NV31/34 vs ATIs r9500,9500pro and 9600

[Aglarond]

The NV31/34 specs are almost known and so are the Radeons.
So I what to open a debate on which ever will be better (price performance ratio)

Also I would like to know what you people think of the RV350.Could it hawe a 4x2 pipe architecture like the NV30??

And if anyone could post some info (reliable ) on these future chips!

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by Aglarond
The NV31/34 specs are almost known and so are the Radeons.
So I what to open a debate on which ever will be better (price performance ratio)

Uhm, the radeons will blow away the NV chips in price/performance ratio...they ALWAYS do.

[ZoinKs!]

Some time ago, I predicted that nVidia's high end will suck at least until the nv35. Now I'm adding to that and predicting that their mainstream will suck until at least the nv36.

I've got a bad feeling that the nv31 will be a repeat of the geforce 4 mx fiasco. Time will tell.

[Al B]

Well I too think that the mainstream Radeons will be
better than the NV31/NV34 because it is rumoured
that they will be running very cool and will be able
to run at very decent clock speeds. Besides MuFu said
that the NV31 has hardware bugs and possibly the
same is true for the NV34. While ATI's prices should
be pretty attractive as well.
Radeons will have better IQ as with all ATI based chips.
So all of this considered I'm confident that
ATI will be more competitive in the mainstream market for now.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Uhm, the radeons will blow away the NV chips in price/performance ratio...they ALWAYS do.

not always :)

remember that little gfx card known as teh 4200 ? :)

[MuFu]

RV350 should be faster than NV31 when using FSAA + AF. Depends on clocks how they'll match up without.

MuFu.

[Richthofen]

so you wanna play Unreal 2 and so on with AA and AF on these cards?

I even wont to that with a Radeon9700 or GF FX until i get my 100fps

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by MuFu
RV350 should be faster than NV31 when using FSAA + AF. Depends on clocks how they'll match up without.

MuFu.

Dude, i doubt that with the value cards you will be able to play any "recent" game with FSAA + AF to make a diffrence. EG
Doom3 at 1280x1024 FSAA + AF on a VALUE card will probly be 20fps or less?

So lets just pick numbers (though i belive the nv31 will be better, ill do it for u ati'ers)

RV350 23fps
NV31 21fps

Value cards suck!

As a side note, just think how much better the world would be with out value cards. developers would just make the games to max all new hardware :D

[MuFu]

Ok, DUDE. :thumbsup:

MuFu.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by Sazar
not always :)

remember that little gfx card known as teh 4200 ? :)

Remember not everyone lives in the USA? :)

[Steppy]

Originally posted by GlowStick
Dude, i doubt that with the value cards you will be able to play any "recent" game with FSAA + AF to make a diffrence. EG
Doom3 at 1280x1024 FSAA + AF on a VALUE card will probly be 20fps or less?

So lets just pick numbers (though i belive the nv31 will be better, ill do it for u ati'ers)

RV350 23fps
NV31 21fps

Value cards suck!

As a side note, just think how much better the world would be with out value cards. developers would just make the games to max all new hardware :D You do realize that current projections put the higher end RV350 cards performance between the 9500Pro and the 9700Pro? I'm betting it's a 4x2 version of the current R300 and if it is clocked at 400 Mhz it likely will have more fillrate and bandwidth that NV31 which I believe is a 4x2 or 4x1 architecture clocked at around 300 Mhz. ATI previous path has been their "value" card of one generation has roughly the same performance as the high end card of the previous gen(ie 9000 was value with the performance of the previous gen higher end 8500le). If that's the case this time(and it appears to be so)RV350 should have close to the performance of a 9700NP...and that certainly IS powerful enough to run most games with aniso and FSAA.

[Steppy]

Originally posted by Sazar
not always :)

remember that little gfx card known as teh 4200 ? :) People could fire back to that with the 100 dollar 8500 out at the same time...the 4200 was 50-75 bucks more and which one was a better "bang for the buck" could be debated till the end of time.

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by Steppy
You do realize that current projections put the higher end RV350 cards performance between the 9500Pro and the 9700Pro? I'm betting it's a 4x2 version of the current R300 and if it is clocked at 400 Mhz it likely will have more fillrate and bandwidth that NV31 which I believe is a 4x2 or 4x1 architecture clocked at around 300 Mhz. ATI previous path has been their "value" card of one generation has roughly the same performance as the high end card of the previous gen(ie 9000 was value with the performance of the previous gen higher end 8500le). If that's the case this time(and it appears to be so)RV350 should have close to the performance of a 9700NP...and that certainly IS powerful enough to run most games with aniso and FSAA.

The 8500 is way better than the 9000 (witch is a value chip).

If they did that, they would drive them self out of business. They would definatly never sell any flagship products ever.

[Steppy]

Originally posted by GlowStick
The 8500 is way better than the 9000 (witch is a value chip).

If they did that, they would drive them self out of business. They would definatly never sell any flagship products ever. The 8500 isn't "way" better. Yes, it is better, but the 9000 does offer equvilent performance to the 8500. It's not a matter of "if they did that", they ALREADY have done that.

[Myrmecophagavir]

Originally posted by GlowStick
Dude, i doubt that with the value cards you will be able to play any "recent" game with FSAA + AF to make a diffrence. EG
Doom3 at 1280x1024 FSAA + AF on a VALUE card will probly be 20fps or less?Why pick 1280x1024? I'm sure people with budget cards won't expect that resolution. 800x600 or 1024x768 is more reasonable, which when using AF & AA means a lot in terms of performance.

