Boycott the GeForce FX Ti5800 Ultra

[surfhurleydude]

nVidia has gone half assed on the enthusiasts. A giant cooler unit that gets the job done (barely, and we still don't know the length of time we'll be able to play games until it throttles), at the cost of our hearing. This is ridiculous. I propose that even all of us that want a GF FX Ultra boycott it. If nVidia can't give us a serious effort at a card, why should we give a serious effort to give them 400 dollars? Perhaps if we just don't by the Ultra card, it'll give nVidia more of an incentive to work their asses off on their .13 process to make the damn thing produce less heat so we can use a normal cooling unit for crying out loud. I may just stick with my Radeon 9700 Pro for much longer than I anticipated. Anyone with me?

 

[Windfire]

Fishing?

 

[Doomtrooper]

Why would sticking with your 9700 Pro be so bad

I don't understand the urgency..if the noise gets reduced you still have basically the same speed but with less FSAA quality.

 

[KimB]

Unless you're having problems with your Radeon 9700 Pro currently, I see no reason to switch, noisy cooler or no noisy cooler on the FX.

 

[surfhurleydude]

Why would sticking with your 9700 Pro be so bad

Because I was STRONGLY looking foward to playing some of my older 16 bit games with Anti Aliasing on... Not to mention, the GF FX *is* faster, even if it is not by much, especially at the settings I play at ( 1024x768 w/ 2xAA and quality Ansio).

 

[Althornin]

Why would sticking with your 9700 Pro be so bad

Because I was STRONGLY looking foward to playing some of my older 16 bit games with Anti Aliasing on... Not to mention, the GF FX *is* faster, even if it is not by much, especially at the settings I play at ( 1024x768 w/ 2xAA and quality Ansio).

Two things:
You do know that the next drivers should have 16bit FSAA enabled, considering the last leak had that feature?
So there goes concern 1)
As for 2) WHY in heck do you play at those settings?
That makes no damn sense. I can play todays MOST demanding games (UT2003) at 1024x768 with 4xAA and 16x perf Aniso - and by changing to 800x600/no AA/aniso, i get almost zero (5-10%)perf increase - the game is system limited!
I just cant see a reason not to have 4xAA on - esp. at 1024x768

 

[surfhurleydude]

As for 2) WHY in heck do you play at those settings?
That makes no damn sense. I can play todays MOST demanding games (UT2003) at 1024x768 with 4xAA and 16x perf Aniso - and by changing to 800x600/no AA/aniso, i get almost zero (5-10%)perf increase - the game is system limited!
I just cant see a reason not to have 4xAA on - esp. at 1024x768

I don't appreciate your callow hostilities, buddy, but it makes perfect sense. UT2003 does not run very smooth with 4xAA and 16x quality ansio on. It takes a SIGNIFICANT hit in performance when I enable those settings...and even 2xAA and 16x Quality ansio displays a very noticable drop in performance over nothing on... But i'm running on a 3.1 ghz system, so I may not be as CPU limited as you are. I also am probably more sensitive to frame rate drops as well (as some are), as my friends can think some stuff is smooth as hell, but I see a framerate drop that just is aggrivating.