[H]ardocp Review for the Geforce FX

The health package rotates and the screenshots were taken at different points in time.

 

MuFu and Doomtrooper

I found it. the Sapphire Atlantis 9700 pro was the card I was refering to. Why could you not take a desing like this, add a fan, put it on an FX and quite the beast.

 

I will be quite happy with my Radeon 9700, $360 Canadian shipped...I'm not into modding a already overpriced video card.

 

So you're still saying that nVidia has another seven months or so until they can match the Radeon 9700 Pro? I don't think so.

 

I wouldn't think Chalnoth, you and I had bet 8 months ago..you stated Nvidia will release superior hardware vs the 9700..I said no they wouldn't..you came over here stating "for sure" and "absolutley" and your prediction came out totally wrong...in fact your predictions are way wrong.
Releasing a video card with a hair dryer attachment doesn't count.

What is Nvidia gonna counter R350 with in 7 months.

 

Yes, Doom, I was wrong. But I think I was justified. I was basing my predictions on past history, and this is the first time nVidia has faltered since the release of the original TNT a little over 4 years ago.

But the real question isn't how the NV35 will stack up against the R350 (assuming the R350 will be released shortly). That's sort of a mute point. It's how the NV35 will stack up against whatever ATI has out about seven months from now.

 

I don't know if anyone mentioned this below but then again these where review samples (which normally are hand picked for reviewers). The overclocking ability on both HardOCP and AnAndTech samples were not to impressive while the average overclocking ability of the Radeon 9700 Pro is significantly better, as in percentages. Meaning for most people who overclock their video cards the better performmer in FPS whould probably go to the Radeon 9700 Pro if both where overclocked to the maximum capable. I really don't think the NV30 cores on the Ultras will yield much faster speeds without even more voltage and better cooling.

IQ wise looking at the images from HardOCP the winner goes to ATI hands down, especially at max IQ settings where the Radeon 9700 pro was pulling away with almost double the frame rate! which to me also looked better .

 

The more correct statement would be FSAA-wise, the 9700 Pro wins. Overall image quality is another thing entirely. Most particularly, with 6xS and 8xS FSAA modes, supersampling is used which further increases texture quality (at a drop in performance). So, in texture quality, 6xS is most certainly better than anything the Radeon 9700 Pro has to offer, but should lie somewhere between the 9700's 4x and 6x AA edge quality. These modes are not going to be good for any of today's games, but should make Counterstike addicts rejoice.

But, regardless, it's a mute point. The FX's primary purpose will be to run at very high resolutions (1600x1200+) with lower FSAA, whereas the 9700 Pro would be better-served by running at lower resolutions (in the more recent, more fillrate-limited games) with high levels of FSAA. In these situations, the FX's benefit will be in texture quality (high res + aniso will beat the texture quality of somewhat lower-res + aniso), whereas the 9700's benefit will be in edge quality at somewhat lower resolutions. Said another way, back to the old debate, what would you rather have? Higher resolution, or more FSAA?

 

Chalnoth, you just plain don't make sense.

Some people simply don't agree with you that the GF FX aniso is better than that on the 9700. Your entire argument is predicated on that being indisputable, not just a personal opinion (not that I consider your well-established opinion unbiased, but I consider it possible that someone not demonstrating the bias you have might share it).

That question is very very very far from a foregone conclusion.

If you are restricting your argument to games with alpha testing alone, you can call the GF FX AA better (EDIT: Hmm...maybe, depends on how these 8XS and 6XS issues pan out), but other than that the question is wide open to debate, despite how you would have it.

 

Where do you get that?
Honestly, ATI's 16x aniso looks better than nVidias 8x - and probably negates most of the SS benefits (except Alpha textures of course).

I dont see this at all.
I think you need to go back and look at the benchies again.

 

I thought you were one of those who claimed a $500 graphics card was not overpriced?

 

Actually, I think they've faltered on pretty much every new architecture. GF1 not much faster than TNT2 Ultra, GF3 not any faster than GF2 Ultra (even slower), GF4 seemed to go ok but it wasn't a truly new architecture. It's just, even so, they were faster than the competition, so they still came out ahead. So, I guess that's not exactly faltering...

What I mean is, their new architectures don't come out of the gate running at full gallop. It wouldn't surprise me if we see a performance increase with later drivers that makes the FX faster than the R9700 (just like with the R8500, ATi clocked it up to make it competitive, and then later drivers improved its performance so it was really better than GF3).

 

edit - hmm, wrong topic, lol

 

Based on the GeForce FX's anisotropic being no worse than the GeForce4's (which is probably a very good assumption), the FX's anisotropic is absolutely better than the Radeon 9700's at the same level of anisotropy. The status of 16-degree anisotropic is debatable, but I notice the aliasing on the 9700 far more than the extra texture clarity.

But once you add in supersampling to the mix, the texture quality on the FX will become better. Certainly it's going to be better at 8xS FSAA, which supersamples in two directions, for the equivalent of 16x FSAA plus better filtering on closer textures. For 4xS and 6xS, it will at least look better for surfaces closer to the horizontal.

And remember, most peoples' arguments against the GeForce4's anisotropic was that it was too slow to be usable (something which I have never agreed with). This is certainly not the case with the FX.

No, FX AA is not better (I'm just trying to say that you have to specify which part of IQ looks better, not that one card wins period). Not even reducing the argument to games with alpha testing alone is good enough, as many more recent games have alpha testing, but the xS performance would be too low to justify using it. And I'm not sure these modes are even supported in OpenGL?

 

Only the GeForce DDR was much faster than the previous high-end from nVidia, the TNT2 Ultra. The GeForce3 was much faster than the GeForce2 Ultra when FSAA was put into the mix, and it looked quite a bit better with anisotropic. I don't really see how you can say that nVidia faltered with these launches, as they have been pushing the limits of the available technology with every release, which has come back to bite them in the butt this time.

 

Still holding on to the dream eh chalnoth?

 

I remember the GF3 in particular being a marginal improvement at best over the GF2, but later on drivers increased speed by a great amount.

 

Not even considering the release drivers, Nagorak, the GeForce DDR was much faster than the TNT2 Ultra, and the GF3 was faster than the GF2 Ultra with FSAA enabled.

 

I play all of my games at 1600x1200 w/ 4x AA and 8 or 16x AF on my 9700 Pro. I think I'll take high res with more AA, thanks for asking.

And what games am I playing? Hitman 2, SoF 2, Warcraft 3, Undying, and Counterstrike. None of these games have problems with the settings I gave above. In fact, I'm still CPU limited in many cases because of my Athlon XP1900+.

 

Chalnoth,

No, lol, the IQ of the Radeon 9700 Pro looks superior to me, texture wise and anti aliasing wise not to mention the doubling in performance. In other words ATI gives you better IQ at a playable frame rate while the GF FX doesn't at its max settings. REMEMBER, THAT IS MY OPINION and OBSERVATION. You can think what you may.