GeForce FX!

[llkaimq]

Too much ATI stuff here !
lets talk about GeForce FX; what manufacturer are you looking forward to buying one from?
personally i like Abit(because of Ti4200)
what do you guys say?

 

[pillage2001]

I SAY, DO A FRIGGIN SEARCH.

 

[Actaeon]

Now now, no need to be unfriendly to new users.... hes just asking which brand you are interested, if you plan on purchasing a GFFX.

I think I'd like to try an Abit... or maybe a Gainward?

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: pillage2001
I SAY, DO A FRIGGIN SEARCH.

haha owned

 

[nardvark]

personally I'm looking forward to picking up a Visiontek...
oh wait...
guess that falls under "ATI stuff" now.
oopsie.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I'm wanting to see what nVidia can offer first. I've seen the specs but specs can mean jack. On paper the Radeon 8500 sounded as if it would tear the GeForce 3 a new one. It didn't. Only until it had improved drivers did it pull ahead but even now it doesn't seem to be performing to its "paper potential."

I'm somewhat sceptical of the 128bit memory architechture. I don't really care if it has DDR II running at 1GH, that still equates to 16GB/sec which is less than what a 9700 offers. It makes me want to wait and see what performance the GeForce FX can truly offer accross the board, and that includes the memory bandwidth intensive stuff. Hell, the R350 with DDR II, I want to see what that might offer. Sucks playing the waiting game though...

 

[dguy6789]

Hey Reality Check, BANDWITH MEENS CRAP. It is how efectivley the card uses it. Remember the matrox parhelia? It has about 20 GB/s bandwith, performs less then the gf4 ti4200 which has 8GB/s. nvidia cards have always used bandwith the most efficiently. Just Wait and see.

 

[MSNY]

what manufacturer are you looking forward to buying one from?

Well when it actually get's released is still the real FIRST question. Your question is the
LAST one on my list. So to me that's jumping the gun. For me they need
to GO through these hoops first, before I consider a new card:

1) What are the real world benchmarks of FX vs. 9700 PRO.
2) See what the performmance/price compared to the 9700 PRO. All other cards will also drop in price
so buying the 9700 PRO or ti4600 will be much less. If the card can do only 25% better then a
9700 PRO but costs 50% more...I'll get the 9700 PRO.
3) See if there will be both standard & ultra versions released at the same time.
4) How well will it do with DOOM 3 ? (if we can figure that out)
5) See what ATI has to offer as to when we will see the R350.
6) If I decide on the FX, THEN decide on a brand name. LAST !

 

[Thor86]

If Hercules ever went back to bed with Nvidia, then maybe.

 

[Slappy00]

Hey Reality Check, BANDWITH MEENS CRAP. It is how efectivley the card uses it.

From ATI:

As far as NVIDIA?s bandwidth claims of GeForce FX?s 48GB/sec memory bandwidth, ATI states that the color compression in their HYPERZ III technology performs the same thing today, and with all of the techniques they use in RADEON 9700, they could claim bandwidth of nearly100GB/sec, but if they did so no one would believe them, hence they?ve stood with offering just shy of 20GB/sec of bandwidth.


-------

Yah well I hope Nivida has some uber driver tricks b/c you can only do so much before raw bandwidth is need to push AA & Anso at high resulutions....

remember when 3dFX said 32bbp was not needed for gameing? Guess where those brilliant engineers went to work.... yah i think you can guess

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Hey Reality Check, BANDWITH MEENS CRAP. It is how efectivley the card uses it. Remember the matrox parhelia? It has about 20 GB/s bandwith, performs less then the gf4 ti4200 which has 8GB/s. nvidia cards have always used bandwith the most efficiently. Just Wait and see.

Last time I checked the Ti 4600 runs at a core speed almost as fast as a 9700 Pro (can be overclocked just as fast if not faster) and the 9700 Pro rapes the Ti 4600 where it counts when you're about to end up paying $200-400 for a video card. Why? The 9700 has about twice the bandwidth. Doesn't matter how well the chip can handle the bandwidth, if you don't have enough then you can end up getting screwed. That is why I said I'd rather wait and see how the card actually performs rather than (unlike some people) assume that nVidia knows what they are doing despite the GeForce FX having less bandwidth than a 9700... I'm not about to be dead set on purchasing a card that might push $400 especially when its specs are lacking in an a rather surprising area. Sure, the GeForce FX might be just fine with 16 GB/sec but I'd rather wait and see than saying "I'm definately going to by a Gainward GeForce FX because Gainward makes the best nVidia boards." Hell IMHO Gainward kicks serious ass but if they chips they put in their boards don't perform to their price then I won't buy. Right now I don't see how nVidia could beat ATI in the price/performance issue. Again, we will have to wait and see.

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: Slappy00

Hey Reality Check, BANDWITH MEENS CRAP. It is how efectivley the card uses it.

From ATI:

As far as NVIDIA?s bandwidth claims of GeForce FX?s 48GB/sec memory bandwidth, ATI states that the color compression in their HYPERZ III technology performs the same thing today, and with all of the techniques they use in RADEON 9700, they could claim bandwidth of nearly100GB/sec, but if they did so no one would believe them, hence they?ve stood with offering just shy of 20GB/sec of bandwidth.


-------

Yah well I hope Nivida has some uber driver tricks b/c you can only do so much before raw bandwidth is need to push AA & Anso at high resulutions....

remember when 3dFX said 32bbp was not needed for gameing? Guess where those brilliant engineers went to work.... yah i think you can guess

3dfx never said 32bpp was not needed for gaming. They simply said that at the time of the voodoo3 cards, their 16bit (22bit) looked "good enough", and that 60fps 32bpp would require excessive memory bandwidth which wouldn't be available for a few generations of cards. Funny part, they were 100% correct... except for the part about consumers not likeing to be told what they should or shouldn't have.