"GeForce FX notes"updated in buyers' guide

Spitfire_x86 · Dec 6, 2003

I apologize for taking too much time. It's done at last.

Post your comments.

----------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A>

coolsquirtle · Dec 6, 2003

where's FX5950 and 5700 dude? keep in mind FX5700Ultra is nearly identify in terms of performance in DX8 and 9 against 9600XT

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
FX5700Ultra, the next Ti4200? seems so

Spitfire_x86 · Dec 6, 2003

FX5950 Ultra is not better than R9800 XT

FX5700 is surely very compeatitive with R9600XT in DX8 games, but in DX9 it's still slower than R9600XT/PRO (though lot better than FX5600 Ultra). Moreover, it doesn't cost equal to R9600 PRO or lot less than R9600XT. I wouldn't say it's the best buy even if I included it in the buyers' guide.

Do we really need to buy GeForce FX cards? I don't want to add them just because to make people beleive that the buyers' guide not is ATI biased.

----------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A>

coolsquirtle · Dec 6, 2003

You don't understand, just because the FXs dont perform AS well as the Radeons doesn't mean they're crap, they are still very Capable cards. I know people who can play all the games they like using a FX5600 and be completely satisfied.

I would like all the FXs to be put back, there's nothing wrong with them, its like saying because Nissan is better than Toyota in every way, we all should boycott Toyota.

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
FX5700Ultra, the next Ti4200? seems so

flamethrower205 · Dec 6, 2003

That took way to long! You're fired!!

Ok, you can come back but at half the pay.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

Spitfire_x86 · Dec 6, 2003

I would like all the FXs to be put back, there's nothing wrong with them, its like saying because Nissan is better than Toyota in every way, we all should boycott Toyota.

In this case, we shouldn't boycott Toyota, but Nissan would be the automatic choice.

nVidia cards have no advantage over ATI cards. The FX5700 does a decent job in DX8 games, but DX9 is still inferior. Radeons have equally good DX8 performance and better DX9. And both cards cost roughly same. So what's the automatic choice? The buyers' guide can't help people if he wants to stick to ATI/nVidia.

I'm waiting for more response.

----------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A>

rain_king_uk · Dec 6, 2003

I'd have the FX's in there and then just not recommend them at all.

dhlucke · Dec 6, 2003

I agree that they belong on there. I would stress that they are a good card but that the competition from ATI is better. That will make everyone happy. If someone is dead set on buying a Nvidia card, which we have seen here, then let them see what the best is from Nvidia at least. It's their loss if they go that route but we might as well try to help them find the best card from Nvidia.

My 2 cents.

_________________________________________
12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!

kinney · Dec 6, 2003

I think the 5900 nonultra certainly deserves to be in there...
along with the 5700 and 5950 also.
There is nothing WRONG with those cards.
I mean, even the el-cheapo 5200 is as fast as a Geforce3..granted not the fastest thing out but its not SLOW.
I didnt say it was uber but its not pisspoor slow. In DX9 games it might be but that doesnt mean the card is automatically disqualified.
To my knowledge, ATI doesnt have a circa $50 DX9 card like NV does.. regardless of speed.

Remember, a 5200 is around GF3 speed, which isnt entirely much slower than a 4200. And the GF3 was as fast as the GF2 Ultra (and later faster).

Current games are completely playable on a Geforce2 GTS card.. if not even an MX with more settings turned down.

I suppose for those of us who havent been in the gfx card market for long it would be easy to spite anything not brand new... but the truth is the GF2 era was a fast time for video cards, anything that fast or faster (5200 and the rest of the FXs) are 'good' cards.

They should be in there, if you dont want to endorse them as the 'best buy' then fine...
but the 5900 non ultra at $200 is the best value for its price range IMO and I think NV has that price segment down for any educated buyer.

I was the one who pushed for the 9800 nonpro to be the best buy for $150-300!!! When for some reason everyone else said 9700NP(?)
But when supply of the 9800nonpros are drying up, and fast at that... the 5900 nonultra is easily the next in line and should be in the $150-300 slot.

Now the 5950 isnt worth picking up, and neither is the 5200 over the alternatives (9800XT or GF4 in the 5200s case), but they do deserve mention as an alternative.

