ANAND'S GeForce FX review: WEAK!!!

[daywalker]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Sarge1

I'll reserve judgement until i see the card benched with actual shipping drivers.

Me too. When Anand first reviewed the 9500 Pro sample, the results were pretty disappointing with the drivers available at the time. Once the card shipped with updated drivers the results were significantly better. Probably the best bang for buck card out today.
That said, I don't expect any major increases in performance as I believe Nvidia has pushed the FX to it's max just to get the numbers above the 9700 Pro. I guess I haven't reserved judgement have I?

I still remember when ATI had "beta" and "Unmature" drivers when the 9700Pro previews were up and it still beat the Ti4600 by 200% in some tests so the fact that Nvidia has a driver which is not tweaked is not even an excuse.

do you remember that?

I remember that.

People, the GeforceFX is already working on its limits. And what we saw now IS what we will get later. Sad but true.

Good job ATI.

Bye-bye Nvidia.

 

[ondaedg]

uhm, and how do you know this? Nvidia's driver development team is one of the best in the business. I can't remember a single product they put out that didn't have its performance improved regularly due to timely driver releases. I'll reserve judgment until it officially ships.

I wish some of these sites that previewed the card would have run some benches at 16 bit just to determine if bandwidth really is what is killing the performance of the FX.

 

[touchmyichi]

Why would Nvidia send out their product if they knew the Radeon 9700 pro would beat it? That doesn't seem logical. I don't even get why they would send anandtech one if they already knew a radeon 9700 would beat it. Lots of mystery going on here. I think i'll take the wait and see approach.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: ondaedg
uhm, and how do you know this? Nvidia's driver development team is one of the best in the business. I can't remember a single product they put out that didn't have its performance improved regularly due to timely driver releases. I'll reserve judgment until it officially ships.

I wish some of these sites that previewed the card would have run some benches at 16 bit just to determine if bandwidth really is what is killing the performance of the FX.

Umm...I don't think you get it. The FX is out a half year later, is clocked signifigantly faster, and it supposed to be more advanced. It should be mopping the floor with the 9700. It can't even MATCH it. Consider the price difference, too. And 16 bit? Are you on crack? Who runs 16 bit with a GeForce FX? The fact that it gets smashed in AA/ansio certainly makes it seem like memory bandwidth is the issue, wouldn't you say? There is no way that the bandwidth of that card can support that fill rate.

Why would Nvidia send out their product if they knew the Radeon 9700 pro would beat it? That doesn't seem logical. I don't even get why they would send anandtech one if they already knew a radeon 9700 would beat it. Lots of mystery going on here. I think i'll take the wait and see approach.

What are they gonna do? Scrap the project? They still have to release something....3dfx made the mistake of delaying too much with the Voodoo5. Look where it got them.

 

[mindwarp]

Originally posted by: CheapTOFU
Also, don't forget that you can buy a 9500 128mb and hard-mod it to 9700 pro.. all for less than $190..

Can anyone PM me a link to the guide to this?

 

[Auric]

How can tomshardware even conclude that NVIDIA has regained "the crown", as 'twere, even momentarily? The old 9700P wins some benchmarks and loses some at default clocks, yet runs cooler and quieter, is cheaper and almost certainly still has better video features and quality. Let's compare how well they each o'erclock, shall we? -especially if the 9700P is equipped with a high performance cooler and we allow the price difference between the two cards to purchase it with.

Have your heard the racket the "FXFlowbee" makes? If it cut your hair too then maybe it would be tolerable but otherwise it is just ridiculous. Personally, I would not take one to keep for free.

Bottom line:
FX is stillborn.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Seem interesting that Toms review was done on a motherboard with an nVidia chipset. Maybe that has something to do with it? Maybe the CPU has to do with it... I dunno, I think the Anand article went above and beyond to analyze the GF FX and not just throw out the immediate and obvious benches that the article on Toms seemed limited to. Take a quick look at the GF FX and ignore little quirks like minimum frame rate and you'll see the GF FX out on top a lot more often. Even the article at Toms doesn't show decsive FX lead...

NVIDIA takes the crown! No question about it - the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra is faster than the competition from ATI's Radeon 9700 PRO in the majority of the benchmarks. However, its lead is only slight, especially compared to the distance that ATI put between its Radeon 9700 PRO and the Ti 4600. Still, when compared to its predecessor, the GeForce4 Ti, the FX represents a giant step forward.

