 or 2006 when the new consoles com e out. Upgrading every 4 or 5 years to a new console, and then not having to sweat it again, is looking really nice.And the computer I currently have will be more than powerful enough to read web pages, send email, and write code on for a long, long time.
    • The only sad thing about consoles is that you can't download games for free to try them out before you buy 'em. So, you have a higher risk of buying something crappy. Other than that, I have a good time with my PS2.
    • I recently got a console also, and while I see your point, I also strenuously disagree. Why? The gameplay.

      I've found that on my console, I can turn it on, wait for it to boot for a minute or two (while staring at a giant X), and then play games for a couple of hours. Or half an hour. Or 5 minutes. Light, meaningless fun. I race my car around or shoot things, and then I try and find a waypoint, save, and turn it off.

      On the computer, I boot it up. (about the same amount of time, except it doesn't have the cool X this time). I start Neverwinter (or Thief 2 or Deus Ex or Pro Pinball or even Freedom Force) and play that for several hours. I sunk probably 80 hours in NWN, just on the main campaign, and probably another 10 on modules. Deep, deep, game. Immersive as heck, and I can't see it being done on a console. Any console.

      Light, quick fun? Sure, console. Need to kill 5 minutes before I have to leave the house? Console. I may even give Deus Ex 2 a shot on the console. But if the Splinter Cell demo is any indication, it's not the same. Each has their place. And, of course, there's the matter of games. How many of my fave games are on the console? Damnably few.
    • No, the thing is that most gamers don't actually buy these $400 gaming cards. I think most people are like me and wait to upgrade until their games don't run at good FPS anymore, and then they get the best card that they can for around $150 or so. My Geforce 2 GTS is still performing decently and I've had it for 2 years. When I upgrade, I'm planning on getting a 9700 Pro or something on that idea, but I'm not doing that until we see a killer game come out.

      You also game off of a computer if you want to play FPS and RTS, which both have large markets. If you don't like those games, then sure, a console should do ya. I'm a big fan though, so dropping about 400 bucks every couple of years to upgrade my computer isn't really all that bad.

      I do agree with you however that it's VERY nice to pick up a game and not have to worry at all about performance issues or installation problems or whatnot.

  • Nomenclature (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mraymer ( 516227 ) <mraymer&centurytel,net> on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:38AM (#5167145) Homepage Journal
    Anyone else think this name really sucks? The average Joe is going to think FX sounds a little too much like MX to be the new top-of-the-line model. I read that they got the name because this is the first card to use technology from the purchase of 3DFX. Anyway, regardless of where it came from, it's a bad name. Especially since the GeForce4 MX line is horrible, even worse than a GeForce3...
  • My system specs (my "gaming machine" that is):

    AMD Athlon XP 1800 (1.53 ghz)
    256MB pc133
    Nvidia GeForce 2 MX 400 (64mb, AGP 2x, 150mhz GPU)
    Guillemot Muse $15 sound card with stock C-Media chipset
    Windows 98 SE

    With this setup and I can play any modern game at maximum graphical settings at barely any performance loss (a tiny bit of skipping every now-and-again). Games that I currently own and play at maximum settings:

    War Craft 3
    No One Lives Forever 2
    Grand Theft Auto 3
    Operation Flashpoint
    Jedi Knight 2

    When the next generation of games comes out, I'll buy 256 MB more RAM and maybe a geForce 3. It's funny to me how many people actually buy the latest and greatest, too.

    • What is "fast enough" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TobyWong ( 168498 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @12:11PM (#5167664)
      Ask your average ford tempo owner if their car is "fast enough" and they will say "of course! It gets me around"

      Now go tell a porsche owner "Hey by the way, a ford tempo is fast enough" and they will look at you like you are a drooling idiot.

      Your video card may get you from A to B and maybe for your needs that is sufficient but no, a tempo is not comparable to porsche by ANY stretch of the imagination.
    • 1600 AMD XP GeForce 3 Ti200 512 MB DDR RAM XP Home I run Quake III @ 90 fps and UT 2K3 @ 80 fps at 1024x768. I can't imagine needing a faster machine for today's games. Running the Doom III Demo, I got a whopping 5 fps. Now, when that comes out, I may decide to upgrade to a 4200. But, I simply refuse to drop $300+ on a freakin video card. That's simply ridiculous.

