Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do I wait for Nvidia

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 11, 2010 11:20:13 AM

Hi,

I am currently building a new PC.

I am stuck on the choosing a GFX card.

Nvidia
con: no DirectX 11

ATI
con: no physx support

I could wait for Nvidia to release their geforce 300 series but there is no indication from NVidia as to when they are deciding to release it.

Problem is that I am getting anxious as there are many good games at there at the moment and I've been without a PC since Oct last year! (I sold it, and then decided to wait since I thought Nvidia were going to release their new cards in Dec ...)

Another option is to get an ATI card (5000 series) and get a geforce 250 card for the physx support. I know there is not officially support but I have found fix (GenL's patch) that allows you to activate physx when your primary card is non-nvidia. The con is obviously it is not support by Nvidia...

Any suggestions? My main question is should I wait (I know that this question might start a debate regarding nvidia's physx - whether it's worth considering, due to dirextX 11 etc..)

Kind Regards,
chris

More about : wait nvidia

a c 125 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 11, 2010 11:42:51 AM

Personally I don't care much for PhysX so instead of waiting for nVidia I went for a HD5850, not really for the DX11 support but more because its a good card for the money, beating a GTX285 for less money.

I think your budget has alot to do with whether you wait or not. It may be in your best interests to wait until March for a price war, but i guess there may not be one. Hard to say.
a c 189 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 11, 2010 11:54:23 AM

Agree with omgitzfatal, nobody has guaranteed that fermi's card would launch in March, 5000 series is good cause it efficiency, less heat and dx11... :) 
That's just me, the decision is yours... :D 
Related resources
January 11, 2010 1:17:34 PM

I've always used Nvidia cards in my builds since ati cards use to.. well just not be that good. I was looking for an upgrade from my 8800gts so that i'd have the power to run a high resolution and still have good fps and it seems ati has really turned around from where they use to be so I picked up a 5850. However when the the 300 series do come out i'll be selling off my 5850 and going back, that is if they have a considerable performance jump over my current card.
What i'm trying to say is if you just [have to have] a new card like I did then you can't go wrong with one of the 5800 series. I was kind of in the same boat as you my 8800gts was showing it's age and with all these upcoming titles I had to go ahead and make the jump.
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2010 1:29:18 PM

At anytime one should buy the best card for their needs regardless of the GPU manufacturer. If a nVidia GPU is the best for you then go nVidia, otherwise there is no point in excluding ATI, based on rumors that circulated 10 years ago.
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2010 1:39:01 PM

Quote:
FYI, the fermi card that's been spotted in the wild consumes as much power as a 5970. And given the rumored performance numbers, it preforms the same as a 5970 as well. It shouldn't be too much stretch on the imagination to think it'll cost as much as a 5970 as well.

If you don't feel like waiting 3 months, the 5970 option looks equivalent to what Nvidia will be throwing out the door in the future. Get all the performance today, without the wait.


If it performs the same way as the 5970 then nVidia failed hard with the Fermi generation. I say we wait and see.
January 11, 2010 2:13:46 PM

hallowed_dragon said:
At anytime one should buy the best card for their needs regardless of the GPU manufacturer. If a nVidia GPU is the best for you then go nVidia, otherwise there is no point in excluding ATI, based on rumors that circulated 10 years ago.



Firstly, thanks to everyone for their feedback.

My concern is not really about performance but more about the features/technology. That being DX11 and physX. At the end of the day I would choose the technology developers are making the most out of. IOW, if developers putting large amounts of effort in making use of a particular feature, then I would want to go with the card that supports that feature. e.g. Tom's review on Batman Arkham Asylum gave positive feedback with regards to physx feature.

I can't really argue with blaze309, where if something better comes along then sell and get the upgrade. But I am looking to upgrade only in 2 to 3 years, so I kind of want to make the decision on the card that will benefit most from future gaming development.

