FX anihilates 9700Pro

[ryandinan]

Originally posted by s1203372


What caused the review discrepancy is that Tom's used 2x AA vs. 2x AA, etc, whereas Anand tested the FX vs. 9700 visual quality first to determine equivalent settings, then tested both cards at the resolutions that produced similar visual results. The FX had to use higher settings to achieve similar output, so it took a higher fps hit. Personally, I find Anands method to be the more accurate.

That makes good sense, and I agree with you. Anands would seem to be more of an "apples to apples" comparison.

Thanks for the reply!

-Ryan

[Paladyr]

Originally posted by ryandinan
What I want to know is, how come Anands and Tom's Hardware reviews of the FX were so different?
Anand showed the 9700Pro leading in most of the tests - Tom's showed the FX leading. Who is right?

Regardless - I do think that both the 9700Pro and the FX Ultra are very competitive to each other....Which isn't saying allot about Nvidia, since their card is out 6 months after ATI's...

-Ryan

Anand is the only reliable source I have seen for reviews. I have never gotten the feeling that they were biased in any way.

Tom's seems very biased. It is as if someone from nVidia wrote it and tom just posted it on his website.

[H] Seems like they wanted to say the FX was a disappointment, but were scared to. That really comes out in one of the last paragraphs where he shows two shots of a 9700 Pro and FX looking pretty close to each other but the FX is at 27fps and the 9700Pro is at 60 something. He says to draw your own conclusion from that.

That's just the impression I got after reading them.

[Qin]

FX anihilates 9700Pro

...in Codecreatures.

At this stage of the game, what else matters?

LOL, I can't believe how many people took this statement seriously, clearly he was being sarcastic.

I agree with the last few posts who gave Anand (and [H] too) credit where it was due. Instead of just benchmarking and declaring a new king of the hill (ala Tom), they went the extra step and really got down and dirty with IQ tests, showing that the FX's quality settings are no better than ATI's performance settings. And so when comparing IQ to IQ, which I feel is a very important but oft overlooked factor when comparing AA/AF performance, ATI comes out on top in almost every single test.

My question is this, clearly NVidia will have newer drivers for the FX when it launches and while I'm not one to think that it'll greatly increase the FX's performance, I am curious could new drivers affect the FX's AA and AF filtering quality? If so, and the FX's AA/AF filter quality are able to be brought up to the quality of ATI's, then the FX would be the faster card in IQ to IQ tests. Obviously the performance of the FX wouldn't be that much over ATI, but it'd give NVidia something at least to try and justify the price difference between their flagship and ATI's. Or is the quality of a card's AA/AF filters not affected much by drivers?

[jagojago12]

Originally posted by TimisoaraKill
Everything you say is true , but : Did i ever say that GForce FX fan sound can be compeared with a 80CFM delta ? ,the answer is NO , you just say something and after you agree with yourself .
Did i compeare Anand general DBA database with the FX dba fan , NO , so basicaly i hawe no ideea why you writed all those posts ??
Compearing the noise of a Delta fan with the FX fan is like compearing a rock concert with a jet engine .

Don't make me to find all your posts (and you hawe a lot) when you say before that GF FX is so quiet that in fact you will not hear the sound and all your old 'blabla' , based on Anandteh or whatever speculations because that would be like this :

I still hold a firm belief that the GeForce FX is not as loud as it is made out to be. 77dBA converted to the dB scale is far less as far as how big numbers ago (SharkyForums member Ashpool can give you more details if needed) but I remember in one of his posts he mentions 77 dBA is the equivalent of somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 dB, which is the noise for a typical computer case fan.

This, and you're refusal to accept laws in physics and your believing of Toms Hardware over established principles of nature is your problem, in my opinion. It suggests that you are ignoring those rules and are taking the word of a reviewer over fundamental physics laws. Don't take this too seriously, but I simply think your views as misconstrued.

As for me claiming the GeForce FX is not noisey, it probably is tolerable as far as noise goes, and I think you shouldn't be penalizing someone even if they are wrong if they cite a credible source. Anandtech is hardly ever wrong, if ever. If CNN News network told the world that the US has confirmed that they would be bombing Iraq or North Korea in two months would you laugh that off or take it as if it were true? It certainly would sound ridiculous to make fun of someone for being wrong in the event CNN retracts that statement. It isn't like I am citing a source from something illegitimate such as "The Inquierer."

[TimisoaraKill]

Originally posted by jagojago12


I still hold a firm belief that the GeForce FX is not as loud as it is made out to be.

This is everything i need to hear , i will not read the rest of your blabla .
Well if is your opinion is just good for you .

[crashed13]

Tom's hardware was the most favorable of the FX of all the reveiws I have read,yet even they said.

A further problem is the noise level. The fan produces an incredible racket on par with a vacuum cleaner - there's simply no other way to describe it. You can hear the card even if you're in another room of the house.

Yes,it sounds to be as loud as they make it out to be.