  • Obligatory Amex Commercial Spoof (Score:5, Funny)

    by crosseyedatnite ( 19044 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:47AM (#5167178) Homepage
    New motherboard: $117
    New CPU: $105
    Radeon 9700 Pro: $320

    Finding out that nVidia's upcoming card will cost more, offers little to no performance increase, and will be loud and hot: Priceless

  • Stability (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xr6791 ( 244764 )
    So far, it is indeed better overall than the 9700Pro, but not enough for it's price.

    Excellent drivers are priceless. I hope ATI will arrive at that point soon. At least two strong players are needed to create a competitive gfx card market.
    • The reviews disagree on some things, but every single one of them points out that ATi's drivers are far better and more mature than for the 5800FX. Get your head out of ... the past. ATi's dirver's are stable, mature and optimized. NVidia would be lucky to catch up before ATi releases their next great card.
  • So now we get marginally better performance at the expensive an loud, extremely hot, very power hungry video card?

    Certainly the law of diminishing returns has kicked in by now.

  • Hard OCP conclusion (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 27, 2003 @10:55AM (#5167220)
    >>> The Bottom Line: The GeForceFX 5800 Ultra is a very hot and noisy beast that may give you a bit of an edge over the current king of the hill, the ATI 9700 Pro in some applications. If you are an NVIDIA fanboy, this of course has your name all over it. At the current US$400.00 price point, the GFFX simply does not seem worth it to us. If NVIDIA can work some driver magic and pull an extra 20% increase in frame rate out of the bag like we have seen in the past; they had best start pulling. Either that or pull out the NV35 chipset, and quick.

    This year will be interesting as both ATI and NVIDIA know it is all about having the best VidCard on the market when DOOM]|[ hits. <<<

  • nVidia drivers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by realnowhereman ( 263389 ) <andyparkins@gmai l . com> on Monday January 27, 2003 @11:01AM (#5167245)
    We've got some GeForce 4's installed where I work. We've had to use nvidia's own driver because the open source one doesn't support the card yet. I've just lost a days worth of simulation results because nVidia's binary only driver crashed the X server.

    Every nVidia card I have had suffers exactly this problem. Geforce2 MX200/400, tnt2, Geforce4. With the open source driver they are an absolute dream; with nVidia's driver - crashes of varying degrees. I would imagine that since the linux and windows drivers are now from a unified code base that exactly the same problem occurs under windows but noone notices because windows crashes so much.

    How can they allow the open source X driver to be better? I mean seriously - what are nVidia doing? This sort of thing does not instill confidence. Open the source, if you can't because of patent issues then open the parts of the source that you can open. Hire the guys writing the open source driver as they are clearly infinitely better at it than your current lot.

    Essentially we are buying graphics cards from a hardware company - the fact that we need drivers is an inconvenience that we all live with because the convenience of being able to mix and match our pc hardware outweighs it. I am not interested in the internals of your drivers - I just want the card to work. Here is an easy business plan for all hardware manufacturers:
    1. Make hardware
    2. Open the driver source/hardware specs
    3. ....
    4. Profit

    Linux is coming, accept this and get ready to jump on the bandwagon.

    Now they are putting out cards that apparently don't perform much better than their competition. This is a dangerous position to be in. Just one year ago, this would have been laughable - nVidia produced cards that were cheaper and better than everyone elses. Now... no one is blown away. This is a company that is on a downard slope.
    • But was too quick to blame the driver, myself: it crashed frequently in both Linux and Windows, whereas the open source driver worked without a hiccup (and without 3D acceleration, ugh...); however, replacing my power supply without changing any of the software made things perfectly stable as far as I could tell. If you can't afford to experiment with tearing your computer apart, you might want to at least try the closed source driver with AGP support turned off (Option "NvAGP" "0" or something like that in the XF86Config file) and see if it works any better.

    • nVidia drivers are actually a selling point (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pastey ( 577467 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @11:45AM (#5167524)
      Every nVidia card I have had suffers exactly this problem. Geforce2 MX200/400, tnt2, Geforce4. With the open source driver they are an absolute dream; with nVidia's driver - crashes of varying degrees. I would imagine that since the linux and windows drivers are now from a unified code base that exactly the same problem occurs under windows but noone notices because windows crashes so much.

