PDA

View Full Version : The Tech Report's GeForce FX preview


Pages : [1] 2

sebazve
11-25-02, 02:16 PM
from my favourite review site *tech-report* beware Nvidiots:p

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2002q4/geforce-fx/index.x?pg=1

i guess this pretty much summarize my feelings towards the Nv30


:(

Nephilim
11-26-02, 06:27 PM
I question the author's qualifications. Right off the bat, the author doesn't even get that when you make electronic devices smaller and faster, they get hotter.

He goes on to say how 'ho-hum' he is about the rest of the card, but doesn't really go into any detail about the differences between the nv30 and the r300. He only seems to want to make the point that the nv30 and r300 share some of the same features (duh, they're video cards, of course they will).

My guess is this guy's either a twit, trying to fill web space, or both.

Megatron
11-26-02, 06:29 PM
Heheh...one of my favorite quotes from that article

" But now that we've had a real whiff of the GeForce FX vapors, the reality is clear: this concoction isn't potent enough to freeze the market for four to six months. ":D


and at a 499 pricetag...those are mighty expensive vapors...

Megatron
11-26-02, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Nephilim
My guess is this guy's either a twit, trying to fill web space, or both.

or possibly he could just be a guy willing to say what most nvidiots are thinking but dont dare admit...nvidia got knocked out of the leadership role..and the Nv30 isnt the holy grail everyone had counted on to take it back. :)

Nephilim
11-26-02, 06:35 PM
Uh, no.

I could care less who has the baddest card on the market. I think the nv30 will be a decent product, and I think the r300 is a decent product.

I think this article sucks though.

Why? Because it isn't really worth reading. It just reads like he wanted to bitch.

Megatron
11-26-02, 06:38 PM
I think it will be a good product too. I just dont think it will be the same "most important contribution weve made to the graphics industry"..that it would have been if shipped on time.

But both cards 9700 and GfFX are going to undoubtedly be solid choices for gaming. No argument there.

Bigus Dickus
11-26-02, 07:44 PM
I agree, the tone is more of getting a chip off his shoulder than making an intelligent argument.

While I agree with many of the things he said, it could definitely have been written in a different manner, and a few conclusions he jumped to are still a bit premature.

Reminds me of the ludicrous "editorials" Ed made when the R9700 previews were done. Not that all the points are invalid (well, most of Ed's were), but the tone of writing is a real put-off.

PreservedSwine
11-27-02, 12:27 AM
I question the author's qualifications. Right off the bat, the author doesn't even get that when you make electronic devices smaller and faster, they get hotter.

That's a bit incomplete...

When you make things on a smaller die, (IE .13 vs. .15 microns) they run cooler.

When you up the clockspeed, things get warmer....It dpends on how much faster you make them.....EX:

Would a 350MHZ NV30 run cooler than a 320 MHZ R9700? My bet is yes. Therefore, the device is smaller, faster, and runs cooler. Something you don't seem to believe?

The entire point of making it smaller is to lower power consumption, and run cooler. The advantage of course is now the product can attain a higher clockspeed, w/out generating too much heat. A dept. the ALpha NV30 still needs a bit of work in...

Chalnoth
11-27-02, 10:13 AM
And a good deal of that heat is currently due to the fact that the NV30, in its current incarnation, is not making use of low-K dielectrics. When nVidia makes this change, it will have much better power consumption/heat characteristics.

Hopefully the NV31/NV34 will use low-K dielectrics...

jbirney
11-27-02, 10:34 AM
From reliable sources over at B3D we found out that target clock speeds for intial nV30 was 400 mhz.

This makes it LOOK (note I did say LOOK) like the extra cooling was needed to beat their target clock speeds and hit the 500mhz number. One rational guess is that they wanted to ensure a benchmark leader.

Smokey
11-27-02, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by jbirney
From reliable sources over at B3D we found out that target clock speeds for intial nV30 was 400 mhz.

This makes it LOOK (note I did say LOOK) like the extra cooling was needed to beat their target clock speeds and hit the 500mhz number. One rational guess is that they wanted to ensure a benchmark leader.

I dont know if you remeber, but the Geforce2 Ultra also use to run hot as hell!! Even if the GeforceFX didnt/doesnt generate that much heat, it is much better having any heat taken straight out of you pc case, the less heat inside your case the better??

Megatron
11-27-02, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Smokey
Even if the GeforceFX didnt/doesnt generate that much heat, it is much better having any heat taken straight out of you pc case, the less heat inside your case the better??

Surely.

However I dont think Nvidia is trying to help the average gamer with his case temperature with that heatpipe..thats why people buy case fans and Nvidia knows it.
If they put that dustbuster (giggle ) on the cards its because the card needs it for one reason or another.