But from research and your feedback, I will be going with a 5870 or 5850 ...
and then buy a cheaper geforce 220 and attempt the patch and get the physx enabled ...


Thanks again.
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2010 2:39:42 PM

Quote:
The rumor I saw quoted was that the new Nvidia GT300 card spotted at CES in operation was benchmarking 40% faster than ATI's 5870. If you read the reviews of the 5870 vs the 5970, you find the 5970 performs 40% faster in fps at resolutions greater than 1920x1600.

The 5870 uses 6+6 pin power connectors. The GT300 uses 6+8 pin connectors, same as the 5970. Hence, the 5970 and GT300 consume the same peak power.

The GT300 has a 40% larger die than the 5870. So, again, no surprise. And given that both chips are manufactured on the same nm tech, you have the same circuit density, and thermal efficiency.

All the preliminary rumors out right now indicate that GT300 = 5970.

...

Why on earth should we expect the GT300 to be anything better than 40% better than a 5870? Of course the last remaining bit would be release price. But again, why should we expect the GT300 to cost any less than a 5970? Especially given all the costly delays and manufacturing challenges? Nvidia needs to make back their money on 6 months of delays. Their cards ain't going to be cheap.


If the price is going to be the same or higher than the 5970 then nVidia will be really in a bad situation. Missed the deadline and come up with exactly the same thing the competitor got 4-5 months earlier...I believe that is as bad as you can get.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 11, 2010 2:50:57 PM

chrisgela said:
Firstly, thanks to everyone for their feedback.

My concern is not really about performance but more about the features/technology. That being DX11 and physX. At the end of the day I would choose the technology developers are making the most out of. IOW, if developers putting large amounts of effort in making use of a particular feature, then I would want to go with the card that supports that feature. e.g. Tom's review on Batman Arkham Asylum gave positive feedback with regards to physx feature.

I can't really argue with blaze309, where if something better comes along then sell and get the upgrade. But I am looking to upgrade only in 2 to 3 years, so I kind of want to make the decision on the card that will benefit most from future gaming development.

But from research and your feedback, I will be going with a 5870 or 5850 ...
and then buy a cheaper geforce 220 and attempt the patch and get the physx enabled ...


Thanks again.


Not sure when its out but it would make sense to me to wait for the AVP game. That is said to have a lot of DX11 tesselation in it and then if its as good of a DX11 test as review sites say it will be it could help you decide one way or another. I think there are some demo vids on UTube.

Mactronix
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 81 Î Nvidia
January 11, 2010 3:12:07 PM

blaze309 said:
I've always used Nvidia cards in my builds since ati cards use to.. well just not be that good. I was looking for an upgrade from my 8800gts so that i'd have the power to run a high resolution and still have good fps and it seems ati has really turned around from where they use to be so I picked up a 5850. However when the the 300 series do come out i'll be selling off my 5850 and going back, that is if they have a considerable performance jump over my current card.
What i'm trying to say is if you just [have to have] a new card like I did then you can't go wrong with one of the 5800 series. I was kind of in the same boat as you my 8800gts was showing it's age and with all these upcoming titles I had to go ahead and make the jump.


I upgraded (built a new system) from an 8800gt myself. I got a 5870 and put the 8800gt in as well and made it a dedicated PhysX card. It works extremely well.

Here is a good artical showing how having a dedicated PhysX card helps framerates a lot over just a single card. Keep in mind, this is a single game. Other games may be taxed differently.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylu...
January 11, 2010 3:47:02 PM

hallowed_dragon said:
If the price is going to be the same or higher than the 5970 then nVidia will be really in a bad situation. Missed the deadline and come up with exactly the same thing the competitor got 4-5 months earlier...I believe that is as bad as you can get.


I disagree. nVidia is doing more than coming out with a new video card series. They're switching to a completely different platform that they can grow off of. If they break even with Fermi cards in this first iteration, it will be a big success. If they make better cards for the $$$ than ATI, that would be icing on the cake.
January 11, 2010 9:42:01 PM

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-fermi-gpu,news-325...