I do question it, especially with Anand's article for support. I don't expect anything less but the best eye candy from a $400 card, and with teh 5800 Ultra can't even do what a sub $300 9700 Pro can do, then WTF!?

Drivers shmivers. Driver updates only kept ATI alive with the 8500 when it could hardly chase down the GF3. Now tailing a Ti 4200, the 8500 doesn't need to be ATI's speed king. Once nVidia might possibly "fix" their drivers, the R350 will be here just like the GF4 Ti line was when the 8500 caught momentum. nVidia isn't out of it just yet, their GF FX is doing better now than the 8500 was doing then, although there were significant and swift price cuts on the 8500... We also have to consider the overclocking potential of the GF FX...

 

[Killrose]

Well at least it's finally been released, and we pretty much know it will improve with time. But I have to say after all the hype that i'm not impressed. Thank god for Nvidia that they have released the excellent nForce2 chipset, otherwise they would have to rely more on this poor thing to shore-up their bottom line.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

yes, nForce2 = win, GF FX = tie at best

 

[TheWart]

I think the performance isnt that bad, but seeing as it comes out so late after the 9700, and is hotter, and noisier, and not to mention more expensive, they are not going to sell too many.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: TheWart
I think the performance isnt that bad, but seeing as it comes out so late after the 9700, and is hotter, and noisier, and not to mention more expensive, they are not going to sell too many.

I agree, but I find it a bit odd that a card that has been available for 6months is just as fast and even a bit faster in some cases than the latest thing. Nvidia should have had plenty of time to work on drivers.

 

[Rudee]

Time to load up on ATI stock

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: Rudee
Time to load up on ATI stock

Heh, I'm sooo tempted.

 

[Auric]

Killrose, how do you reckon it will improve with time? This model will only look worse as new cards come out from the competition or even as prices are lowered on the old ones. As someone else mentioned, do not expect any driver improvements because the chip design was final ages ago. As far as future iterations -can there be any since this thing runs so damn hot on a smaller process already? If they clock it any lower it wouldn't even compete with other cards at half the price. Plus this stinker is apparently expensive to make. NVIDIA really needs to release some competitive mainstream products to shore-up their bottom line, heck to prevent them losing money. Not that I care, but competition is good.

 

[lifeguard1999]

What's with the 1280x960 screen size used in several reviews? Does anyone really use this setting and why?

As to the FX, I agree that it is working at the bleeding edge of its hardware, but there probably is still some headroom left in the drivers.

Edit:
BTW: It is only a guess, but I think that the R350 will be introduced at CeBIT 2003 on March 12-19. In April it will show up in stores.

 

[Auric]

1280x960 is the highest common resolution with the correct 4:3 aspect ratio before the performance choking 1600x1200 so it is the last stop for many gamers.

 

[Spicedaddy]

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
What's with the 1280x960 screen size used in several reviews? Does anyone really use this setting and why?

As to the FX, I agree that it is working at the bleeding edge of its hardware, but there probably is still some headroom left in the drivers.

Edit:
BTW: It is only a guess, but I think that the R350 will be introduced at CeBIT 2003 on March 12-19. In April it will show up in stores.

Because it's the correct ratio for all monitors except LCDs with 1280x1024 native resolution. I always use that res because I don't like squished images.

 

[jiffylube1024]

From the moment I started reading this review/preview, I got a sense of deja vu. This is 3dfx all over again (perhaps actually acquiring the core of 3dfx is responsible for this blunder). Just like the Voodoo 5, the GF FX is way late out of the gate, is mysteriously slower than advertised (drivers? who knows), is a total inconvenience to the PC user (the V5's were longer than a city bus, the GF FX takes 2 slots and generates similar heat to a new CPU), etc. I'm not saying it's not a great card - it's the king right now, well actually it's sharing the gold right now, kind of like the Canadian and Russian figure skating champs in the winter olympics. However, this is a serious blow to nVidia, as it's not the be-all end-all they proclaimed.

The noise of the card is a big deterrent for me as well (besides the fact that I don't buy 3d cards costing over $150 US ). Anand hit the nail on the head with the comparaison to the Radeon 8500 vs GF 3 Ti500 I believe. With so much new technology going into the card, I'm sure that nVidia will have a big driver release, and that the current 42.whatever drivers are still very unmature for the GF FX.