From low end to mid end- NV owns. Especially once those nonpros dry up.
High end, I think NV has priced themselves out of the competition with the 5950.

edit- and besides all that... everyone said that we should wait until the big NV driver release (52.16) before we pulled the FXs out... and the driver release was a huge success for Nvidia, and we're still pulling them out???!!!?? Then why did we even wait?

and edit #2- plus, some of us have problems with ATI driver support, and some even problems with the quality of their actual product! I dont think ATI is anywhere NEAR a "one size fits all" gfx provider!
Is this place ran by the bandwagoners? Or actual common sense?

I know if the more openminded members see this, such as Cleeve (who had a helluva time with you guys over the 9600 vs 5900 debate), that they would support my ideas.

I'm sorry guys, but things DO change.. u are going to have to adapt faster.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOYEdited by kinney on 12/06/03 01:38 AM.

coolsquirtle · Dec 6, 2003

Agree 120%
90% of the "futureshop/best buy" computers out there still have MX400s in them. There are more FX5200 sold then then entire 9800 series. There are more FX 5600 sold then 9600pros there are way more Ti4200 sold then 9200s.

People here are blinded, they can't accept the fact that nVidia pulled some magic, they just think the little Radeon in the machine is la best because they bought one.

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
FX5700Ultra, the next Ti4200? seems so

kinney · Dec 6, 2003

I dont care if they take my recommendations, such as the 5900NU as the recommended for the $150-$200 range... but to disqualify the entire line would make a first time visitor, or even a old timer like myself think "wow, what a bunch of fanboy morons".

Esp since the whole debate was originally brought up because of the lackluster DX9 performance (which doesnt even really matter as theres no good DX9 games to even PROVE this!!!! I dont think synthetic benchmarks count and we've already gone over why the Doom 3 AND HL2 benchmarks are already out of date and invalid)

Its just funny how we say things like "dont buy a card for future games until those games are released little timmy!"... to anyone who arrives to our forum doorstep.
Then when it comes to our buyers guide we are like "THESE GODFORBIDDEN CARDS DONT PERFORM WELL IN DX9!!! DONT BUY THEM"
LOL, see the logic (or lack thereof?)

And everyones like "ok ok, wait until they release the new drivers and then we'll decide"
Then the 52.16s come out, NV works their magic (as usual). Yet ppl wont get rid of the FX stigma because they are the type that gets stuck in a rut, and change is something they dont do easily. Not good for someone living in the technical age.

I would suggest moving control of the buyers guide to Cleeve, he has demonstrated the most unbiased, objective video card views on the forum.
edit- and besides that, a very bad job was done of removing the FX stuff anyway! I quote

Other good cards in this price category: Radeon 9500 Pro, Radeon 9600 Pro, GeForce FX5600 Ultra rev2.0

and

Don't think about buying 256 MB version GeForceFX 5600 cards. They aren't fast enough to utilize 256 MB VRAM.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOYEdited by kinney on 12/06/03 02:11 AM.

TheGreatGrapeApe · Dec 6, 2003

(which doesnt even really matter as theres no good DX9 games to even PROVE this!!!!

What?

Wrong. Either you're now subjectively selecting what is a 'good' DX9 game (ironic for someone so stuck on defending CS), or you aren't aware of the multitude of DX9 enhaced games that there are out there, and the holes in the FXs'' performance.

Here's a few examples:

<A HREF="http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=gw5700u&page=9&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544645B5D079E850206FC1BAE9224A3B0895CC8628446B0BC7339319F2C0458751722D2AA7ECDAF4E0F8CFF8885B3388BA68561C51A38EAA20413796FD2384AE20C2E869B08883B3BD99E8DEA977CBEE46A8A31EF6DDE6417D4E56CA923F70EC5CD4EB7388EB050B88D520A50B259D41EE7E4BDCF7BDB0EC79F95" target="_new">Here we see in Freedom Fighters that the R9600XT once again outperforming the FX5900</A>

<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/nv38-36.html/nv38-36.html" target="_new">In Digit-Life's review of the FX series the R9600XT beats the FX5900U in one of the TombRaider benchies and is close enough in the other two to show weakness(and that's an Ultra).</A>

Unfortunately I can't find equivalent TRON 2.0 demos (most people are reviewing by category again, and using lower res. for the FX5700s than the FX5900s). But based on the gaps in those demos between the FX5700s and R9600s and the R9800s and FX5900s, I'm pretty confident that the FX5900's performance in TRON 2.0 would be another DX9 game it does poorly in.

