I've just read this article
http://www.ukgamer.com/article.php4?id=227&page=1
Which seems to show the FX Ultra on top of ATI offerings in 90% of the tests done. WHY then are so many people here saying you'd be a fool to buy an FX??????????????
Printable View
I've just read this article
http://www.ukgamer.com/article.php4?id=227&page=1
Which seems to show the FX Ultra on top of ATI offerings in 90% of the tests done. WHY then are so many people here saying you'd be a fool to buy an FX??????????????
Have you read [H]ard's review of the FX? Just read that and you'll know. Or Anandtech's review.Quote:
Originally posted by IRON-PAWW
I've just read this article
http://www.ukgamer.com/article.php4?id=227&page=1
Which seems to show the FX Ultra on top of ATI offerings in 90% of the tests done. WHY then are so many people here saying you'd be a fool to buy an FX??????????????
There are good reviews of the GFFx and then there are bad reviews. The good ones (like Anand an H) tell it like it is, and level the playing field by making both cards do the same amount of 'work'. They also turn FSAA and AF on, as if you are going to spend in upwards of $300 for a video card, I believe you will want these features on.
When settings are equal, you see why people 'bag' on it, however in attempt to save face and sell cards, the big N decided to pull a few tricks and tell reviewers what settings to run at as to make the gap between the Fx and 9700Pro the smallest or larger.
If you want the card, go right ahead and buy it, I won't mock you, it was your money after all, however I would recommend the 9700 or 9800(when it is out) simply for the fact that they will be cheaper(the 9700 at least), look better with all the bells and whistles turned on, and offer the same, if not more, features as the GFFx.
The FX is overpriced, loud, and provides minimul (if that) performance gains over the Radeon line of cards. Just my two cents.
just because of the nvidia name they will sell a lot of fx cards.
The FX ultra cost $100 more than a 9700pro and performs 2% better so yes it sucks. With a simple overclock the $100 cheaper 9700 performs better without the loud fan sounds.
The FX Ultra is not a bad card but the price is a joke.
That's one of the only beefs I have with it. The other one is that it's a bit of a disappointment (was meant to slaughter the Radeon).Quote:
Originally posted by crashed13
The FX Ultra is not a bad card but the price is a joke.
But other than that, it's decent. Big Green never lets anyone down on their software.
I feel similarly. If the card were $100 cheaper, it would look a lot better.Quote:
Originally posted by Ashpool
That's one of the only beefs I have with it. The other one is that it's a bit of a disappointment (was meant to slaughter the Radeon).
But other than that, it's decent. Big Green never lets anyone down on their software.
They will sell a certain number of cards just based on their name, but they're shooting themselves in the foot long-term if they overprice them like this.
If the price and performance are roughly equal, I prefer Nvidia because I still feel they offer superior drivers (although ATI is rapidly closing this gap). But my recent graphics card purchase was a 9700 Pro because I wasn't about to pay significantly more for a card that was at best roughly equivalent in terms of performance, and by all reports was also quite loud (which matters to me more than many, I'll admit).
I'm sure Nvidia will get their act together and come up with something. I hope so, anyway, because we all benefit from the competition. I was overjoyed when ATI went on their blitz last year. Finally it gave Nvidia some motivation!
Because it was so late to market, so overhyped up,expensive for the ultra, loud for the ultra, some features were not as people expected, and its barely faster then the 9700pro(slower in some things that matter even), people don't like the picture quality on it either.
There are just tons of reasons why people like to bash it...NV is to blame for hyping it up so high and then not meeting anyones expectations.
Overpriced for the minimal gain.
a hair dryer for cooling (soundwise)
nothing special on it compared to the 9700/9800 (except for the fan)
and it's been the delayed for so long.
just because it has the nVidia name on it, doesn't mean people will flock to buy it.
all i can say is, nVidia really screwed up with this.
And one more thing. A lot of review sites and people who actually bought the card say that the driver are not very good. They sometimes have artifacts and problems running games.
The Geforce FX costs a lot more than ATI's newest products and barely offers more performance. For the much more additional price, it is a big waste of money. ATI is a much better bang for the buck.
I figured people were just being haters, and they prefe the under dog of a market.
Don't get me wrong, the price difference really makes me dislike teh GF FX right now, but I'm more unter the mentality of 'just wait the next cycle of cards, these aren't going to be that great for DX9 games anyway)
I have felt that since the TNT2 NIVIDIA has always been consistent in performance, price, and stability of their products.
Sure you can say 'ATI now has all that too' THey've only had it since the Radeon 8500. The original radeon had 'interesting' drivers for over a year (talk about pathetic, great hardware, but laughable drivers).
If NVIDIA didn't release the GF FX I doubt the Radeon 9700 would have dropped in price and I doubt the 9800 would have been released.