      You assume incorrectly, at least as far as stability under Windows. As a matter of fact I'd hazard to say that nVidia's drivers are a HUGE selling point under Windows. At least they are to me and most other people I know who use their home PC for more than word processing. nVidia's cards have been solid 3D performers since the TNT, but I like many others want a graphic card in my PC that just works. What other graphic card (or any other component manufacturer for that matter) has managed to increase performance by 40% with the driver alone?

      I will agree the Linux binaries need help. Up until recently I ran a dual boot Mandrake/Win98SE install as my main rig. After upgrading to XP I have yet to reinstall a distro, though I'll get around to it. The nVidia drivers under Mandrake seemed almost as if they had come from a different company, given my favorable experiences under Windows.


      Now that ATI not only has a product with comparable performance ~$100 cheaper than nVidia's latest but ALSO has stable drivers things are really starting to get interesting.

      Don't write nVidia off yet though - far too many people did the same to ATI a few years ago.

    • Are you using multi-head by any chance? The TwinView code seems to be kinda flaky. Also, are you running the 4191 drivers, which have some major architectural changes and are thus kinda flaky. I've been using NVIDIA's Linux drivers back before it was cool (on a TNT-1) and they've been perfectly stable.

      PS> NVIDIA is in no position to open their drivers. We're not talking a NIC card driver here. An OpenGL ICD is the whole OpenGL subsystem. NVIDIA's "drivers" total about 5-6MB, and includes kernel and XFree drivers, GLX module, and GL and GLU libraries. There is a whole lot of high level stuff in there that 1) NVIDIA doesn't own all the IP to and 2) Could really help out manufacturers with sucky drivers (*cough* ATI *cough*).
  • So far, it is indeed better overall than the 9700Pro, but not enough for it's price.

    Language police nitpicking:

    it's - short for it is
    its - possessive pronoun meaning belonging to it

    In this case, the correct writing of the above sentence would be "...but not enough for its price".

    ...eh. Wait, did I just nitpick Slashdot editors' grammar? I guess I should go do something more productive, like stand on one leg for as long as possible. :-)
  • I was planning on upgrading my system when Doom III becomes available to cope with it's hardware spec, and an FX was definitely looking like being the card. The test results are so disappointing tho I might as well opt for an Radeon 9700 Pro and pocket the change. Maybe the NV30 range will be out by then, and maybe they will be better, but honestly it looks like NVidia has clearly lost it's crown. All hail the new leader ATI! (and in next years surprise news Tseng Labs make a comeback and claim the crown of fastest video card).

  • Better overall??? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 10Ghz ( 453478 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @11:20AM (#5167366)
    Let's see:

    -It's huge (eats a PCI-slot) and noisy
    -It costs more than 9700
    -It's not available yet
    -It has inferior AA and AF
    -When using AA and AF it usually loses to 9700
    -According to Anandtech, it's minimun FPS is alot lower than 9700's (it even loses to non-pro 9700!)

    So how exactly it's "better overall"?

  • Other Features? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
    I have a Geforce 2 MX400. It's fine for 2D. It's fine for 3D (Sure I can play UT2003 on it just about, but since it's not as fun as BZFlag, I don't). It also supports 2 monitors. Unfortunately, it only has a single 350MHz RAMDAC, and so I can't run my monitors at more than 1280x1024 if I want more than a 60Hz refresh rate. The Geforce4 MX (I know they're not as good as a GF3, but they're 50% faster than my current card, which is more than adequate) series has dual RAMDACs, so can run each monitor at silly resolutions, and so I'm tempted to upgrade. The problem? Very few manufacturers (none that I've found) actually install the second D-SUB connector on the board. This means that there is no graphics card availible that will actualy support dual display on 2 analogue monitors at the kind of resolutions I want to run (1600x1200@75 would be a nice start). Perhaps manufacturers could focus on broadening their feature set, rather than just putting more and more 3D speed into their cards.
    (I know Matrox do some nice dual head cards, but their 3D performance is a joke).
    • Radeon 9500 non-pro 128 meg

      Softmods to the equivalent of a 9700, you can overclock it and it gets close to a 9700pro in performance. Has 2 RAMDACs, I was running 1600x1200 on both monitors yesterday.