Im inclined to believe Jbirneys info on this one. Gotta have a benchmark leader after all the delays.

thcdru2k
11-27-02, 12:31 PM
so nothing wrong with the new cooling system. its not like its a negative factor in the system or card.

fastguy94416
11-27-02, 12:34 PM
I am hopeing so bad that the R300 beats the snot out of nv30.
Why? Innovation. Nvidia will be forced to take off thier high hat and get back to the dirty work of beating the competition

thcdru2k
11-27-02, 12:37 PM
you mean the r350?

it probably will, don't see ati releasing a card if its not better performing. plus nvidia can only do so much with a 128bit bus. they need to go 256 with the nv35.

Smokey
11-27-02, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Megatron
Surely.

However I dont think Nvidia is trying to help the average gamer with his case temperature with that heatpipe..thats why people buy case fans and Nvidia knows it.
If they put that dustbuster (giggle ) on the cards its because the card needs it for one reason or another.

Im inclined to believe Jbirneys info on this one. Gotta have a benchmark leader after all the delays.

I dont have any case fans, do you? Nvidia also knows people want thier pcs to be quiter. If you look at the heatsink and fan, you will see that the fan is closed, as it draws in air from outside of the case, not inside. Regardless of what people say, even at full speed, this will be quiter bieng inclosed. Now when you are using an inclosed fan, dont you think that you will need to make the heatsink a bit bigger?

Chalnoth
11-27-02, 08:21 PM
Well, I have two case fans, and that's pretty conservative for a modern high-end system.

thcdru2k
11-27-02, 10:47 PM
now a days gaming cases have two case fans at least. i happen to have two case fans and two slot coolers under my video card. lots of teenagers/gamer types load up their computers with fans. just check out madonion forums.

Bigus Dickus
11-27-02, 11:14 PM
From an engineer's point of view, the FX Flow cooling solution (as seen on the prototype boards at least) doesn't in any way look like a "feature" that was on anyone's list from the beginning. That, and the molex power connector most likely, are responses to the R300's performance.

The 400MHz target seems very reasonable, and is probably what the top end chip would be running at if ATi had given up the gaming market. The FX Flow is a reactionary measure to retain (hopefully) the speed crown.

That being said, I don't mind it a bit. I think it will probably be a lot louder than a "normal" HSF, and dust collection will likely be a larger problem, and the loss of a PCI slot is a minor drawback, and the cost premium of this "extreme" solution on the Ultra chip will probably be disheartening... but I'm glad they're doing it.

It's just an option for the consumer. We probably would have had a $400 400/400 card anyway. Not there's an option of paying 25% more for a more power hungry, louder, dustier version that also happens to be 25% faster. Nothing wrong with choices, and the Ultra is just an addition to what was planned.

IMO, the only major drawback of being given the option of an Ultra version up front is that there probably won't be a lot of breathing room for the customary clock bumped "refresh" in a few months. Perhaps that will turn out for the best, and get the NV35 here a month or two quicker... or it could spell a longer than usual drought between releases from nVidia.

Lezmaka
11-27-02, 11:23 PM
hopefully they can get the low-k-diel-whatchamacallits working for a speed bumped or for nv35, since that should supposedly let it run cooler at the same speed, or faster with the dustbuster

Chalnoth
11-28-02, 12:33 AM
If ATI is indeed planning on releasing the R400 next fall, then nVidia would be in a very bad position if they chose to just release a speed-bumped GeForce FX next fall.

At the same time, the GeForce FX doesn't have all that far to go, as far as programmability is concerned. The question is: how far does it have to go as far as efficiency is concerned.

As a side note, I'd just like to add in one little comment about the Radeon 9700:

Its drivers are very, very, very poor right now, when it comes to performance. This card can do one hell of a lot better.

StealthHawk
11-28-02, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Chalnoth
As a side note, I'd just like to add in one little comment about the Radeon 9700:

Its drivers are very, very, very poor right now, when it comes to performance. This card can do one hell of a lot better.

that's the story of ATI cards, isn't it? at least with the r8500 it did get a hell of a lot better. so it probably will with the r9700 too.

Chalnoth
11-28-02, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
that's the story of ATI cards, isn't it? at least with the r8500 it did get a hell of a lot better. so it probably will with the r9700 too.

The only question is, how long did it take?

For PR reasons, ATI needs to dramatically improve the performance of the Radeon 9700 just before the GeForce FX cards become available.

As a side note, though, I'm not absolutely certain about the nature of the performance problems I'm seeing. What I may be seeing may not translate to an increase in average framerate, just an increase in playability. While an increase in playability is great for the gamer, it means nothing to pretty much any reviewer on the 'net.

kaizer
11-28-02, 12:48 PM
I don't know about you, but I would never buy a $599 graphics card that needed to have it's fan/cooling solution cleaned every other week.
Behind my PC, a lot of dust gathers all the time, and that would not be good news for such a cooler..

I really wonder what the final conclusion with the NV30 will be..


With Regards
Kjetil

pastor
11-28-02, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Chalnoth


Its drivers are very, very, very poor right now, when it comes to performance. This card can do one hell of a lot better.

did you try radeon 9700 with 3d pro applications like 3dsmax ? i remember that the 8500 was buggy as hell with 3dsmax but i wonder if ati made something for 9700 ..