<A HREF="http://www.techtv.com/freshgear/products/jump/0,23009,3576350,00.html" target="_new">TechTV's one of the few to put an R9600XT against an FX5900U/NU and even the FX5950 in MaxPayne 2.0 (which is DX8.1 title, does the hole extended to PS1.4 as well?) and it performs worse w/ no AA/AF, (ok tie in second res of FX5950). And these figures aren't an anomoly, they match seperate reviews of each hardware (9600v5700 + 9800v5900) by Driverheaven and others</A>

More mainly DX8 'holes'.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=6=" target="_new">What's up with C&C? The FX5950 and FX5900Ultra loses by a WIDE margin to the R9600PRO! You'll notice this is the LAST time Aanand review the FX59XX series against an R9600 card (I guess nV won't give you the first crack at hardware if you make it look bad)</A>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=14" target="_new">Same thing with SimCity (oh no all those SIM players whatever will they do?)</A>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=18" target="_new">Warcraft II showing similar results</A>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=12" target="_new">FS 2004 has never been a 'showcase' title for the FXs</A>

And you can't complain about this only being the case on Anand's tests, it's replicated all over the place. And Anand would easily be classified as a pro-nV reviewer, esdpecially in light of his being given the right/chance to add nV hardware that still hadn't cleared NDAs everywhere else.

All in all that doesn't show the FX5900 in a very good light.

Modern games = struggle for FX series. That's not to say it's an impossible strubble. Some games will get the run-time compiler tweak, but only if anyone benchmarks and publishes them, otherwise you're likely to get the same gulf in performance between the FX5900 and the Radeons without it ever being addressed by nV.

The FX5900 is an ok card, but for the same price you can get an R9800 which will spank it in almost every game, and for significantly less you can get and R9600 card. So the FX5900 is still a long way off from being the most recommendable card in it's class. Sure it belongs in the buyer's guide like I said before, but it also requires the caveats I mention the last timewe talked about this.

The FX5900 doesn't suck like the FX5800, but it definitely isn't as attractive as many alternatives.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! - RED GREEN GA to SK :evil:

-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-

Spitfire_x86 · Dec 7, 2003

Remember, a 5200 is around GF3 speed, which isnt entirely much slower than a 4200. And the GF3 was as fast as the GF2 Ultra (and later faster).

Prove it. I've seen GeForce FX5200 (non-Ultra, 128 bit memory) getting beaten by MX440. eForce FX5200/5600 series have no consistent performance level.

Current games are completely playable on a Geforce2 GTS card.. if not even an MX with more settings turned down.

Fine! So why people upgrades from GeForce2 GTS?

My R9000 (non-PRO) heavily slows down in extreme gunfights in Mafia (not much such gunfights in that game) at 1024 x 768 x 32bit @ max details /no AA. This card is faster than GeForce2 Ultra. Though I can get through the fight, but I definately feel the need for a better card in such cases.

AA is not very useful in games like Serious Sam/UT. But in games like GTA-VC/Mafia, you would certainly want to turn AA on. Do this with GeForce2 GTS

Its just funny how we say things like "dont buy a card for future games until those games are released little timmy!"... to anyone who arrives to our forum doorstep.
Then when it comes to our buyers guide we are like "THESE GODFORBIDDEN CARDS DONT PERFORM WELL IN DX9!!! DONT BUY THEM"
LOL, see the logic (or lack thereof?)

You say something better within 2 lines.

I would suggest moving control of the buyers guide to Cleeve, he has demonstrated the most unbiased, objective video card views on the forum

Do you think Cleeve will recommend FX5900 over R9800?

Nobody will be able to satisfy nV fanboys

edit- and besides that, a very bad job was done of removing the FX stuff anyway! I quote

Thanks for the correcion. I will be more careful about editing from the next time

----------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A>Edited by Spitfire_x86 on 12/06/03 06:25 PM.