      IMO it blows nvidia cards away in 2D visual quality (I also own 2 geforces and a TNT2 ultra).

      159 bucks USD at newegg.com
  • How is that big blower going to behave when it gets a lot of dust in it? It doesn't look like you can just stick a duster can up to it and spray it out like a normal heatsink-fan... you will probably need to keep the computer on (outside?) and spray with the duster to dislodge anything. It better have easy to remove screws to remove the outer shell for cleaning.
  • How many of you people actually have all those PCI slots filled anyway? Granted yes, this thing sounds like a hulking beast, but, do you REALLY need that 5th PCI slot?
  • It seems like any jackass can be a hardware review site nowadays. They just check the 3d Mark scores, notice how they're not that much faster than current ATi, and then say the card sucks. What the hell is up with that?

    Another thing.. about the cooling system. Look, the cooler is just part of the reference design. Other manufacturers are no doubt going to come up with their own solutions to the cooling problem that aren't perhaps as loud. I have my watercooling system, so I don't have to worry about such things.

    As for people complaining about the price, I didn't hear anybody whining when the 9700 pro/etc. came out with a hefty price tag. And I can bet within a month or two of the FX coming out the price will drop $50 or more, easily. And once manufacturers start making their own boards and designs, it will probably drop even more.

    There's nVidia fan boys and there's ATi fan boys. I've always tried to be in the middle, but I've constantly been upset by ATi's horrible drivers. I have owned 4 ATi cards in my years of computing, and all 4 are now sitting in the closet as junk (including my all-in-wonder radeon 7500) because of their driver sets. Their new "Catalyst" drivers are a step in the right direction (nVidia got it right the first time) but they still have major issues.
  • I just got curious, seeing how many times this was mentioned. I have 6 PCI slots, I use 2 - do people really find ways to fill up all 6?

    (not that I don't think this card is a loud and noisy waste of money - I still have my $300 GeForce3, and boy does that make vi look great!)

    • 1. ISDN card
      2. Sound blaster AUDIGY
      3. Wireless D-Link 22mbs card
      4. Intel Pro 10/100 card
      5. Adaptec 2940 SCSI card
      6. BlueTooth card

      I use all these cards at some time. OK, I could rationalise the network cards as I only use 1 at a time, but I don't really like opening up my case and swapping cards and stuff when I goto a LAN party (ethernet) or visit my parents (ISDN connection) and go back home (wifi).

      Also, I dont use the bluetooth card all the time - it's mainly to connx to my Palm and transfer pictures rarely to my phone for caller pictures ;)

      Even rarer I use my SCSI card as I'm now using IDE disks and CDR for backup. But I may need to plug in my external DDS-2 tape drive for an old file.

      I like all the cards there when I need em and dont want to be messing about changing them.

      So, yeah, I use all 6 slots. Guess I'll be sticking with my 9700 Pro :D

  • Bitch Bitch Bitch (Score:5, Funny)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @12:22PM (#5167734)
    /. seems to have become the home of a bunch of pansies. "My iMac doesn't have a fan!" "The fan noise is too loud!" "My ears are bleeding!" Bah. You're all sissies. I'm an Inspiron 8200 owner. It burns my lap and punctures my eardrums with fan noise! I have to turn my 400-watt Klipschs all the way up just to hear music! And I *like* it that way! This new GPU fan isn't so bad. I've got a 7000 RPM fan on my Athlon back home, and not only can I hear the jet-turbine noise in another room, I can hear it on another floor! And I *like* it that way! So bring it on NVIDIA! It's not like I can hear the damn thing anyway!

  • Not Everyone Likes the NVidia... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by puppetman ( 131489 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @01:29PM (#5168130) Homepage
    "So far, it is indeed better overall than the 9700Pro, but not enough for it's price."

    What?

    Anandtech said of the 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."

    And I like Tom's hardware comparing the card to the Voodoo 6000. True, he was referring to the snazzy looks of the card, but I suspect there was a bit of a dig in there as well. After all, that was one of the last cards 3dfx made before they went under...

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Close