This is NVIDIA's first major slip up, ATI has had many more (all those pathetic drivers for so many years). Yet, ATI got more love for 'slowly improving', while NVIDIA gets nothing but 'what a disappointment'.
Also, these views mainly apply mostly to the 'extremist' posters, as I don't believe most feel this way, but most posting about their disappointment in NVIDIA are taking extreme points of view.
I really dont think the FX so bad too. Looking at it i would love to have either an FX or 9700 pro. AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO DOESN"T GIVE A **** ABOUT HOW LOUD IT IS? Seroiusly if its that big of a deal then you probaly watercooled you rcurrent video card. Once I PLAY a game im into it with the sub blasting. I can't tell that there is a --db sound increase when Im fraging someone. I think the newer cards in the fx line are cool too. I ain't upgrading my card in a longggg time(ok thats probaly a year) anyways. I can t pay 300 bucks to have 30 fps that i can t even see. My ole g4 4400 runs all games fine on max settings and I dont need to cover up jagged edges they really arent that important. I still think the best value card is the g4 ti4200. Its all about someones e-penis, I could have just as much fun playing on a 8500 as a 9800pro.
Note: dont bash me Im really not an nvidia fanboy, Just stated my view.
I dunno...my 4600 runs just fine, and I like it, but if I had to choose between an FX and a 9700Pro I'd choose the 9700. Do I care about noise? Yep; my rig's in my dorm room, between 4 and 6 feet away from head when I'm sleeping, and I'd like it to be quiet...I have no problem with a bit of noise, but loud noise=not goodQuote:
Originally posted by melee
I really dont think the FX so bad too. Looking at it i would love to have either an FX or 9700 pro. AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO DOESN"T GIVE A **** ABOUT HOW LOUD IT IS? Seroiusly if its that big of a deal then you probaly watercooled you rcurrent video card. Once I PLAY a game im into it with the sub blasting. I can't tell that there is a --db sound increase when Im fraging someone. I think the newer cards in the fx line are cool too. I ain't upgrading my card in a longggg time(ok thats probaly a year) anyways. I can t pay 300 bucks to have 30 fps that i can t even see. My ole g4 4400 runs all games fine on max settings and I dont need to cover up jagged edges they really arent that important. I still think the best value card is the g4 ti4200. Its all about someones e-penis, I could have just as much fun playing on a 8500 as a 9800pro.
Note: dont bash me Im really not an nvidia fanboy, Just stated my view.
their drivers for GFFX are not whql certified, and the reason many people suspect is probably a truckload of cut corners in fidelity, as was nicely demonstrated by frame-per-frame comparisons in 3dmark2003, add HardOCP's extensive coverage of their 'special' agressive filtering and AA methods and you know why few people like to admit they'd buy the card if, well,
IF
it was actually available in sensible quantities, and this means more than ten samples on newegg. which is another reason why people don't like it much, and why they like NV less and less.
So are ATi's, so are a LOT of other drivers.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Iglo
their drivers for GFFX are not whql certified
I'm certain at least half the drivers running in my rig are finalized but aren't WHQL certified - and this counts a lot of other people besides me.
ATi drivers have been whql certified ever since the catalyst program started.
refrence cooling design and implimentation is terrible
presently the FX has a hard time staying in 3D mode for gaming, whether or not this can be fixed with drivers I do not know, but I know I have heard of people having their cards 'downshift' while gaming.
The NV30 care is awesome on paper...but the FX (more specifically the 5800 Ultra) is a shist poor implimentation.
Not true... The CAT's 3.2 are not digitally signed :) I just checked dxdiag and they are not digitally signed.Quote:
Originally posted by BL1NK
ATi drivers have been whql certified ever since the catalyst program started.
Which means they were not tested by the MS Windows Hardware Quality Labs :)
Not true, they are...I just checked!Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Not true... The CAT's 3.2 are not digitally signed :) I just checked dxdiag and they are not digitally signed.
Which means they were not tested by the MS Windows Hardware Quality Labs :)
can we agree that ATI has certifed whql drivers for DX9? i am not going to argue about certain driver sets (still running cat2.5 - old card, don't feel like updating - so i can't test cat3+), fact is that OEMs won't sell beta driver rigs, fact is that quite a few people don't like switching driver forth and back just to find out which is best for each and every vid card flavour and application.
tons of drivers, some for reviewers only (or so it seems), some not, it's really distracting, imho, of course, there ARE leaked catalysts around, but you are not really forced to use them, in the case of GFFX, you are, if you intend to run any DX9 stuff, that is.
You sir, have not read these forums at all.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Iglo
fact is that quite a few people don't like switching driver forth and back just to find out which is best for each and every vid card flavour and application.