Spitfire_x86 · Dec 7, 2003

There are more FX5200 sold then then entire 9800 series. There are more FX 5600 sold then 9600pros there are way more Ti4200 sold then 9200s.

Tell people to buy Celeron (P4 based) over AXP, becuase there are way more Celerons sold than AXP.

BTW, I don't think anybody in this forum ever recommended R9200 over Ti4200

----------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A>Edited by Spitfire_x86 on 12/06/03 06:26 PM.

Spitfire_x86 · Dec 7, 2003

What do you think? Should I stick with the current 2 line GF-FX comment or include them in the list like all other cards.

----------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A>

kinney · Dec 7, 2003

Your missing the point. I dont care whether you think the 5200 line is crap or not. You can argue back and forth all day about what card is faster ect. BUT

edit- and besides all that... everyone said that we should wait until the big NV driver release (52.16) before we pulled the FXs out... and the driver release was a huge success for Nvidia, and we're still pulling them out???!!!?? Then why did we even wait?

and edit #2- plus, some of us have problems with ATI driver support, and some even problems with the quality of their actual product! I dont think ATI is anywhere NEAR a "one size fits all" gfx provider!

Thats the point we are trying to make.
Nice try to divert the issue though.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY

coolsquirtle · Dec 7, 2003

what do mean what does he think, it's freaking buyer's guide, not "I'm a freaking fanATic so here's a ATi cards guide"

Put the FXs back, say good things about them, or u might as well delete the freaking guide cause it's biase, false and run by a bunch ATi monkeys.

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
FX5700Ultra, the next Ti4200? seems so

coolsquirtle · Dec 7, 2003

these people here are just not seeing things straight.

1. nVidia pulled magic and they very well can pull another one and have the FXs killing Radeon

2. The FX lose to the Radeon by like 20 fps at most? and people are going around yelling FXs ARE SHIIT!!!!!!!
3. The whole freaking forum is pro ATi
4. nVidia driver are freaking better than ATi PERIOD!
5. nVidia cards are more popular PERIOD!

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
FX5700Ultra, the next Ti4200? seems so

kinney · Dec 7, 2003

Like I told spitfire.. Im not going to argue with you guys over what card is better ect. I can pull up all kinds of specific examples of a 5900 beating a 9600 in this or that.. or I could how crappy ATI driver support still is. Does it even matter? Because thats not the point.
I think your efforts are futile when it comes down to it on arguing like a fanboy.

The point is all FXs are removed (and they dont deserve to be, my arguement for the 5200 was just to show how they are not crap), if you read my reply to spitfire you'll understand what we're getting at.

Drop some of the fanboyism for christs sake.
While I'm having FUN playing CS or whatever game I choose to play you can sit around and lament that fact.
Its obvious why you play games, not to have fun but look at the graphics.

If I play CS- soo f*cking what?

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY

TheGreatGrapeApe · Dec 7, 2003

I've always been a sucker for more info (look at my Catalyst review it's growing like a weed, and it already had alot of stuff/links in there.

I would prefer specifically addressing each FX line, maintaining a/the big discalimer at the beginning.

I do like the FX5700U it is a different design and the 3Vertex engines do help in some areas. And that's coming from someone who really likes his R9600P. Ask GW the FX5700U is a worthy competitor; and the pride of the FX line IMO. The FX5950 is ok, but yes, it doesn't match the perfromance of it's rivals, nor does the FX5900.

The FX5200 can be added, but also with a caveat like: " this really isn't a gaming card of any quality to recommend for this category, your money would be better spent on a GF4ti or even an R9100 in most cases. The Ultra is too expensive for it's mediocre performance". Should things change and the price of the FX5200U come down, then maybe that could be edited.

I think currently the lack of metion of the FXs (even if we were to only mention them for the sake of crticizing them), despite the banner at the top, just makes people dismiss or call into question the buyers guide on first blush. That's even if with more research they later come to understand it's virtues. At first they are likely to be looking there for a specific reason why the card they were leaning towards is not included.

I'd also like to see mention of the Parhelia, even if to say it's only benifits are Great Image Quality (at the price of FPS) and Surround Gaming support (something I hope to see on offer from nV and ATI later.