Unless I misread this, if TSMC is happy with 4 % yields on the Fermi that is entering production in February, nVidia will probably opt to make these chips into Tesla cards that sell for several times the money they could charge for a consumer graphics card. If nVidia has to pay for a complete wafer with only 4% good chips, it isn't going to be cheap, and with a ten layer PCB, even less chance of being a price/performance leader.

As a side note, that is twice the yield rate of the first silicon, before they cut down the SP units.
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2010 10:01:43 PM

chrisgela said:
My concern is not really about performance but more about the features/technology. That being DX11 and physX. At the end of the day I would choose the technology developers are making the most out of.


In that case, DX11 is only about 1,000,000,000 times more important than PhysX.

At some point in the near future, a ton of games will be using DX11. No game will ever require PhysX compatibility unless the developer is insane.

For the same reason, PhysX is not going to be anything more than a novelty unless ATI comes out with something fully compatible. Otherwise, the developer would be putting half of all potential buyers out of the market. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that? They're in the business of selling games, not video cards. In all likelihood, PhysX is going to remain nothing more than a fad until something comes out that will work with ALL cards.
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2010 10:21:27 PM

chrisgela said:
Firstly, thanks to everyone for their feedback.

My concern is not really about performance but more about the features/technology. That being DX11 and physX. At the end of the day I would choose the technology developers are making the most out of. IOW, if developers putting large amounts of effort in making use of a particular feature, then I would want to go with the card that supports that feature. e.g. Tom's review on Batman Arkham Asylum gave positive feedback with regards to physx feature.

I can't really argue with blaze309, where if something better comes along then sell and get the upgrade. But I am looking to upgrade only in 2 to 3 years, so I kind of want to make the decision on the card that will benefit most from future gaming development.

But from research and your feedback, I will be going with a 5870 or 5850 ...
and then buy a cheaper geforce 220 and attempt the patch and get the physx enabled ...


Thanks again.


PhysX is dead and useless. It has a slight impact in only 2 games, while its been out for over a year. Tom's went all wet over it because its Tom's, they are unreliable at best and horribly biased at worst.

PhysX is dead, do not make a desicion based on PhysX. Anyone who tells you differently is living in a dream world.

DX11 has compute shaders which do the same work as PhysX, but with more options and more efficiently. Since DX11 will be supported by all new ATI and nVidia cards, and since compute shaders are part of DX11, developers will focus on it and not PhysX.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 12, 2010 7:17:19 AM

LumberWagon said:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-fermi-gpu,news-325...


Unless I misread this, if TSMC is happy with 4 % yields on the Fermi that is entering production in February, nVidia will probably opt to make these chips into Tesla cards that sell for several times the money they could charge for a consumer graphics card. If nVidia has to pay for a complete wafer with only 4% good chips, it isn't going to be cheap, and with a ten layer PCB, even less chance of being a price/performance leader.

As a side note, that is twice the yield rate of the first silicon, before they cut down the SP units.


Thats interesting but even though you post the link i think your quote is a little missleading. The article also states that the yeild isnt any worse than what AMD/ATI is getting. So either 4% is a typo or they are both on about 4%.
Just posting this as i know not everyone bothers to read the links as well.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2010 8:15:24 AM

I would say you wait for FERMI, get more money to buy the flagship if it is good
Other wise you can go SLI with two high mid-range cards


What about ATI?

Well, 5850 is value for money at $310
If you wanna go with it, GO
You won't regret your decision(exclude for PhysX)
They offer upto 3 LCD's (FERMI will also feature this technology)


So it's really upto you

NVIDIA are not as dumb as people here are saying, they know the market situation.
So the new cards by NVIDIA will put a real competition for ATI.

I suggest you should wait...
I am also waiting for FERMI myself.



