PDA

View Full Version : Firing Squad's GeForce FX review


jAkUp
03-05-03, 07:29 PM
one of my favorite sites... they seem to have gotten their review up today also...

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/geforce_fx_5800_ultra/default.asp

pretty decent review imo

digitalwanderer
03-05-03, 08:15 PM
I like it. I might not agree with it all, but it is well thought out and very well presented. :)

kyleb
03-05-03, 08:53 PM
ya, the guy doesn't seem very tech-savy and aparnetly doesn''t have the quality of eyesite to realize he never ever ran the fx in true triliner but at least he came off as trying to be honest.

Moose
03-05-03, 11:09 PM
"Complicating matters is the heat output of the card and noise from the FX Flow cooling unit, both of these issues are turnoffs to many gamers. In addition, the scalable clock frequency ďfeatureĒ can sometimes underclock your GeForce FX 5800 Ultra card right in the middle of gaming. We had to repeat multiple runs of Serious Sam and Quake 3 running with 4xAA/8xAniso enabled to get our final numbers, in some cases the margin between the scores was as high as 30%!"


no need to elaborate any further.....

GlowStick
03-05-03, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by kyleb
ya, the guy doesn't seem very tech-savy and aparnetly doesn''t have the quality of eyesite to realize he never ever ran the fx in true triliner but at least he came off as trying to be honest.

since he dosent blindly scream Image Quality, he must not have good eyes?

zoom in around these areas to 500% to get a real good look at what weíre describing, as you may miss the details upon first glance.

When you are playing UT2k3 (your your fav game) im sure you are gonna take the time to zoom in 500% every frame. yup.

In 4x mode, itís real tough for us to pick a winner, even when zoomed both cards output very similar displays. This really demonstrates how far NVIDIA has come with anisotropic filtering in its latest drivers, as GeForce4 used to output a muddier image than ATIís RADEON 9700.

The IQ lead ATI had has now dissaperid, what they have dose not translate into any realworld preformance. Im sure by NV40 there will not be a noticeble diffrence. With IQ once you reach a celing, the eye cant see any better.

jjjayb
03-05-03, 11:32 PM
Hmm thats funny, since he dosent blindly scream Image Quality, he must not have good eyes.

Hmm, guess your not the only one who can selectively cut and paste from a review:

ATIís 2D display still outshines NVIDIA in our eyes.


However, we still have to give the nod to ATI, not only does their engine go one step further than NVIDIA with its 16x setting, ATIís performance mode delivers better image quality.

It doesnít take a 500% zoom to see the GeForce FX 5800 Ultraís jaggies (but you will need to download the larger images);.....as it stands now weíve got to give ATI the AA crown.



Yet more rendering errors, which definitely affect image quality:
(So much for the "nvidia reliability" you were touting in the other thread)

This isnít so much a glitch or a bug, as this is a series of columns hanging from the ceiling. What appears to be happening is that GeForce FX is overapplying the shadows -- instead of soft shadows we actually get an outline of the columns below the ceiling. This happens in a few other areas of the map, so hopefully NVIDIA will address this with a driver update.

And might I highly suggest visiting these pages to get an idea of just how bad the nv30's image quality (or should I say lack of Image quality) is compared to the 9700's:

http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx_5.htm
http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx_6.htm
http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx_7.htm
http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx_8.htm
http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx_9.htm

Great quotes:

the problem is that unless you really dial up the image quality options what you get is a final rendered screen that just plain sucks I'm afraid to say

To begin with, in a lot of cases using the lowest quality but highest performing"aggressive" setting gave a quality of image that was simply awful, and depending on the particular game it wasn't always easy to see any visible improvement when moving the slider up a notch to "Balanced".

In the UT 2003 screenshot below you can see how the difference between the "Aggressive" and "Balanced" setting is very minimal. Also worth remembering is that most reviewers will by default benchmark the FX using one of these two settings.

Go look at the pictures on that site. You definitely won't need to zoom in to see how awful the 5800's default settings look. The default setting that quite a few of the reviews have used by the way.

Ati's "performance" settings look WAY better than nvidia's so called "balanced" settings.

And let's not forget this beauty:

http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/screenshots/meant_to_be_played.jpg

kyleb
03-05-03, 11:58 PM
Say what you want to say without flaming please.

marqmajere
03-06-03, 07:08 AM
ATI sux0rs. Nvidia rox0rs.

Captain Beige
03-06-03, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by GlowStick
The IQ lead ATI had has now dissaperid, what they have dose not translate into any realworld preformance. Im sure by NV40 there will not be a noticeble diffrence. With IQ once you reach a celing, the eye cant see any better.

even IF the FX could match the IQ of the 9700/9800 (which I don't think it does and is demonstrated in many reviews) then I guess all that's left is the fact that ATI cards

1. are much better in terms of performance

2. can actually be bought

[and some other things of lesser importance]

kyleb
03-06-03, 10:50 AM
odd, i get my post edited and told not to flame for responding to a flame that is left to be. :rolleyes:

Shinri Hikari
03-07-03, 10:33 PM
It is called post reporting, if you don't report than the post stands.:rolleyes: That is life.:rolleyes:

muzz
03-07-03, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by marqmajere
ATI sux0rs. Nvidia rox0rs.

Oh brother.........:rolleyes:

kyleb
03-08-03, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Shinri Hikari
It is called post reporting, if you don't report than the post stands.:rolleyes: That is life.:rolleyes:

oh come on, please be serious for a moment. i made a comment as to how i was disappointed there were no benchmarks for the application filtering settings and GlowStick flames me for god knows what reason. so i tell him that i don't appreciated being treaded as if i am a jackass. then my post gets edited and you look at the situation and say "that's life"? in case you have not heard; life is what you make of it and i sure as hell don't see any reason for putting up with crap like that. regardless, i already spoke with nin_fragile14 and we reached an understanding so that situation has been resolved. but seriously i have to wonder, is that really what you care to make of life or were you just just jumping on the boat with GlowStick and picking an opportunity to treat me like a jackass? if its the later, or even the former for that matter, please reconsider next time you feel such an urge.

INNOVISION
03-08-03, 05:04 PM
Stop your whinning... is about a video card...are you gonna get hurt by this ?

John Reynolds
03-08-03, 05:16 PM
Problem is, Nvidia's using Balanced as the new driver default (which doesn't do true trilinear filtering, more like 2.5) and, perhaps even worse, they're promoting the use of Aggressive AF to reviewers for when they benchmark the FX 5200 and 5600s.

It's all a great way to win the benchmark wars.:ass:

kyleb
03-08-03, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by INNOVISION
Stop your whinning... is about a video card...are you gonna get hurt by this ?


hurt by what, i don't follow you?