May I ask Why this is so . . . ?

[Krazy]

As i've been reading about our "new generation" of graphics cadrs from Nvidia and ATI i've noticed one thing . . .

In general both of the flagship cards have about the same performance levels, but nvidia generally being slightly slower, yet, when you look at the "standard" cooling on either of the two cards there is a massive difference.
Why or how does Radeon produce a card, that has 'x' perfomance, producing a certain amount of heat therefore need a certain amount of cooling (an example of the cooling required shown here)
<A HREF="http://content.guru3d.com/article.php?cat=review&id=35&pagenumber=3 " target="_new">http://content.guru3d.com/article.php?cat=review&id=35&pagenumber=3 </A>

where as Nvidia, aslo make a card that has the same 'x' in perfomance yet it's heat production and cooling requirments are in most cases, when compared to the radeon card, absurd! (in noise, space and size)
(examples of the cooling required for the nvidia card which has about the same performance, spot any difference?) <A HREF="http://www.leadtek.com.tw/3d_graphic/winfast_a300_ultra_td_2.jpg " target="_new">http://www.leadtek.com.tw/3d_graphic/winfast_a300_ultra_td_2.jpg </A> and <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/index.html " target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/index.html </A>

but theoredically they are both crunching the same numbers, and if anything, the Radeon card should have the super cooling as it seems to crunch the numbers a tad faster than the Nvidia card . . . no?

any light on this topic would be great

cheers (this is also the case whith the previouse generation of cards aswell, look at the cooling required on the ti4600, and then on the 9700pro, the 9700pro being nearly twice as fast, yet need a fraction of the cooling that is required by the slower ti card???)

<font color=blue> When is a pile of sand a pile of sand? one grain . . . two grains?</font color=blue>

 

[Krazy]

another good example to back up what i've said is in the new article from Tom, <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030430/index.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030430/index.html</A>

I mean look at the stuff they are brining out to keep the Nvidia cards cool!
Yet the Radeon cards have no such thing, and from what i gather, need no such thing

<font color=blue> When is a pile of sand a pile of sand? one grain . . . two grains?</font color=blue>

 

[phial]

because the architecture of the GFFX *sucks* balls


the 9700 series can do more at 325mhz than the GFFX can do at 500mhz

and whats even funnier, is that the GFFX is manufactured smaller, .13nm compared to the 9700s .15 .. making a processor on a smaller manufacturing process reduces the heat it dissapates and also teh speed at which you can clock it. the GFFX should actually be cooler than the R300 but for some reason it isnt...

ATIs 9600pro, based on the 9800 (which is just a improved 9700) is ATI's first .13 chip. running at 400 or so.. i forget the exact speed, it only requires a small fan, and a review posted here recently showed that a pre-production board was overclocked to 513mhz with the standard 9600pro fan !!

so yeah the GFFX totally sucks all around. its performance, heat and architecture design is laughable when compared to what ATI has been turning out

-------

<A HREF="http://www.xgr.com" target="_new">XGR-Game Reviews</A>

"You change the channel, and you change our minds..." - System of a Down

 

[dhlucke]

Basically, to answer your question, the Nvidia GeForce FX cards suck really bad.

<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>

 

[hineigger]

Simple:

Nvidia makes products THAT WORK. They have to be cooled somehow.

 

[dhlucke]

I'm sorry, but Nvidia's cards are slower, have worse image quality, poor driver support, are expensive, heavy, hot, noisy, and take up too much space.

What was that about working? What were you refering to? Do the boxes the cards come in have some kind of magic utility? I basically just let my cat play with them but apparently you have found a cure for cancer with the Nvidia boxes.



<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>

 

[Krazy]

the only positive aspect i can take on the Huge, noisy coolers for Nvidia, (now don't get me wrong here though) is that they are impressive in some ways. You could picture an "uneducated" person coming in, looking inside your nicely modded case, and then seeing in the middle, this huge mostrosity of a "thing" sitting there hovering and blowing paint of the walls, and then go WOW!!! what's that. but that's about as far as it goes for the usfullness of nevidia needing such drastic cooling needs.

Though i must disagree with dhlucke, yes they are hot, heavy, noisy, and take up to much space, and are a tad $$$ but . . . i think that their image qality isn't all that bad, just not as good as Radeon, and that their drivers are very good. but i'm just being nit picky here so don't mind me )





<font color=blue> When is a pile of sand a pile of sand? one grain . . . two grains?</font color=blue>

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

How are you disagreeing with DH if you say : ".. i think that their image qality isn't all that bad, just not as good as Radeon,..." ? Or does qality mean something other than quality? (just nit-picking)

He simply said it is WORSE, which is exactly what you just said above.

As for their Drivers, NO THEY ARE NOT "VERY GOOD"! In fact there are now more issues with Nvidia's detonator drivers than ATI's Catalyst, which is a reversal of the way things used to be. Seems it's an all-round reversal, ATI has gained performance and driver lead. But ATI never lost the quality lead. Although NEITHER are the king of image quality, that title goes to MATROX.

You may think it's nit-picking, but it's incorrect nit-picking. AKA, Wrong.

Perhaps that will change and we are expecting Big things from Nvidia, they simply haven't produced so far, despite all the expectations and hoopla.

As for why the FX produces more heat, more transistors, however like so many people have pointed out, technically with the new process it SHOULD throw out LESS heat, and realisticallys/theoretically it SHOULD perform better too, the issue to me is optimizing what you've built. It's like all those transistors are either misdirected or simply in conflict (cross-talk, noicse, etc.), Maybe later drivers will fix it, and maybe we will see it able to surpass the R9700/9800 in the future, but for now it's a sad situation.

Perhaps Nvidia thought that if they spun the fan fast enough it would create an 'event' and slow down time to make it appear that the card performed better.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red> :tongue: GA to SK

 

[eden]

Some tests don't even improve image quality on the FX, talk about drivers!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

 

[Krazy]

ok i'm sorry, i realise that when i was talking about the drivers and quality I was incorrect, I was unknowingly comparing the old ATI drivers, so I did a bit of research, and yes, you are all correct, nvidia is far behind in many aspects (which I am sorry to say, as i though nvidia were still alright, but that's looking to turn around)

So I see nvidia have finally lost there King of the GPU status, and they are going to have a very hard time to get it back if ever.

thanks

<font color=blue> When is a pile of sand a pile of sand? one grain . . . two grains?</font color=blue>