GeforceFX=surprisingly slow

[Hammer]

I'm not saying nvidia is toast...but they better work very hard on their next card...or their going down...

IF history can be use as a guide, it took NV11 and NV15 to fix most of the problems with NV10. All 3 cards are DirectX 7 class GPU.

The typical nVidia initial product introduction problems were also mirrored with nForce 1. The problem was mostly fixed with nForce 2.  Both have DirectX7 class IGP and Sound Storm APU.

I don’t think they would change this pattern.

Another Geforce FX vs ATI R300 refer tothis

I wonder why Nvidia didn’t go for Leadtek size solid copper based solution. Leadtek cooling solution is to add metal around 80 percent of the card’s surface (both sides).  

John Carmack's statements regarding DOOM3, R300 and NV30.

[Hammer]

(SNIP) has a semi-poor built-in sound card that no gamer would want

Poor sound card? Note that Dolby recommends nForce2 for playing games with Dolby Digital content.

Refer to http://www.dolby.com/games/pc.faq.html

[Hammer]

Fine be a nitpicking prick. You said "is that relevant" If its not relevant then its pointless. The message was the same.

Concession accepted!

So WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING IT THEN?

Subjective assertion.  Where did I say that?

Funny the Radeon 9700Pro reference board was identical to most of the ones for sale now, and very similar in performance to the review samples.

Not with the newer drivers releases and BIOS fixes...

It still has more, yet is not as good as the competition.
.

You recall that both cards has exceeded the DirectX 9 standard.

yet is not as good as the competition.
.

Are you asserting that statement for all of the cases? Precision is better than generalization.  

 Refer to Anandtech, There's your evidence.
.

Any statistical data must n>30 btw, and driver reversion can play a big part. Anandtech currently uses v42.63 beta driver. The current leaked driver is at v42.86.

Another preview can gathered from  
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,846380,00.asp
http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2003-01-03.html
http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1107-8-20824307-1.html?tag=txt
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Previews/geforcefx/

I've allready read what john carmack has to say, and its not a glowing endorsement.

False, He did state that both have their weakness i.e. depending on the code path.

Now I'm sure you'll nitpick through this entire post, as you are clearly a Nvidia fanboy,

Subjective assertion.
 

and cant handle that they, just like everyone else can make crap hardware every now and again.

I did recall that nForce 1 and NV10 was relatively flawed product. I wonder is a fanboy now?  

Can’t you read properly?

Nvidia fanboys are now so common that there's a special word for them now:-
NVIDIOT!

Getting personal doesn’t get you anywhere.
Grow up little boy!!!

Ever notice how you're the only one defending the GeforceFX here. There is a reason for that, you know.

Irreverent to the topic.   Try again Minion

[Hammer]

AmiDelf wrote:
oki.. I shoot...

Even AGA is better than any of these PC gfx boards for sure. The texts dosent flow right

Could you be more specific?

[Hammer]

As expected you nitpick. To everyone reading this thread
it is obvious that you are defending the NV30.

More irrelevant character based rhetoric.

Its not exactily a glowing endorsement

Who said it was “not exactily a glowing endorsement”?

You are putting words in month where is doesn’t exist. You are assuming too much.

Did you missed statement regarding the limits being reach for R9700? The speed is heavily dependant on the code path.

What you are doing here is like trying to get off for a crime on a technicality, not prove your innocense. Stop nitpicking and get to the point.

Irrelevant to the issue. It is you who diverted
this thread toward a character based flame war.

That affected performance how much?
Exactily.
Mainly bug fixes (SNIP)

Refer ATI’s 3 month lead on driver maturity statements. Are you claiming ATI doesn't also increase their driver performance while they fix their bugs?  

Look in ATI fan base forums regards testing of newer
Catalyst drivers and their expected 3DMarks2001SE/QuakeIII results.

To quote Australian PC User Dec 2002 Page 36
"This time, we managed to come up with one AGP8X motherboard that would
work with a Radeon 9700 - VIA's P4PB400 board. - but the performance results
were actually below those achieved with the AGP 4X board."

No speed lost was encoutered with SIS Xabre 400 and NV18 while using AGP 8X motherboard.

Refer to http://www4.tomshardware.com/business/20020925/atimojo-10.html
This is just a cited example for Catalyst v2.3 drivers.
Note that, this is not the latest Catalyst drivers.

There are more Catalyst  driver comparisons IF you search the web.

Obviously not, as you may have noticed that I mentioned in my first post that the NV30 was overall faster, just not by as much as it should, which was the whole point of this thread.

Refer to header title "GeforceFX=surprisingly slow".

Maybe, but you have just nitpicked through that entire post! Call it what you like its true.

Concession accepted.

See my comments on the John Carmack statement.

Did you missed the statement regarding the limits being reach for R9700?

 More proof of your hypocracy.

