PDA

View Full Version : Anyone planning to buy a 400MHz GeForce FX?


Pages : [1] 2 3

silence
02-08-03, 06:48 AM
since the day FX was "released" everybody is talking about ultra version which is too loud and too expansive.........and no talk at all about non-ultra 400Mhz version.
so i wanna see if there are others that consider buying it >>like me.
without dustbuster and with price much more realistic do you think it is worthy??.......i mean it still is the best nvidia card around and looking at results of quadro (i know it's not the same) FX core isn't bad thing.
what's ur opinion,what's better - ti4600 or fx 400Mzh??

zakelwe
02-08-03, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by silence
since the day FX was "released" everybody is talking about ultra version which is too loud and too expansive.........and no talk at all about non-ultra 400Mhz version.
so i wanna see if there are others that consider buying it >>like me.
without dustbuster and with price much more realistic do you think it is worthy??.......i mean it still is the best nvidia card around and looking at results of quadro (i know it's not the same) FX core isn't bad thing.
what's ur opinion,what's better - ti4600 or fx 400Mzh??

I think a non ultra would be a good purchase if :-

1) you want to play fps at up to 1600x1200 .

2) the 400MHz chip is out of the same bin as the Ultra 500 and clocks up to that speed ( like the GF4 4400 did to the 4600 )

3) One of the card companies takes the lead and puts on 2ns DDR2 memory of the Ultra ( Abit ? Gainward ? )

$300 for that would be nice. Need to wait for reviews though.

Fotis
02-08-03, 11:04 AM
silence, GFFX is better than gf4 ti 4600(performance,features) but there are some software bugs and a few hardware bugs that should give you trouble like the fog bug.If you want an nvidia card it would be better to buy a cheap gf4 for now and wait for nvidias next product.

If on the other hand you want to put the best card in your rig radeon 9700pro is your card.I converted from a geforce card to a radeon 9700pro and I can tell you the drivers are very solid

As with every driver there are a few bugs which are beeing fixed.Ati's driver problem are a thing of the past.
If you read the GFFX reviews there where some problems with the drivers because GFFX is a new architecture but can you wait 4-6 months until they are fixed?

But don't take my word for it,scan the forum for nvidia to ATi converts and make your desicions.

gstanford
02-08-03, 11:10 AM
I'm interested in the non pro GF-FX, but, I'll probably wait for NV31 to arrive before making any decisions (probably better to skip high end for the moment and wait on R350/NV35). I could never see myself owning the GF FX Ultra anyhow - the fan was just ridiculous.

The top end cards will go through one more iteration before Doom 3 arrives anyhow, so, in a way it's fortunate nVidia stumbled when they did and not when Doom 3 really drives demand for high end cards up.

Typedef Enum
02-08-03, 11:28 AM
I would love to understand the reasoning for wanting a 400 MHz. part. Quite frankly, it makes no sense whatsoever.

The 9700 has been out all of this time, with extremely mature drivers. It pretty much steamrolled the FX Ultra (where it counts, IQ), and wasn't even in the same league as the non Ultra.

Furthermore, the non Ultra would still be regarded as more expensive than 9700 Pros that can be obtained online right now! I mean, talk about going backwards!

On top of all of that, the ATI stuff is here right NOW! There's no need to preorder...wait...hope...etc.

SamuraiCatJB
02-08-03, 11:28 AM
I will get one for work just for the advanced shaders. I've got a project that I think could utilize the 128bit color (or misuse it as the case may be) for solving 3d volume problems.... but we have never had plans to populated dozens except at the 2/4/NV35 levels anyhow....

all it does is slow my graphics research I had allocated... :(

gstanford
02-08-03, 11:45 AM
The following is not to be taken as an ATi flame: I don't care what ATi might or might not have available; I am interested in nVidia products, not ATi products. I don't care if that makes sense to you or not - it's my money, not yours.

The real problem with NV30 is that it hasn't been fabbed on the process it was designed for (Black Diamond). Severe heat and power consumption issues are the end result.
http://www.tsmc.com/download/enliterature/013_bro_2002.pdf
If you read that brochure you will see that Black Diamond (the low-k process) is supposed to be unecessary below 1 gig.

You can speculate that nVidia was originally aiming for a 1 gig core (? the dawn of a new era in graphics ?). They could only get halfway there on the plain 0.13 process, yet even at only half designed clock speed compete very well with R300.

Also bear in mind most other manufacturers planning to use the plain 0.13 process won't exceed 350 mhz - nVidia got the process to 500 mhz (under stress) and 400 mhz reliably - not bad going I'd say.

digitalwanderer
02-08-03, 11:48 AM
I can't wait for ATI to get a couple of sets in a row out like the last set, just to give me more ammo to fight with people like this on.

I think time is on ATI's side right now, I really do. The next set of drivers is coming soon from ATI, and the 6292 set has always been a magic number for 'em*.

