GF FX: best graphics processor?

Sounds like the NV30 won this award on a technicality. Technically, they shipped a few chips (probably slow and barely functional) to a few board vendors just before the end of 2002. Even if this was true, how could Peter Glaskowsky have been in a position to evaluate the product's performance, without final drivers and without any benchmarks to really stress it?
 
Key facts of which none of you seem to be aware:

Our eligibility criteria are that nominees must be commercially available during the calendar year preceding the announcement of the award, and that enough information be available about the nominees to permit us to reach a good decision about the award.

The GeForce FX did become commercially available during 2002. NVIDIA manufactured and sold these chips in 2002 to board makers, who then began manufacturing boards using these chips. Yes, sales volumes are very low, but the Microprocessor Report awards are not concerned with sales volumes, only the qualities inherent to the chips themselves.

The GeForce FX does in fact outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro in most ways, and in the ways that we regard as most important.

We stand by our award.

If it makes any of you feel any better, I did speak with ATI representatives several times from November through January about the availability of the R350, and ATI confirmed that it was not eligible for our awards this time around. I do expect the R350 to outperform the GeForce FX in many ways, and to be a greater commercial success; the open question is which chip will offer superior overall performance.

. png
Nonsense... Commercially available.. :rolleyes:

What ways do they regard important??? It has inferior AA, according to Digit-Life iferior AF in the most important angles. It is one HELL of a lot slower when you match the IQ's as close as possible. It has known hardware Bugs. Its only faster in the ULTRA Version thats clearly OVERCLOCKED and not going to be released other than in extremely limited quantities..

I mean.. How the HELL does this guy or his people make such a call??? The GFFX fails in comparrison to the 9700pro in all but one area.. Shader instruction length.. I just dont think these people can justify their decision at all.

It really makes me sad that a Company like ATi can release such an outstanding product. Have a very successfull launch, Have it in peoples hands for months now. Have the best availabe WORKING feature set on the market. The Best AA ever offered. Higher core speeds than anyone ever thought possible on .15u process...

And people like this thumb their noses at it. All for some Stupid paper launch?? A product that meets no ones expectations at all. That is about to get outclasses before its even actually released to the public.

The thing that REALLY pisses me off. If you are going to count the speed of this product based on an overheating, overclocked extremely limited version of the Nv30.. You Damn sure should consider the Level-III 9700pro card with a shipping clock speed of 415mhz. Its scores cream the snot out of the Nv30 ultra. If Quantities dont matter then you how do you justify not giving the award to the Level-III 9700pro??

Whats the difference?
 
I'm [...] the most highly respected technology analyst in the graphics industry.
:rolleyes:

The FX is primarily marketed as a gaming chip, and, as such, it's disappointing compared to the R300 in many respects.

Or have the roles reversed, with nV producing chips its driver writers can't fully exploit, and ATi milking its chips for every drop of performance?

I won't get into image quality. ;)
 
I don't see why you guys are in a big fuss over this whole thing. The GeForce FX is going to be successful or not based on whether we the gamers buys it or not - analysts don't make or break a product. This is just a bunch of text, just like the GeForce FX was to us in 2002. The only people who should be interested in this report are those in the microprocessor business.
 
Matt said:
I don't see why you guys are in a big fuss over this whole thing. The GeForce FX is going to be successful or not based on whether we the gamers buys it or not - analysts don't make or break a product. This is just a bunch of text, just like the GeForce FX was to us in 2002. The only people who should be interested in this report are those in the microprocessor business.

Yeah you are absolutely right. All it is an expensive PR for nvidia to help pump their company stock. Pretty much par for the course though for nvidia. The only real problem is that is craps on ATIs efforts and achievements.

This award is about deception of the market on the higher level of OEMs and the like. The real sad point is only a fool would pay the extra for a Geforce FX over a Radeon 9700 pro.

ATi would be hard pressed to come out with a product with any better of a launch with solid drivers and 5 star reviews accross the board and yet nvidia comes out 6 + months later with a card that has buggy drivers (from what I have seen) a massive cooling apparatus (needed because it runs too hot.) that takes 2 slots up on the average motherboard has and louder then hell, inferior IQ (AF +AA) considerably more expensive then the Radeon 9700 current selling price on and on.... so why is it that it received the award? Oh yeah did I mention that it isn't shipping yet?

Also AFAIK he is 100% wrong about the availability of the Geforce FX Ultra 5800 I am not aware of it even shipping as of yet. Anyway the product is massively late (a full 6 months behind to date.) and only marginally better then the Radeon 9700 pro at best and that is all from reviews as no one owns the Geforce FX to my knowledge yet. Who was selling the card commercially in 2002?

IMHO the Geforce FX does not desearve teh award and I hypothesize that the award is bought and paid for out of nvidias deep pockets. Just more of the same old marketing ploys, most anyone whom knows anything about the graphics market and nvidia knows dam well the Geforce FX does not deserve the award. Just sayin.
 