More irrelevant character based rhetoric.

Nitpicking doesn't get you anywhere.

Concession accepted.

Grow up pedantic prick!

That's all you can do?

Or if you didn't maybe you weren't such a fanboy then.

Because you systemically failed to read my posts.

Maybe you should grow up, eh? After all you're the one trawling the internet
continuously for reviews to prove everyone else wrong!

Wrong again. More irrelevant character based rhetoric. A website posted links relevant to GeF FX's benchmarks together.
 
Are you claiming that you are lazy or can't use a search engine effectively enough?  
 

I find that amusing that you call me a little boy for getting "personal",
but that sentence in itself just proves you are a hypocrite!

You’re the first cause, a flame starter; only a hippy
wouldn’t expect a return of fire.

hypocrite!

More irrelevant character based rhetoric.
That doesn’t get anywhere anywhere Mr recalcitrant.    

and you like Nvidia

More irrelevant character based rhetoric.

Relevant. You are the only one defending it.

Subjective assertion.

If it was so good, then dont you think there would be more ppl defending it. Once again you are nitpicking.

More irrelevant character based rhetoric.

Surprise, surprise, you're nitpicking again, now about statisitcal data, so here goes
that n>30 is bullsh*t. Statistical data can be gained from n=1, its just as you take more samples it gets more accurate.

Which one is better?

but it'll just show what a sad life you lead.

It just shows that you are lazy and can’t use a search engines effectively enough.

Another Geforce FX reversion (regarding the noise).
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7626
http://www.hardocp.com/

Quote from hardocp.com, Tuesday February 04, 2003

GeForceFX Reborn:
I know what you are thinking, "Already?" We were lucky enough to put our hands on a revamped GeForceFX 5800 Ultra on Monday and I can say that NVIDIA has moved their GFFX flagship in the right direction.

While physically identical in the picture above, except for the coloration of the ducting system, these are two very different GFFX Ultra cards. This new GFFX cooling system does not run in 2D operation, making it quieter than any other 3D cards in this current generation while not being used in a gaming capacity. When the GFFX Ultra is utilized in a 3D application, the fan system spins up and is still about as loud as it was before. NVIDIA reports it to be around 5dBa quieter than the models we saw Web reviews based on last week.

I gamed for around five hours on Monday with the card installed in my own case and I left the side cover off. The case sits at my feet. I found game play in UT2K3, MOHAA, Wolfenstein, and NFSHP2 to be very playable at 12x10 with 4XAA and 8XAF turned on. BF1942 was acting up on my card but after talking to NVIDIA, I am not sure if it is a driver glitch on their end of a system glitch on my end. Still, it is said to be working great at the NVIDIA labs in Austin, TX. I tend to game with the sound turned on, so I did not find the cooling system on the GFFX Ultra to be an issue at all, but we can all argue about that later.

Now that the noise is gone in 2D, and if it ends up on the shelves this way, there are going to be a lot more folks buying the GFFX Ultra and keeping it. Still, if you are used to a very quiet computing environment, the GFFX is most likely not for you.... but then again those games listed above probably are not either.

What did you say about preview releases (engineering release) being equal to final release?

Hammer wrote: Are there any reasons to agree in the first place? The product is not even released in the market place.

Minion wrote: Funny the Radeon 9700Pro reference board was identical to most of the ones for sale now, and very similar in performance to the review samples.

Are you're applying ATI’s experience on Nvidia?

The samples are merely engineering releases.
As hardocp.com's info has indicated, Nvidia was still working for the final release of the GeF FX.

We can’t make an informed judgment before the final release for said card.

[Hammer]

JoannaK wrote:

mips_proc wrote:

Its basically an overclocked GPU... it was originally intended to run at a slower clock...wich the lower-end bracket of that card will run at.

I'm not saying nvidia is toast...but they better work very hard on their next card...or their going down...

Agree on this.. It's not such a great chip. And apparently there are discussions of cancelling it alltogether.. See
this

NVidia may bypass the first generation product release cycle and go to the second-generation release cycle.  NVidia may not like “nForce 1” (or GeForce 256(NV10)) type untidiness.

[Hammer]

Minion: The point is the GeforceFX is a crock of sh*te.

In summary;
You: already made a hasty judgment.
- "GeforceFX=surprisingly slow"
- "GeforceFX is a crock of sh*te"

Me: wait for the final release, before making a judgment.

I don’t think “sitting on the fence” = defending nVidia in this case. A real Nvidiot would say "nVidia rulez” at every opportunity .

I wonder who is the fan boy now, when the final card was not even release yet.

Minion: 20 odd days aint goona get a huge performance increase in all likelyhood, is it? (and yes I know its been done before)

AND

Minion: I know, but thats not the point. This is the best Nvidia can come up with.