ATI really put a big monkey wrench into nVidia's plans with their awesome performance AF algorithm (I remember that since the Radeon DDR, with it's mediocre drivers, ATI had superior AF). The move to a 256-bit memory bus was the real killer however, instead of banking on an unproven and much less common future technology, they stuck with tried and true BGA DDR.

I really don't know what to say. I mean, the more I think of I, I just can't think of who is going to buy this card. Perhaps a sect of hardcore overclockers will, and try to pry off that expensive stock cooling for some water-based system, but there are so many issues - the heat isn't good for overclocking other components, the noise is inconvenient...

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: Rudee
Time to load up on ATI stock

Heh, I'm sooo tempted.

I'm tempted as well, but it's a BIG risk right now. Besides the insider trading probe into ATI now (nevermind the several probes into nVidia's insider trading practises), the market is just too volatile. ATI shares just keep getting lower and lower, and just dropped another buck, and some would say (myself for one) that this *looks* like a good time to buy. I would definatley recommend against it, however. Best to bite your lip and watch during a recession. Remember the depression...?

If anything, I'd say to sell nVidia stock now (if you own any), the GF FX line looks like it won't be as successful as the GF4 series (which was great).

Just my $0.02

 

[Killrose]

Originally posted by: Auric
Killrose, how do you reckon it will improve with time? This model will only look worse as new cards come out from the competition or even as prices are lowered on the old ones. As someone else mentioned, do not expect any driver improvements because the chip design was final ages ago. As far as future iterations -can there be any since this thing runs so damn hot on a smaller process already? If they clock it any lower it wouldn't even compete with other cards at half the price. Plus this stinker is apparently expensive to make. NVIDIA really needs to release some competitive mainstream products to shore-up their bottom line, heck to prevent them losing money. Not that I care, but competition is good.

They have'nt really had a chance to optimize drivers yet, and Nvidia always does a good job getting more than just a few percentage point increases out of their newly released hardware. Driver optimizations should'nt make the hardware run hotter. But no matter what tricks they are able to pull out of their driver hat, they still won't be able to hold off the R350 onslaught IMHO.

 

[cmdrdredd]

they should have had drivers ready by now anyway IMO.

 

[jiffylube1024]

What really confuses me is that nVidia 6 extra months when the card was delayed to optimize drivers, yet they still have issues. What were they doing in those 6 months?

 

[IBdaMac]

The issues with the Geforce FX is not the drivers. I know all you nvidia fans are trying to figure
out why the 5800 ultra sucks so bad but it isn't the drivers. The fact that it's running at such a higher clock speed and everything about it just seems to be better, it should blow the r300 away. Especially sine the r350 is supposed to dust the 5800.

to all you nvidia fans out there: HAHAHAHHA, Suckers...should've got the 9700 pro instead of waiting for this piece of junk.

 

[ZimZum]

Before the FX came out it wasnt a question of IF it would beat the 9700 it was only a question of how badly it would beat it.
But now not only is it out right losing in certain benchmarks the ones it winning are by a narrow margin. And whats up with that jet engine for a fan? Will NVidia also supply earplugs?

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
From the moment I started reading this review/preview, I got a sense of deja vu. This is 3dfx all over again (perhaps actually acquiring the core of 3dfx is responsible for this blunder). Just like the Voodoo 5, the GF FX is way late out of the gate, is mysteriously slower than advertised (drivers? who knows), is a total inconvenience to the PC user (the V5's were longer than a city bus, the GF FX takes 2 slots and generates similar heat to a new CPU), etc. I'm not saying it's not a great card - it's the king right now, well actually it's sharing the gold right now, kind of like the Canadian and Russian figure skating champs in the winter olympics. However, this is a serious blow to nVidia, as it's not the be-all end-all they proclaimed.

Your 3dfx comparison is flawed.

1) The Voodoo5 was trounced in every performance test.
2) The Voodoo5 was technologically behind the GeforceGTS. No DOT3 or hardware T&L support being most notable.

1) The FX is about on par with the 9700 in most of the tests I've seen. Wins some benches, loses others.
2) The FX is technologically superior to the 9700... barely.

With all that said, am I dissappointed with the FX launch? Eh, a bit. I wasn't expecting it to perform leaps and bounds over the 9700. I've noticed most people complaining about the cooler - and rightfully so. That thing is ridiculous.

Just a side note, the V5 was not that long of a card. Hell, the Geforce4 Ti's (4400/4600) are just as long.