GeforceFX=surprisingly slow

[Minion]

Just seen the results for the GeforceFX on Tomshardware - Its totally lame considering it has a 500Mhz GPU clock with 1Ghz DDR=II memory.  On average its a little bit faster than a Radeon 9700 Pro, and in many tests, it is slower.  Bare in mind that the Radeon uses cheeper DDR memory, and lower tech 0.15 micron process.  Now if only ATI can sort out their drivers.
Whoever posted the GeforceFX WOWOWOWOWOW post needs to learn to not be suckered by marketing speak.  (remember the Pentium 4 Specs?)

[Minion]

Hammer wrote:
As with NV25 and R300 examples, the driver support has to mature. Refer to serious OpenGL driver battle royal for the indications of NV30's potential. At the moment, official release drivers doesn’t even support NV30+ family (only in leaked beta form).

I know, but thats not the point.  This is the best Nvidia can come up with.  The processor has more transistors than the R300, yet it's slower clock for clock than the R300.  I suspect this will be the same for DX9+ games aswell, driver optimisations or not.

Anyway, nVidia has branched to chipset and integrated audio markets btw…

Likewise with “Pentium 4” product (a core change), it takes time mature.

PS; I recall, NVidia hasn't made the shift to pure 256bit bus unlike ATI, Matrox, 3DLabs.  Geforce FX is one crippled GPU, even with 1Ghz DDR technology (due to DDR overheads).

I dont think that the 256 bit bus on the R300 has as much latency as the DDR-II bus on the NV30, but the difference would probably only make less than a 5% performance difference.

[Minion]

Ilwrath wrote:
I'd hardly call the GeForceFX pre-release boards slow...  It does trample the current fastest graphics card on most tests, and comes very close on the few it loses...  
 

How does 30% increase represent a trampling when the GFX is ahead, but if the ATI card is 30% ahead, its very close?

[Minion]

mips_proc wrote:
The GeforceFX may be slower in terms of FPS on 'current' games... but its feature packed...and with Cg its features will be easily implimented... its raw polygon push is much more appealing from what I've read... and I'm sure its drivers will be much better.

Its lock will go up 300mhz from what I've read....

The GPU ran at 500MHz in the review.
This FPS talk represents an about face!  In a previous thread about upgrading, you were all for 130+ FPS!  Make your mind up.  (or did you agree with my points there?)

[Minion]

Hammer wrote:

Ilwrath wrote:

 Personally, I'm a bit worried that through all their other 'market segments' such as mediocre chipsets

NForce 2 is not a mediocre chipset relative to VIA "crap sets". It maybe true with the first nForce 1 release but not true on the second release. This pattern is similar to the original release of Geforce 256. It took the second release(e.g. Geforce 2 series)  to make this a real success(relative to 3DFX).

Deffo agree with that  - those Nforce2 chipsets are the tits!  Most of the computers in my house use Via "crapsets", and the Nforce2 is worth about another 200+ rating on them.

[Minion]

Hammer wrote:

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

I recall, the official launch date was somewhere in late February.

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

The processor has more transistors than the R300

NV30 has support for 128bit floating-point color feature, which R300 doesn’t not support.  A feature may require more transistors.

The R300 does support 128 bit FP colour, as FP colour is a prerequisite for DX9.  Check Toms hardware and you'll see the 128 bit FP support in the R300

I dont think that the 256 bit bus on the R300 has as much latency as the DDR-II bus on the NV30

Well, NV’s DDR-II solution only delivers 16Gb/s, while ATI’s 256bit solution delivers 19Gb/s.

Go figure that out....

I was pointing out that the Nvidia solution was SLOWER.  i.e. less throughput and more latency
Go figure THAT out........

Where

I was agreeing with you that Nforce2 is good - vastly better than VIA's attempts at a chipset mainly due to the fact that Nvidia can design a memory interface.
No need to assume that because I think that the Geforce FX is sh*te that I think everything Nvidia is crap.
I have a Geforce 2 ultra in one of my computers and  Ti in another.  I dont give a rats ass who makes my hardware as long as its decent.

[Minion]

Hammer wrote:

Is that relevant?  (several times)

I do own MSI built VIA KT class chipset and have access to ASUS built to VIA KT class chipset test machines.

Is that relevant?   Is that relevant?   Is that relevant?   Is that relevant?
I now see how all of these arguments erupt on A.org.  YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO AGREE WITH ANYONE!  Or its not relevant or a waste of time.

 and the Nforce2 is worth about another 200+ rating on them.

What do you  mean by "Nforce2 is worth about another 200+ rating on them"?[/quote]
OK i'll reword it.  The Nforce2 Mobo's appear to be up to 10% faster in many tests than the VIA based ones.  Therefore, on a 2000XP, they are worth another 10% i.e. It then performs like a 2200XP or has an extra 200+

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

[Minion]

Hammer wrote:

 YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO AGREE WITH ANYONE!  

Your words.

You are the one that said pointless when I agreed

A little bit of effort doesn’t bug anyone.

Thats why I explained what I mean otherwise I wouldn't have bothered, would I?

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

Very centric response.

So you dont disagree, then?

