More GeForce FX Details (Benchmarks)!

[Guru]

Dont know if this has been posted before but.... http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=60000459

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/2002/11-19_b.php

[WyWyWyWy]

Wooo the numbers are unreal!!! Well thats if they are not made-up.

Certainly out of this world!! Crazy...

[Novdid]

Very impressive numbers, but then again what did you expect from a part launched 6 months after the 9700???

[Helevitia]

Hmm, paper numbers for a paper launch, how appropriate

Dave

[The PIT]

Natures a bit slow I'm sure I beat that at the same res.

Anyway ATI have said they've got something to slam the FX as soon as it comes out and that was about 4 - 6 months ago. I presume they going for revenge after the last couple times Nvidea released a new product striaght after them.

[superfly]

Yup...Ran the nature test at exactly the same settings as displayed in the article and got 37.2 FPS with my 9700 at default clock speed....just 3 fps less....

[The PIT]

Too be honest graphics cards well Ati's and Gfarce are getting so fast at gaming the only things they can compete against each other is IQ in 2d. This why we nead matrox to be strong. IN 3d games will be going so fast you won't notice the differance unless you put up the fps counter.

[103er-Fan]

Originally posted by WyWyWyWy
Wooo the numbers are unreal!!! Well thats if they are not made-up.

Certainly out of this world!! Crazy...

A few months ago people said the same to a graphic chip released by ATI... and I bet in about 12 months we will say the same again to yet another ATI chip and a few months later to another NV chip, and then to....

[superfly]

Originally posted by The PIT
Too be honest graphics cards well Ati's and Gfarce are getting so fast at gaming the only things they can compete against each other is IQ in 2d. This why we nead matrox to be strong. IN 3d games will be going so fast you won't notice the differance unless you put up the fps counter.

That's true...At least until developers increase the overall visual quality of their games to a significant enough degree to actually start to stress recent video cards again....


Notice how up until very recently,cards had only up to a 4x AA setting(excluding matrox's FAA of course),and they're now moving on to 6x FSAA(R9700),and even 8x FSAA(GFFX)...Just what the doctor(or marketing dept...) ordered to make sure that upcoming cards will get a significant speed hit to still make Fps comparisons meaningfull again...


Personally,i play all my games at 1600*1200 16x aniso and AA isn't really an essential feature at those resolutions anyhow....

[The PIT]

Yup and when doom3 runs at 500 fps on any card from ATi and Nvidea whats going to make your mind up which you buy. The one that looks better on the desktop at high res.

[superfly]

Originally posted by The PIT
Yup and when doom3 runs at 500 fps on any card from ATi and Nvidea whats going to make your mind up which you buy. The one that looks better on the desktop at high res.

The really histerical part about all this is that even Doom 3 won't pose as much of a challenge(much to the dismay of JC,i'm sure...),to cards that will be available by the time the game is actually released(possibly Q3~Q4/2003).


Here we have a GFFX aparently able to hit nearly 50 fps at 1280*1024 which is already pretty decent to begin with,never mind the ones that will show up later in the year(R350/R400/NV35/parhelia 2),so i don't really have any problem in believing that any one of those cards can realisitically run the game just fine at 1600*1200 or better....


Btw...the frame rate in doom 3 will be intentionally caped at a max of 60 fps and i'm not sure that editing the Doom 3 CFG file will change that,so i don't think we'll see the same Q3 situation happening....

[ZokesPro]

Originally posted by Helevitia
Hmm, paper numbers for a paper launch, how appropriate

Dave

I second that, can't wait to see it for real though.

[The PIT]

Originally posted by superfly
The really histerical part about all this is that even Doom 3 won't pose as much of a challenge(much to the dismay of JC,i'm sure...),to cards that will be available by the time the game is actually released(possibly Q3~Q4/2003).


Here we have a GFFX aparently able to hit nearly 50 fps at 1280*1024 which is already pretty decent to begin with,never mind the ones that will show up later in the year(R350/R400/NV35/parhelia 2),so i don't really have any problem in believing that any one of those cards can realisitically run the game just fine at 1600*1200 or better....


Btw...the frame rate in doom 3 will be intentionally caped at a max of 60 fps and i'm not sure that editing the Doom 3 CFG file will change that,so i don't think we'll see the same Q3 situation happening....

Your missing my point as graphics card come more and more powerful to the point that eye can't different which card is going the quickest at the most complex part of the game with everything turned on your left which looks best at the highest 2d quality.

[ZokesPro]

IMO, now tha nVidia is up there in speed then shouldn't they try to work on the quality of their graphics? (or even the heat genrated by the new gpu?)

[superfly]

Originally posted by ZokesPro
IMO, now tha nVidia is up there in speed then shouldn't they try to work on the quality of their graphics? (or even the heat genrated by the new gpu?)

Can't really comment graphics quality wise(i'm assuming 2d quality here),but as far as cooling goes...I'm thinking that Nvidia is feeling the pressure from ATI and has to resort to using such an extravagant cooler to try and get every last MHZ out of that core...Even if it means loosing a PCI slot in the process...