Matt said:
I don't see why you guys are in a big fuss over this whole thing. The GeForce FX is going to be successful or not based on whether we the gamers buys it or not - analysts don't make or break a product. This is just a bunch of text, just like the GeForce FX was to us in 2002. The only people who should be interested in this report are those in the microprocessor business.

Ohh come on Matt! :p

I don't suppose you guys read his comment on our board?
Just look at what he wrote, I can't even find the words to describe this individual :)

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=76152#post76152
 
volt said:
Matt said:
I don't see why you guys are in a big fuss over this whole thing. The GeForce FX is going to be successful or not based on whether we the gamers buys it or not - analysts don't make or break a product. This is just a bunch of text, just like the GeForce FX was to us in 2002. The only people who should be interested in this report are those in the microprocessor business.

Ohh come on Matt! :p

I don't suppose you guys read his comment on our board?
Just look at what he wrote, I can't even find the words to describe this individual :)

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=76152#post76152

My sakes the man is the laughing stock of the graphics industry all of a sudden, hope nvidia paid him well enough.
 
Sabastian said:
Yeah you are absolutely right. All it is an expensive PR for nvidia to help pump their company stock. Pretty much par for the course though for nvidia. The only real problem is that is craps on ATIs efforts and achievements.

How is that a problem? The people giving out the award aren't buying GF FX or Radeon9700's. The people applauding ATi's efforts and achievements are the ones that are buying them to play games on. Not Microprocessor awards.

Sabastian said:
This award is about deception of the market on the higher level of OEMs and the like. The real sad point is only a fool would pay the extra for a Geforce FX over a Radeon 9700 pro.

Exactly.

Sabastian said:
ATi would be hard pressed to come out with a product with any better of a launch with solid drivers and 5 star reviews accross the board and yet nvidia comes out 6 + months later with a card that has buggy drivers (from what I have seen) a massive cooling apparatus (needed because it runs too hot.) that takes 2 slots up on the average motherboard has and louder then hell, inferior IQ (AF +AA) considerably more expensive then the Radeon 9700 current selling price on and on.... so why is it that it received the award? Oh yeah did I mention that it isn't shipping yet?

You said it yourself, it's not shipping yet.

Sabastian said:
Also AFAIK he is 100% wrong about the availability of the Geforce FX Ultra 5800 I am not aware of it even shipping as of yet. Anyway the product is massively late (a full 6 months behind to date.) and only marginally better then the Radeon 9700 pro at best and that is all from reviews as no one owns the Geforce FX to my knowledge yet. Who was selling the card commercially in 2002?

Right, marginally better in today's games as of right now. It still has potential for future games, but I'm not one to buy a card for potential either.

Sabastian said:
IMHO the Geforce FX does not desearve teh award and I hypothesize that the award is bought and paid for out of nvidias deep pockets. Just more of the same old marketing ploys, most anyone whom knows anything about the graphics market and nvidia knows dam well the Geforce FX does not deserve the award. Just sayin.

Personally I could give two flying crap about the award. It means nothing to me as a gamer. It won't mean nothing to others either, because people got their mind made up already - either they're going to buy it, or buy a competitor's product, but noone is stupid enough to buy a card based on a Microprocessor Award. Most are stupid enough to buy them based on the box art itself. The high-end cards though, people are more informed about, because they're investing a lot of money for it and they're aimed at hardcore gamers. These hardcore gamers are ones that know how to seperate the PR bullshit from the truth. So like I said, I feel this whole argument is a moot point.
 
Hi Matt, I really have no disagreements with what you say. But if I were making the decision of which card would receive the award the Radeon 9700 pro wins hands down for 2002 plain and simple. I guess I am reserving the right to disagree with the mans conclusion. The GeforceFX doesn't deserve the award.
 
volt said:
Ohh come on Matt! :p

I don't suppose you guys read his comment on our board?
Just look at what he wrote, I can't even find the words to describe this individual :)

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=76152#post76152

I just read what he wrote. Arrogant little snot, ain't he? :oops:

I still stand by what I said though, this award means nothing to me, and shouldn't mean anything to every gamer out there. It's stupid, and has no relevance to gaming. As everyone here knows, it's just a PR move, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Sabastian said:
Hi Matt, I really have no disagreements with what you say. But if I were making the decision of which card would receive the award the Radeon 9700 pro wins hands down for 2002 plain and simple. I guess I am reserving the right to disagree with the mans conclusion. The GeforceFX doesn't deserve the award.

I guess I just view it as not an award. To me, an award is something you give someone/something for doing a good job and standing head and shoulders above the rest. Since this award didn't go to the R9700 when it clearly should've, it's not an award to me. That's like being "awarded" a ring for winning the Super Bowl when all I did was hand out the water cups. Heh.
 