[Minion]

Hammer wrote:

You are the one that said pointless when I agreed

I didn't say it was "pointless". Please find the word "pointless" in my post.

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

So you dont disagree, then?

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

So WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING IT THEN?
You seem to think that I cant state that it seems slow and loud, because its not released yet.  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.

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.

The "first cause" post was in regards to transistor count and the potential reason why relatively large number of transistors was included with GeF FX.    

So whopee doo, the Geforce FX needs more transistors to make their "feature" better on paper than the competition, even though it has no real world use.  It still has more, yet is not as good as the competition.

You can’t get something for nothing in regards to hardware features vs transistor count.  

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

You haven’t made any substantial evidence why that view is valid. Except for writing fan fiction.

Refer to http://www.nvnews.net/articles/geforce_fx_commentary/index.shtml for past driver improvements(within the GeF 4 TI line).

Refer to http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/Today/nvidia3/nvda_tdy_4.htm for more information regarding GeF FX, nForce 2, John Carmack and 'etc'.

Fine.  Refer to Anandtech.  There's your evidence.  I've allready read what john carmack has to say, and its not a glowing endorsement.

Now I'm sure you'll nitpick through this entire post, as you are clearly a Nvidia fanboy, and cant handle that they, just like everyone else can make crap hardware every now and again.
Nvidia fanboys are now so common that there's a special word for them now:-
NVIDIOT!
Ever notice how you're the only one defending the GeforceFX here.  There is a reason for that, you know.

[Minion]

Hammer wrote:

So WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING IT THEN?

Subjective assertion.  Where did I say that?

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

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...

That affected performance how much?
Exactily.  
Mainly bug fixes (of which Nvidias drivers also have some)

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

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

So they both exceed the DX9 std.  Big deal

yet is not as good as the competition.
.

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

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.
Precision is better than generalisation, but not when the improvement in precision is pointless.  Its just for marketing bullsh*t to get the fanboys all excited about something even they dont need to use to its full potential.

 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.

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.
Secondly, do you have any reviews based on these "leaked" drivers?  So that statement means something between nothing and f-all.
Thirdly, I am not going to trawl the internet to find 30+ reviews of the NV30, as I have better things to do in my time.  By all means do it and "prove" me wrong, but it'll just show what a sad life you lead.

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.

No its TRUE.  I said Its not exactily a glowing endorsement
and it isn't.  So we go from disagreeing about the relative performance of the NV30 to you just trying to disagree with everything I say.  Maybe you should grow up, eh?  After all you're the one trawling the internet continuously for reviews to prove everyone else wrong!

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

Subjective assertion.

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

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?  

Bet you didn't at launch!
Or if you didn't maybe you weren't such a fanboy then.

Can’t you read properly?

See my comments on the John Carmack statement.  More proof of your hypocracy.

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!!!

Nitpicking doesn't get you anywhere.  Grow up pedantic prick!
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!  I think hypocrites are idiots, and you like Nvidia and are a hypocrite, so Nvidiot suits you!

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

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

[Minion]

I could disect your entire post, and nitpick every single point, but due to its excessive size that would take far too long.
Any points I make, you nitpick them to death, and decide they are not relevant.  I have spent far too long on this allready.  My original point "GeforceFX=surprisingly slow" still stands, as I was expenting it to wipe the floor with the Radeon 9700 Pro.  It didn't, and to tell the truth I was dissapointed.  Why?  Because I want to get a GF4 Ti4600 or a Radeon 9700.  More competition at the top drives the prices down on the lower segments aswell.
You have spent an incredibly long time trying to prove to everyone that the GeforceFX is the best thing since sliced bread, yet have convinced no one.
I accept that you think that it is good, but I dont.
Just remember - while you're trawling through your search engines trying to prove me wrong, I am working for a living and having fun.  Maybe you have won this argument, but it dont make the NV30 any good, and its like winning the special olympics........

Oh and MIPS
For once we agree.

[Minion]

You just dont geddit do you?
So desperate to nitpick, that you didn't get the message of my previous post.
I cant be arsed with this waste of time argument any more!

[Minion]

TWAT!

[Minion]

For some reason I actually bothered to read those URL's.  Still confirms what I originally said  - GFFX=not all that.  Didn't say it was slower than Radeon 9k7 Pro, just not that impressive considering that The GeforceFX STILL isnt available.
This supports my argument, allthough they use outdated benchmarks, the message is still the same, is it worth bothering?

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/geforcefx/001.htm

You still havent proven that the GeforceFX is lots better than Rad9k7pro, and somehow, I doubt that you will.

[Minion]

Phoenix wrote:
@Minion

What do you think of ATI's drivers for the radeon 9700?

(he quietly walks away....)

I have no opinion on ATI's drivers for the Radeon for the 9700, since I have never used them.  I have used a few ATI cards in the past, and the drivers were generally crap.  I will comment on the 9500/9700 drivers if I get a card, as I dont trust reviewers anyway.  My experience of Nvidia drivers has generally been good.  I am currently thinking about getting a Radeon 9500 Pro, but will not pay more than £120+VAT for one.  Its either going to be that, or a Geforce4 Ti 4200 8x (£99+VAT). I will also have to be convinced that their drivers are much better these days.