I'll admit that ATI has got a bad driver history, and I really can understand some people having reluctance to just accept "they're better now" at face value since it's been said before....but the big diffence 'tween then and now is then it was ATI saying "we're better now" even though they weren't, now it's the community saying "they're better now" just because they are.

The truth will out in time, and I'm hoping that ATI keeps delivering the goods and nVidia wakes up and starts to again. :)




*Sorry, it's an idiotic insider fanATIc reference to the 6292 driver set for the Rage128...it was the set of drivers that took ATI two years to put out and they WORKED! This new set coming out is also numbered 6292, and I've spoken to some people beta testing 'em and they're better than the last set...so I'm just waiting to be impressed. ;)

Gator
02-08-03, 11:56 AM
Lower the price to $250 and give it a normal/quiet cooling method, and I would consider it. Why $250? Because for $220 you can buy a R9700 non-pro right now which can be clocked at R9700Pro speeds, has better AA and Aniso scores, and close enough overall scores to the GFFX. If I'm gonna buy a GFFX, better gimmy a good reason. But quite frankly, I'd get more boost from an AXP2600 then either of them right now.

Gator hugs his TI4400... good girl, good girl :hug:

ClyssaN
02-08-03, 12:05 PM
I would love to understand the reasoning for wanting a 400 MHz. part. Quite frankly, it makes no sense whatsoever.

The 9700 has been out all of this time, with extremely mature drivers. It pretty much steamrolled the FX Ultra (where it counts, IQ), and wasn't even in the same league as the non Ultra.

Furthermore, the non Ultra would still be regarded as more expensive than 9700 Pros that can be obtained online right now! I mean, talk about going backwards!

On top of all of that, the ATI stuff is here right NOW! There's no need to preorder...wait...hope...etc.

Exactly ...

I really don't understand, we are in 2003, we are paying 400$ for a video card, and it seems most people just look to the raw performance of a card...

I really don't care if the nv30 ultra or the nv35 are 50%-100% faster then a radeon 9700PRo or r350, if the IQ don't improve at least to the same level as the radeon i don't want it...

zakelwe
02-08-03, 12:07 PM
I edited my original post to take out the claim that Ati drivers are still worse.

For brotherly harmony !

Regards

Andy

panzaman
02-08-03, 12:07 PM
..I agree no way I am going to pay $400 for that card.

zakelwe
02-08-03, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by R9700PRO
apparently you have no ATI hardware in your machine,


I have more Ati than nvidia thank you.

I run 60%/40% ati / nvidia


So I am as much an Ati user as ewe ( with blinkers on )

gstanford
02-08-03, 12:10 PM
Since when has the non ultra been priced at $400??? Try $300 or thereabouts.

nutball
02-08-03, 12:34 PM
Well I'll be buying 1 (one!) for my work box. The primary reasons are I want the extra floating-point precision (32-bits over 24). But the reasons I want that is not related to gaming at all; the extra precision is more important than the speed delta. What I'm doing is hardly mainstream. I work with Linux too, and I don't have enough experience of the recent ATi Linux drivers to know whether I'd be able to rely on them.

As for my home box, I'll wait for R350/NV35/R400 then make my decision.

iamanewuser
02-08-03, 01:06 PM
Well if the ultra is cancelled then all that is left to buy for the time being is the 400mhz card. I for one would buy it if the price is right... say sub $300. Anyhow, i'm not looking to replace my Geforce3 untill the end of the year so guess it doesn't make much difference right now.

-=DVS=-
02-08-03, 01:52 PM
Hehe Radeon 9700Pro was in same performance range as GFFX 500MHz core (faster in some cases) , Now people considering buying GFFX at 400MHz witch will be slower in many cases compared to Radeon 9700Pro and don't forget R350 is just around the corner rumored 400 - 425 core :D moping floor with any GFFX.

Big laf at Nvidiots :D , small laf at myself ex Nvidiot :(

John Reynolds
02-08-03, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Typedef Enum
I would love to understand the reasoning for wanting a 400 MHz. part. Quite frankly, it makes no sense whatsoever.

The 9700 has been out all of this time, with extremely mature drivers. It pretty much steamrolled the FX Ultra (where it counts, IQ), and wasn't even in the same league as the non Ultra.

Furthermore, the non Ultra would still be regarded as more expensive than 9700 Pros that can be obtained online right now! I mean, talk about going backwards!

On top of all of that, the ATI stuff is here right NOW! There's no need to preorder...wait...hope...etc.

Especially if you consider how unfair it is to compare 4x AA scores against the two products. Reviewers would be more fair to compare FX 4x against 9700 2x since those two modes are closer in IQ than 4x vs. 4x. It's no one's fault but Nvidia's that they're still trying to pimp asstastic, bandwidth-wasting OGMS and hybrid MS/SS modes.

digitalwanderer
02-08-03, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by John Reynolds
Especially if you consider how unfair it is to compare 4x AA scores against the two products. Reviewers would be more fair to compare FX 4x against 9700 2x since those two modes are closer in IQ than 4x vs. 4x. It's no one's fault but Nvidia's that they're still trying to pimp asstastic, bandwidth-wasting OGMS and hybrid MS/SS modes.