I think we just found the the graphics card industry's equivalent to the Razzie!!!

award_pic.jpg
 
Its the principle of the matter that is the problem.

EVERYONE on planet earth knows that ATi busted their ass and DESERVED To get that award, or others like it.

Its the blatant thumbing their nose at What ATi Achieved and Released to everyone that is so damn irritating. All Nvidia did was paper launch a product, that is even still not available. Its Does not revolutionize anything. It's has several hardware Bugs, and Design flaws.

It just makes no sense. Nvidia has already embrassed it and Released an official PR statement Declaring their Nv30 wins *Best Graphics chip of 2002*. Even though there is not a damn one anywhere available to the consumer. Then We all know that the Ultra Version, that this guy claims is *Faster in all the ways it matters* wont see the light of day except for preorders.

This award, and reasons for it are so Ethically, and morally Reprehensible that its almost criminal.
 
Hellbinder[CE said:
]
EVERYONE on planet earth knows that ATi busted their ass and DESERVED To get that award, or others like it.

If this were the case, there wouldnt be aproblem :LOL:
 
I got an idea guys . Lets get ati to release a video card at the end of 2003 which is just a water cooled overclocked to hell r400 (or whatever is out then) and let them sell it to one of us . Document the sale on this board so when they try to give it to nvidia again next year we can say oh no wait here is this card taht ati sold us. Of course like everything else the rules will change to help out nvidia like with 3dmark.
 
1. The eligibility test was whether the chip was sampling by the end of 2002. NV30 unquestionably passes this test, and it's by far not the only winner to get in under this "technicality".

I still think this is an odd criterion for a "best of 2002" award, but it does make a certain degree of sense considering uPR's readership, namely microprocessor design engineers. The design engineer's job is done when the chip is sampling; when the product based on the chip is commercially available is based on a completely different set of factors. As the award is for design engineering, in a journal targeted at design engineers, using sampling-date as the cutoff is not necessarily a bad choice. (Although it still seems strange to refer to most of the winners as as "2002 chips".)

2. Peter Glaskowsky is one of the most respected and influential computer industry analysts in the world. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. And judging by his bio page, he focuses particularly on graphics/media technology (I'd only run into his name in connection with PC platform/CPU related stuff before), so it's probably also an undisputible fact that he is the most respected analyst of the 3d industry. It may be impolitic of him to come out and state it like that in the nvnews.net forums, but it's not conceited, because it's true.

On second thought, the entire idea of him debating the choice in the nvnews.net forum was impolitic and rather bizarre, and I assumed it was a hoax at first but after comparing his posts there with his defunct personal website I realized he's just that goofy.

3. It's still a bad choice, and almost certainly a result of being biased by the hype. I don't know that much about Peter Glaskowsky, but I do recall him relentlessly playing up Merced (Itanium 1) like a pathetic Intel sycophant...except that Intel itself had by that point dismissed Merced as nothing more than a pilot architecture to seed ISV development for Itanium 2.

Point is, Glaskowsky has at least some history of being swayed by hype (and I'm willing to bet there are plenty more examples). This is probably what makes him such a successful analyst. That's a serious comment, BTW: you rarely go wrong betting on establishment players who hype their products successfully. That means they have the best marketing, and probably the best brand associations among potential customers. Not to mention the resources to eventually make good on their overhyped product with a successful followup.

Glaskowsky was completely wrong to go gaga over the ridiculous Merced, but he can cover it up now by pretending he was just sold on IA64 as a whole, which has produced the fastest currently available CPU on the planet, and will likely continue to hold that disctinction for most of the forseeable future. Of course that's because Intel's 64-bit competitors all laid down and died in the face of the hype, except for Sun (which was the least competitive in the first place) and IBM (whose long term commitment to fighting Itanium is questionable). Obviously the same won't happen with ATI and Nvidia, but if NV35 turns out to be a balanced and successful product which significantly outperforms R350 (and it very well might), this award may not look in hindsight as stupid as it is in reality.

4. But it is stupid in reality. Blech.
 
Joe DeFuria said:

CRIPES! Apprently, Hell hath no fury like 3D Graphics Fanbois scorned! :devilish:

LOL. :) I read Peter's comments and from the couple times I've met him, that does sound a lot like him. This is one of the reasons Jon Peddie didn't do these type of awards while I was working for him. You're always going to piss off somebody. So why not just let actual market data speak for itself. Same goes for benchmarketing, as my boss Andy Fischer coined a long time ago. :D

Tommy McClain
 
Yup, awards don't mean anything. Just like if an actor wins the Best Actor award at the Oscars and you certainly don't go see any of his future movies just coz he's won the award... right?

Who are the analysts, Matt? You're a reviewer. You actually give "awards" to products through the text in your reviews, Matt. Not 4 or 5 stars "awards" like some sites do but it's really basically the same. Are you saying your reviews mean nothing to gamers?

Something to think about.
 
Back
Top