It's really your call.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 12, 2010 8:20:33 AM

I to would wait both DX11 and Physx are of themselves not reasons to buy one card or the other as far as im concerned. If pushed then a DX11 ready card would be my choice over a Physx card as DX11 just offers more advances and usable/usefull features than Physx which is just an extra level of eyecandy that will only work on Physx games.
Assuming a lot of games will be coded on ATI hardware in the near future due to them having the best performing and theonly DX11 cards available then it stands to reason that you would get more benefit with an ATI card.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2010 8:25:11 AM

^^^
+1
My thoughts Exactly
January 12, 2010 11:30:28 PM

chrisgela said:
Hi,

I am currently building a new PC.

I am stuck on the choosing a GFX card.

Nvidia
con: no DirectX 11

ATI
con: no physx support

I could wait for Nvidia to release their geforce 300 series but there is no indication from NVidia as to when they are deciding to release it.

Problem is that I am getting anxious as there are many good games at there at the moment and I've been without a PC since Oct last year! (I sold it, and then decided to wait since I thought Nvidia were going to release their new cards in Dec ...)

Another option is to get an ATI card (5000 series) and get a geforce 250 card for the physx support. I know there is not officially support but I have found fix (GenL's patch) that allows you to activate physx when your primary card is non-nvidia. The con is obviously it is not support by Nvidia...

Any suggestions? My main question is should I wait (I know that this question might start a debate regarding nvidia's physx - whether it's worth considering, due to dirextX 11 etc..)

Kind Regards,
chris




Remember that PhysX has its own advantages......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GyKCM-Bpuw

BUT, DirectX 11 would be used by most of the games to be released in 2010 and onwards.
For example- Dirt 2.
And DirectX 11 has made the win.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dirt-2-performance-...

Personally, I'm BOUND to wait for nVidia to release its GPU as I'm gonna build my rig in June/July.
January 12, 2010 11:44:30 PM

LumberWagon said:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-fermi-gpu,news-325...


Unless I misread this, if TSMC is happy with 4 % yields on the Fermi that is entering production in February, nVidia will probably opt to make these chips into Tesla cards that sell for several times the money they could charge for a consumer graphics card. If nVidia has to pay for a complete wafer with only 4% good chips, it isn't going to be cheap, and with a ten layer PCB, even less chance of being a price/performance leader.

As a side note, that is twice the yield rate of the first silicon, before they cut down the SP units.



Sorry, but you are wrong.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/200911092326...
January 13, 2010 2:03:23 AM

hallowed_dragon said:
If the price is going to be the same or higher than the 5970 then nVidia will be really in a bad situation. Missed the deadline and come up with exactly the same thing the competitor got 4-5 months earlier...I believe that is as bad as you can get.



And since AMD had exactly that happen to them when Intel's CORE technology released I am sure they are really enjoying their ATI division doing the same to NVidia.

I tend to base my shopping on my needs rather than loyalty, back when AMD processors dropped in pricng before Intel released Core I built what I knew was going to be my last AMD rig for a while. I needed a PC a few months before Core was released and it was already known supplies were going to be tight and there were going to be chipset issues and motherboard shortages at launch. That PC replaced by a Core i7 driving a GTX280.

To me the parallels are very clear, AMD had a brute force solution that was faster than intel for years. Then Intel passed them with truly better hardware that was low in power and smaller in die and IMO AMD still hasn't really caught up.

Thats where I see ATI at versus Nvidia. I don't see any reason to go with an Nvidia solution right now. Over the last few years I went from a 7950 to a pair of 8800GTS to a 280GTX and now I have a 5870. I have used 2 monitors for a long time, so it was an easy transition to go to 3.

Thats the great thing about a free market economy, it drives the players to adapt or die. I was using AMD/NVidia on Nvidia based mobos for a loooong time. Its 360 now, Intel/ATI on Intel chipsets. (had a lot of issues with the last nvidia chipsets built in packet filtering and online gaming -- it REALLY didn't like WAR)
!