I don't understand all the technology behind it, but the ATI AA & AF is what sold me on the 9500 Pro. It was just too incredible to actually be able to play and use it, I am having real trouble going back to me GF3 now. :(

Flying_Elbow
02-08-03, 03:13 PM
Better IQ from the drivers for the FX = slower FX.

I'm sorry, but the whole reason the IQ for AA/AF sucks for the FX is so they could squeeze a few more fps from the overstressed thing. The poor IQ is not a driver bug, it was intentional. And, I seriously doubt that new drivers will make it go any faster, except for the lacking performance in advanced shaders. That is the one place that I can see improved performance.

SamuraiCatJB
02-08-03, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by -=DVS=-
Hehe Radeon 9700Pro was in same performance range as GFFX 500MHz core (faster in some cases) , Now people considering buying GFFX at 400MHz witch will be slower in many cases compared to Radeon 9700Pro and don't forget R350 is just around the corner rumored 400 - 425 core :D moping floor with any GFFX.

Big laf at Nvidiots :D , small laf at myself ex Nvidiot :(

not all of us are nVidiots per se. I have to be nVidia as I have said before, in my research projects the nVidia GF4 outperforms the 9700&9500.... so I am not "loosing anything" at all. If the speed equals or tops the GF4 (hopefully tops the Quadro4) then I buy better speed, better graphics quality, and better shaders (utilzing the floating point colors -- yes I realize the 9700 'can' do floating point color, but everything I have read says it still doesn't do it "as well"). So I haven't lost anything.

If the Wildcat III or FireGL boards could out perform nVidia for my work, I'd be buying them, even at $3000. We do buy some Quadro4's at the higher price tag, but mostly distribute GF4's. I will keep my eye on ATI, I have since the 8500's, they may yet catch up even for my work. I am certainly not discounting them out sight unseen, I pick up one per model along with the nVidia one per model for evals and tests. :)

Steppy
02-08-03, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by gstanford
Also bear in mind most other manufacturers planning to use the plain 0.13 process won't exceed 350 mhz - nVidia got the process to 500 mhz (under stress) and 400 mhz reliably - not bad going I'd say. Funny, people didn't think ATI could do a 325Mhz 110 million transistor core on .15...and the new R350 is expected to be 375-400 on .15. Just because Nvidia can't do it does NOT mean nobody else can, I don't think ATI is gonna have to lower their core clock by going to .13.

Steppy
02-08-03, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by SamuraiCatJB
not all of us are nVidiots per se. I have to be nVidia as I have said before, in my research projects the nVidia GF4 outperforms the 9700&9500.... so I am not "loosing anything" at all. If the speed equals or tops the GF4 (hopefully tops the Quadro4) then I buy better speed, better graphics quality, and better shaders (utilzing the floating point colors -- yes I realize the 9700 'can' do floating point color, but everything I have read says it still doesn't do it "as well"). So I haven't lost anything. What the heck kind of "research" are you doing where the GF4 outperforms the R300 family? Anyway, you may want to consider getting a cheap R300 family board to research with in addition to an FX(you could get a 9500np and a non-ultra GFFX for what you would have paid for just a GFFX Ultra), because you may need to broaden your scope(just so you have experience with more than one graphics companies way of doing things)

ReDeeMeR
02-08-03, 04:10 PM
Man, the non ultra card is even bigger pile of crap, the memory is 200mhz slower and the core 100mhz, the ultra had hard time fighting with Radeon9700 pro now imagine this pile of crapola, it'll be way behind current Radeon9700 and the gap will increase with future games.

SamuraiCatJB
02-08-03, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Steppy
What the heck kind of "research" are you doing where the GF4 outperforms the R300 family? Anyway, you may want to consider getting a cheap R300 family board to research with in addition to an FX(you could get a 9500np and a non-ultra GFFX for what you would have paid for just a GFFX Ultra), because you may need to broaden your scope(just so you have experience with more than one graphics companies way of doing things)

I just gave away my new ATI boards as I tested them and they came up short.... I do, and will try every ATI board. I am doing real-time landscape displays, 400sq miles at 1m imagery/30m elevation grid is my record so far, I am working on improving appearance and speed. Production what I have been shipping for about a year now is about 8192 sq miles at only 4m imagery and about 60m elevation grid.

reality is my game. :D I am still trying to find out what I am doing that is making the approach slower on the ATI, if I can find it, we'll run both or switch to ATI. :) my bosses make those decisions, I just program and evaluate. :D but it keeps me in new hardware/software. :D