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by Myrmecophagavir
Why pick 1280x1024? I'm sure people with budget cards won't expect that resolution. 800x600 or 1024x768 is more reasonable, which when using AF & AA means a lot in terms of performance.

Hm, well the resolution people will choose dose depend on what monitor they have. EG size and quality.

Also, at my school a 'computer teacher' and i use the term loosely, was complaing that "with windows XP we cant use 640x480" what were they thinking it makes no sence to go any higher.

On my 17'' Apature grill NEC i use 1280x1024, that is considerd a standard resolution for people with 17'' monitors.

But, computer iliterate people tend to use the lowist resolution possible for unknown reasons.

I like to have lots of room on my desktop. If i could affoard a 21'' monitor id be 1600x1200 :D

[MuFu]

RV350 is 4x1, DX9-compliant with a 128-bit DDR-I memory interface. Clockspeeds 300-400/250-350MHz.

NV31 is capable of 6 zixel output per clock (so perhaps 3 "true" pixel pipelines??!), "pseudo-DX9-compliant", 128-bit DDR-I memory interface (new). Clockspeeds 300-350/275MHz.

NV34 is capable of 4 zixel output per clock (so perhaps 2 "true" pixel pipelines??!), "DX9-compatible", 128-bit DDR-I memory interface (from NV18). Clockspeeds 250-300/200MHz. No colour compression etc.

MuFu.

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by MuFu
RV350 is 4x1, DX9-compliant with a 128-bit DDR-I memory interface. Clockspeeds 300-400/250-350MHz.

NV31 is capable of 6 zixel output per clock (so perhaps 3 "true" pixel pipelines??!), "pseudo-DX9-compliant", 128-bit DDR-I memory interface (new). Clockspeeds 300-350/275MHz.

NV34 is capable of 4 zixel output per clock (so perhaps 2 "true" pixel pipelines??!), "DX9-compatible", 128-bit DDR-I memory interface (from NV18). Clockspeeds 250-300/200MHz. No colour compression etc.

MuFu.

Hm thats very intresting, i rekon we can wait for a preview/review? Any ETA on em?

[druga runda]

check this out



IT FINALLY MAKES SENSE why Nvidia does not like 3dmark 2003 and why the company has even made public statements against it. We managed to get scores from the latest Futuremark benchmark tool after running it on 2 Nvidia cards that are yet to be introduced. They were the performance mainstream card NV31, likely to be called Geforce FX 5600, and the NV34 mainstream card with the possible name of Geforce FX 5200.

The machine these two cards were plugged into was an Athlon 2700+ with 512 MB of RAM. Very similar to the machine we use. The only card we have run 3dmark03 on before now was the Radeon 9700 PRO and that baby, as far as we can remember, scored around 4600 marks.

The faster of the two new Nvidia cards, the NV31 scored 2389. We cannot make a comparison to the Radeon 9500 and 9500 PRO as we are away from our LAB at the moment. If someone has a Radeon 9500 PRO and similar configuration we would like to update the article with its result as well.

You can note that card is about half the speed of the Radeon 9700 Pro.

Its mainstream brother, the NV34 was unable to score more than a thousand. To be precise it got 879 marks making it only 37% of the speed of the NV31.

These results may not reflect real in-game performance but sure can give you some conclusions about cards that are not so far away from being publicly launched.

It sure gives you a clue why Nvidia could be so harsh about Futuremark. It will be real interesting to compare these scores with RV280 and RV350, the soon to be introduced ATI parts.

We might just be able to do that on Tuesday when we got back to lab. µ

huh... well NV 34 will be even slower than GF4 ti 4200 :nutkick:

now this is sad if it's true...

ATI will own NV even more after that...

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by druga runda
check this out



huh... well NV 34 will be even slower than GF4 ti 4200 :nutkick:

now this is sad if it's true...

ATI will own NV even more after that...

The NV34 will be incredibly cheep.

[Dazz]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Uhm, the radeons will blow away the NV chips in price/performance ratio...they ALWAYS do.
I too must say i agree, from the benches and possible specs the NV31 is running up with the Radeon 9500Pro but i douht they can take on the Radeon 9600 :o

[Dazz]

Originally posted by GlowStick
Hm, well the resolution people will choose dose depend on what monitor they have. EG size and quality.

Also, at my school a 'computer teacher' and i use the term loosely, was complaing that "with windows XP we cant use 640x480" what were they thinking it makes no sence to go any higher.

On my 17'' Apature grill NEC i use 1280x1024, that is considerd a standard resolution for people with 17'' monitors.

But, computer iliterate people tend to use the lowist resolution possible for unknown reasons.

I like to have lots of room on my desktop. If i could affoard a 21'' monitor id be 1600x1200 :D You can indeed go to 640x480, you have to go into the adaptor tab and then click on the list all modes button and select the refresh rates, eg. 640x480x32 @ 85Hz etc.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Steppy
People could fire back to that with the 100 dollar 8500 out at the same time...the 4200 was 50-75 bucks more and which one was a better "bang for the buck" could be debated till the end of time.

the official retail prices were close... AFAIK...

of course the 4200 would not have come out if not for the 8500 LE :)

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by Dazz
You can indeed go to 640x480, you have to go into the adaptor tab and then click on the list all modes button and select the refresh rates, eg. 640x480x32 @ 85Hz etc.

And you expect people who run 17'' monitors at 640x480 to know this?

It really is the weridist thing, this group of people, likes slow color and haveing to 'scroll' sideways to see their buddylist on aol!

Yes 99% of the people who demand the lowist resolution use aol. its like OMG

[Dazz]

Why not? Anyone that manually sets their refresh rate from the default 60Hz to what they want knows.