Not in this case, when a revised GeF FX(refer to www.hardocp.com) and newer Detonator drivers exist after majority(v42.6x) of the sample (engineering release) reviews.

Via guru3D.com
Detonator 42.86 was dated at 2/1/03 6.12/10
Detonator 42.81 was dated at 2/1/03 5.25/10

20 days is quite alot for nVidia's case.

The asserted claim for “This is the best Nvidia can come up with” is simply false.

We don’t know the inter-workings of nVidia labs.

PS; Note the date on the revised GeF FX.

The processor has more transistors than the R300, yet it's slower clock for clock than the R300.

That kind of argument doesn’t stick with Intel’s Pentium 4 btw. The packaged overall performance is more important.

There are reasons for the increase amount of transistors. Which I have given.

But you responded by;

I checked your link - personally I dont care if the R300 ONLY has 96 bit pixel shader precision, that still allows 7.9x10^28 different positions. I think thats plenty.

Sounds like “640kb is enough for everybody” statements…

I see you haven't not taken this into an account.  

GeF FX for the following;
1. 1024 Texture address operations per pass
2. 1024 Color instructions per pass

They would need extra transistors IF they support that feature in hardware.

Can you repeat your rhetoric IF ATI includes their own "128bit  pixel shader precision" and support for "1024 Texture address operations per pass"/"Color instructions per pass"  features in their next Rxx0 release?

I wonder who is the fan boy now.

Refer John Carmack's related statements regarding "maximum
instruction count" and "program limits on the R300".

Trevor Wilkin also echos a similar statements as with John Carmack.

(Trevor Wilkin is Lead Programmer for
Microsoft - Salt Lake City group)

I suspect this will be the same for DX9+ games aswell, driver optimisations or not.

Do you have basis for this?

As for anandtech.com's review...

As www.hardocp.com has indicated, Anandtech just embarrassed itself by presenting the sample GeF FX as the final review. The rush to be the first review for a particular product hardly equals quality review…

[Hammer]

mips_proc wrote:

Me: wait for the final release, before making a judgment

you mean wait for the final release

Correct.

and rant like a zealot at anyone who's already decided they dont want a dusbuster in their computer?

Where did I state this?  

What did www.hardocp.com say?

[Hammer]

I could disect your entire post, and nitpick every single point

Fire away...

Any points I make, you nitpick them to death, and decide they are not relevant

Any character based assertions should be irrelevant to the topic.

My original point "GeforceFX=surprisingly slow" still stands, as I was expenting it to wipe the floor with the Radeon 9700 Pro

IF one calculated the bandwidth before anandtech’s, GeF FX reviews, one can see that the GeF FX’s will not deliver performance in the hyped level expectations.

One should not fall for hype and remain in a neutral position until the they release the _final_ product.

You have spent an incredibly long time trying to prove to everyone that the GeforceFX is the best thing since sliced bread, (SNIP)
.

Where did I state this? Please be more specific.

Just remember - while you're trawling through your search engines trying to prove me wrong, I am working for a living and having fun

It just took me less than 30 minutes since I’ll ready booked marked most of mainstream PC hardware websites.

IF one works in the IT industry (solution provider), one should be abreast with future developments. This kind of information gathering is minor.
 

but it dont make the NV30 any good,

Find "good = NV30" in my post.

and its like winning the special olympics........

nVidia issuing of revised GeF FX means that they have more problems to be fix.

[Hammer]

I guess you can’t take the heat…

Refer to http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/jcnv30r300/index.php?p=2
For more John Carmack on NV30 vs R300 (06 February 2003). Notice the statements referring to nVidia driver improvements.

[Hammer]

Here’s one example for not jumping the gun to early…

Refer
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI4LDQ=

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA0NDkyODY4NXltVGQ3TE51aE1fNF80X2wuZ2lm

PS; Nvidia driver being used is 42.67(for the hardocp's newer nVidia driver test), not the latest 42.86 leak.

www.anandtech.com has used the slower 42.63
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1779&p=4

As the hardocp's preview has shown, the driver does play a significant role.

Avoiding early judgements will avoid making foolish statements.

[Hammer]

For some reason I actually bothered to read those URL's. Still confirms what I originally said - GFFX=not all that.

You are already passing a judgement based on 42.63 beta driver and hardware (e.g. noise issue)?

Didn't say it was slower than Radeon 9k7 Pro, just not that impressive

I recall the product was not even at it's final release form. The level of your asserted "impressive" should be based on math estimations. Not on just press hype.

You still havent proven that the GeforceFX is lots better than Rad9k7pro,
 

What’s to prove, when the product was not even in its final form?

Where did I asserted that "GeforceFX is lots better than Rad9k7pro"?

A "lots better" is inherently subjective.

and somehow, I doubt that you will.
 

Try again since, I have not stated or claimed  "GeforceFX is lots better than Rad9k7pro".