NV40: Surprise, disappointment, or just what you expected?
- Thread starter Nick Spolec
- Start date
Impressed with the speed and balance. Disappointed that they moved from good AF to angle dependant. Disappointed about the power and space requirements as well as noisy cooling solution. It is quite hard to find good and quiet 450W PSU - or even more powerful.
But I'm glad NVIDIA is back on track and that we have a strong competitor for ATI. It's good for use consumers
But I'm glad NVIDIA is back on track and that we have a strong competitor for ATI. It's good for use consumers
You want some 3Dmark benches?Unit01 said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/nv40_44.html
StellaArtois
Newcomer
Evildeus said:
And of course the 3DMark03 results are with FutureMark approved drivers.
It's exactly what I expected. I was hoping for better AA, but meh, can't have everything.
This is an interesting question. The 6800 is definatly a better card. The nv3x line had serious hardware issues. Look at the benches that are out the last few days and you will see coloring issues and whatnot else on the old nv3x line but the nv4x renders the scenes pretty much just like the 9800xt's.
I find it very interesting that the coloring could be that off on the older card. I also dont think it is completely a driver issue. It may be a side efect of the cheas in the drivers for the older nv3x cards but somehow I think it also has to do with hardware issues.
I think nvidia was really stuck in a hard place with the nv3x series. The nv4x though seems to have solved the hardware issues and is a much beter card. It has much improved picture quality and all in all it looks like they really made a good effort this time. Not that they did not last time but like I said they were stuck with what they had at that time.
Only real downside I can see is the power requirements and the cooling. The aa and af are much better. Now it will be interesting to see how much the quality drops depending on how much slower they are then the x800xt. I really hope they have learned thier lesons about the last time around but we will have to wait to see.
I find it very interesting that the coloring could be that off on the older card. I also dont think it is completely a driver issue. It may be a side efect of the cheas in the drivers for the older nv3x cards but somehow I think it also has to do with hardware issues.
I think nvidia was really stuck in a hard place with the nv3x series. The nv4x though seems to have solved the hardware issues and is a much beter card. It has much improved picture quality and all in all it looks like they really made a good effort this time. Not that they did not last time but like I said they were stuck with what they had at that time.
Only real downside I can see is the power requirements and the cooling. The aa and af are much better. Now it will be interesting to see how much the quality drops depending on how much slower they are then the x800xt. I really hope they have learned thier lesons about the last time around but we will have to wait to see.
As I said in the other similar thread, it's pretty much the performance I've been expecting for months now, although perhaps the "completeness" of the design was a surprise, since there are often obvious weaknesses. As others have mentioned, the AA was a slight let down, but improved enough not to be too bothersome.
Now the 800XT part will struggle to exceed my expectations, since I have very high hopes for the part, particularly regarding shader speed. Can't wait to see these two duke it out 8)
Now the 800XT part will struggle to exceed my expectations, since I have very high hopes for the part, particularly regarding shader speed. Can't wait to see these two duke it out 8)
StellaArtois
Newcomer
Evildeus said:
No sarcasm - although re-reading it did sound a bit like it!
Malfunction
Newcomer
I was pleasantly surprised! I expected about 10 to 15 frames more than the current cards and instead, got to see double the performance at 16x12!
The image quality is (imho) better on the nVidia side now which is just what I was hoping. While looking at the tail shots comparison on Tech Reports review, I was completely happy with not having the blurring that is being shown on the 9800XT. AA goes to nVidia as far as I am concern because of the non blurring. (I can handle mere difference in horizontal AA vs. blurring.)
Tech Report Tail Section
PS 3.0 spec also means a great deal to me as well. The life span of this card has truely been extended because of that alone. It really doesn't make a difference to me at this point if ATi can produce 10 to 15 frames more while running lower precision (FP24), it is the great quality drivers nVidia is known for and features that are non existant on ATi cards that win my money over less precision and higher FPS.
With the FX series, we had to deal with _pp in an effort for higher frames. Now, it is higher precision and higher frames combined.
Smooth framerate and backwards compatibility are wins for me. All these extra frames and features are totally gravy for me.
All in all, very surprised the decision to stick with FP32 turns out making FP24 a thing of the past (as far as it looks to me).
I expected about 10 to 15 frames more than the current cards and instead, got to see double the performance at 16x12! The image quality is (imho) better on the nVidia side now which is just what I was hoping. While looking at the tail shots comparison on Tech Reports review, I was completely happy with not having the blurring that is being shown on the 9800XT. AA goes to nVidia as far as I am concern because of the non blurring. (I can handle mere difference in horizontal AA vs. blurring.)
Tech Report Tail Section
PS 3.0 spec also means a great deal to me as well. The life span of this card has truely been extended because of that alone. It really doesn't make a difference to me at this point if ATi can produce 10 to 15 frames more while running lower precision (FP24), it is the great quality drivers nVidia is known for and features that are non existant on ATi cards that win my money over less precision and higher FPS.
With the FX series, we had to deal with _pp in an effort for higher frames. Now, it is higher precision and higher frames combined.
Smooth framerate and backwards compatibility are wins for me. All these extra frames and features are totally gravy for me.
All in all, very surprised the decision to stick with FP32 turns out making FP24 a thing of the past (as far as it looks to me).
Mal... I'm going to slap you with the Stupid Stick.
The FX has "non-blurry" antialiasing because it's supersampling. Turn on AF on the 9800XT, and you get the same effect without slaughtering performance.
The FX has "non-blurry" antialiasing because it's supersampling. Turn on AF on the 9800XT, and you get the same effect without slaughtering performance.
Malfunction said:
That assumes the noted blurring is global and not a isolated occurrence.
With the FX series, we had to deal with _pp in an effort for higher frames. Now, it is higher precision and higher frames combined.
This assumes NV4x will always run at FP32 and not FP16, which isn't the case at all.
It's great only when your favorite IHV supports it; if the competition has higher precision with good performance, then it's attack, scoff, make up any wild excuse in the world why it's unnecessary or even a bad thing. Where's that DC quote?
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Malfunction said:
The AA shots there are of the GeForce in 8X mode, which does 4X supersampling, and hence will have a higher LOD in textures.
It's also dog slow.
(Edit: I see The Baron beat me to it...)
But can you handle the huge performance hit?
Are you a developer?
Backwards compatibility?
The Baron said:
Put a few nails through it first. I mean, we are talking about someone who's already made up his mind before even reading one lousy preview of the competition's part.
It's ironic. PS2.0 never mattered in the last generation to Mal because NVIDIA couldn't really do it, but now PS3.0 is the biggest thing ever.
Newsflash: Some PS3.0 tests on NV4x hardware shows that it runs less than a quarter of how fast it should run. Driver immaturity? We'll see.
Newsflash: Some PS3.0 tests on NV4x hardware shows that it runs less than a quarter of how fast it should run. Driver immaturity? We'll see.
Similar threads