I would've also prefered the division of cards to be $0-100 (winner GF4ti), $100-200 (winner R9600 series [special mention to FX5700]), $200-300 (winner R9800non-pro), 300+ (recommended R9800XT), and maybe $2000+ for the Matrox HR256 :evil:

. I think that there is a true difference between the low-class/entry level and that of the R9600/FX5700, which right now get overshadowed by cheap R9800non-pros.

I like as much info as possible, but I do realize it's quite an involved task to keep updating this thing of ours, but I'm generally satisfied for the most part.

That's just my view of things from the cheap seats.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! - RED GREEN GA to SK :evil:

-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-

TheGreatGrapeApe · Dec 7, 2003

Watch who you call a Fanatatic, especially an ATI monkey.

If that is in anyway directed at me, the one who was being asked, it's completely unwarranted.

I've added my thoughts if you can show how in any way it's clouded by FanATIcism I'd love to here it.

Buyer's guides are all about opinion, there is very little 'fact' because anything more than $/mhz involves some interpretation of the 'facts'.

I've said my peace, and I'll leave it at that.

EDIT (didn't want to waste another post [not looking to increase my ranking]: With regards to your other post, I just want to address this one issue;

5. nVidia cards are more popular PERIOD!

WOW! PERIOD! Exclamation Point!
And
nV is lossing it's popularity.
nV's figures aren't across the board.
INTEL still has the MOST popular graphics chips in the world!

The rest of those points I'll simply say, In your opinion. #4 is simply no longer true IMO, but that's MY opinion, which I forgot is irrelevant.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! - RED GREEN GA to SK :evil:

-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 12/06/03 05:49 PM.

kinney · Dec 7, 2003

Thats because they dont want to see things straight.

Its apparant with the removal of the entire line of FXs.

The FX line is more than qualified as an ALTERNATIVE if not better in some cases. What... we dont have alternative recommendations at LEAST anymore?
And watch, they'll put them back in with huge disclaimers making them sound worse than they really are..

I would buy a 5700 or 5900, especially when the 9800NP line drys up like the 9700NP line pretty much has. And I think that would be worth noting.

BTW CoolS, isnt the buyers guide yours anyway? Cant you change it?
You did create the thing.

If anyone reading this doesnt understand what the real issue is, read my last reply to Spitfire.

Edit- I'll just repost it here because no one is directly answering either of these points. And these are our main grievences.

1. Everyone said that we should wait until the big NV driver release (52.16) before we pulled the FXs out... and the driver release was a huge success for Nvidia, and we're still pulling them out???!!!?? Then why did we even wait?

2. Some of us have problems with ATI driver support, and some even problems with the quality of their actual product! I dont think ATI is anywhere NEAR a "one size fits all" gfx provider!
Hence the need for alternatives, at the very least. But if your just going to put huge disclaimers about how 'dangerous' the purchase might be, then forget it.. and like CoolSq said, just erase the whole thing.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY

kinney · Dec 7, 2003

Take a look at HardOCPs <A HREF="http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=73b80384c0738155628b6f9b7694c457&threadid=610676" target="_new">buyers guide</A>

AND LOOK WHERE THEY PUT THE 5200S.

It doesnt really matter though, I just wanted to point out that on a site that is WAY BIASED against Nvidia their forum is much more balanced and fair than ours.
Ours looks like a bunch of fanboy noobs run it.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY

bandikoot · Dec 7, 2003

IMO, the guide should have them in, with a list of pros and cons. It looks more professional to have everything in there, even if a particular item is not recommended for purchase. If someone ignores your advice and purchases what you feel is an inferior card, why worry about it? You did the best you could and it's not like its your money anyway.

RRAMJET · Dec 7, 2003

Its simple, Ati have a slight edge in performance in the top price bracket but in the middle and lower end really have nothing to offer as nvidia price/performance is much better. Even Atis middle 9600 range have outpriced themselves as the 5600fx are much more appealing to 95% of the population who are not obsessed with benchmarks etc and can save big dollars with nvidia.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!

"GeForce FX notes"updated in buyers' guide

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Illustrious

Splendid

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page