NVnews fun....

[Deflection]

nVidia is certainly going to have a lot more stupid accusations and fanboyishness against them after this launch. That's the nature of the beast. People combating "endless declarations of fanboyishness and stupid accusations" toward 3dfx have had to put up with it. Same with ATI. Now, apparently, it's nVidia's turn. It's out. The perception is, that the FX is a total and utter flop. Who cares if you put two people in front of two different computers (OK, with Ear Plugs), you couldn't get them to guess which card is in which PC correctly. The perception is out there....the NVIDIA fanboys have spoken on the matter.

The heat is up now because the launch is fresh. Just like it always happens. Give it a few weeks and it will settle down to a "dull roar", the fan jokes will become fewer (though they won't go away) just as always. Things will settle back down to normal, with the exception that now, there will be tons and tons of bullsh*t rhetoric about the "crap quality" of the FX hardware and its drivers....instead of ATI getting the brunt.

That's the only thing that has changed here.

The point is most of this NVIDIA hype and PR jading your perception does not happen here. Nearly everything I see here about Nvidia hype and PR is someone railing against it for millionth time. Do that crap on the sites where people have been doing it and seem to enjoy it. Let's try to keep B3D "cleaner".

 

[demalion]

Who is getting flamed for highlighting positive things about the GF FX? I hope you don't equate something like Chalnoth's "the GF FX is the obvious choice for high resolution gaming" with "highlighting something positive"?

Demalion, I didn't say that. Here is my exact quote:

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.

Oh my, you seem to have selectively skipped some sentences, Chalnoth. Here, let me get the rest of that paragraph for you:

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?

Oh, not at all like ""the GF FX is the obvious choice for high resolution gaming", right? I must have misunderstood and the GF FX must have been the "more FSAA" choice?

Your description of "objective" criteria concerning aniso comparison seems to have fallen through given further information, is that why you didn't mention it?

Now, I thought I was pretty complete in that statement, and I'm amazed at how many people have twisted it to mean other things. I see what I stated, if you take it as a whole, as just that, highlighting something positive (out of the FX's failure to match the R9700's FSAA).

Partial quoting is perhaps not the way to do that when the part you drop invalidates what you are asserting.

What you are doing (and you haven't changed, from molex power adapters, to this, to the next thing...you get "points" for consistency) is suiting what exists in your world to what you want to exist there, by, for example, arbitrarily excluding consideration of games that are able to offer both FSAA and higher resolution (a situation where, "coincidentally", the 9700, shines, and the GF FX does not, in comparison).

"Disregarding positive things about the 9700" does not equal "highlighting positive things about the GF FX".

I also stated that for older games, the FSAA quality and performance of the FX are of less importance, as it will look good and be fast no matter what. The real differences will be seen in more fillrate-limited games.

The thing is you lump Serious Sam and Quake III, and any game that is not...hmm...let's say 10 fps faster average than UT2k3 at 1600x1200x32 with AA and aniso (some people consider 50 to 70 fps average playable you know) in with counter-strike under the heading of "older game" where "the FSAA quality and performance of the FX are of less importance", based solely on the fact that they can be playable at high resolution with AA. It is just a "coincidence" that as much as the FX will "look good and be fast no matter what" in these circumstance, the 9700 might happen to look better, and, god forbid, be faster...so these high resolution circumstances don't matter when comparing. A choice between "Higher resolution, or more FSAA", you say?

Hey, didn't we have this discussion already? Yeah, but there's nothing like dropping inconvenient statements you made when you quote yourself to waste text and time.

 

[Tahir2]

Hmm I just find it funny that people are judging the Geforcd FX and pigeon holing it already.

It is out now, it can defend itself now without anyone needing to speak for itself. If NVIDIA do a good job with marketing, drivers and support (and nothing suggests that NVIDIA will do anything but excel at this) the GEFORCE FX may actually turn from a so called ugly duckling into a beautiful swan.

There is something positive to think about I believe.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The point is most of this NVIDIA hype and PR jading your perception does not happen here. Nearly everything I see here about Nvidia hype and PR is someone railing against it for millionth time. Do that crap on the sites where people have been doing it and seem to enjoy it. Let's try to keep B3D "cleaner".

Sorry, but that's just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN during the period immediately following a product launch! Like I said, things will return to normal in relatively short order.

That being said....if you think it's not particularly "clean" even right now on this message board, go take a look at NVNEWS and Rage3d.

It's all relative...

 

[demalion]

Hmm I just find it funny that people are judging the Geforcd FX and pigeon holing it already.

I don't think it is pigeonholing, it is more like simply comparing it to the the 9700, and with the differenc in price, cooling and noise concerns (for more mainstream gamers), and the relative equality in performance (though the GF FX tends to lead), being about half a year later than the other part is not going to get a product from the "perceived" leader to have praise heaped upon it. Even if there were no negatives, and only the "tendency to lead" was a factor...

If I actually posted at the nVnews forums, I'd be pointing out that the process could well improve for the nv30, therefore better board/cooling designs, maybe higher clocks, and perhaps better prices could easily be in the future for it.

It is out now, it can defend itself now without anyone needing to speak for itself. If NVIDIA do a good job with marketing, drivers and support (and nothing suggests that NVIDIA will do anything but excel at this) the GEFORCE FX may actually turn from a so called ugly duckling into a beautiful swan.

It is already a "swan"...the problem is it has no way to demonstrate its grace as of yet, and has some noticable flaws. And it's not the only swan in the pond...

 

[BRiT]

the GEFORCE FX may actually turn from a so called ugly duckling into a beautiful swan.

I don't see this happening before it becomes the NV-35. They need to ditch the DustBuster first and foremost while being performance competetive with the competition. Until that point in time, it'll always be the ugly duckling.

 

[sumdumyunguy]

If it wasn't for partisanship, there'd only be about 10% of the people here reading this board (some would say that would be a good thing...)

Lots of people are interested in 3d because they want to understand the many facets of the technology, or as a buying guide, but some people also kind of watch the struggle between the competitors (technically and business-wise) the way you might watch a football match. It's just more interesting when you have a rooting interest in one side--and I maintain that there is nothing wrong with that.

I will agree that benign fanboism too often descends into hooliganism. People come to this board which has a very technical bent to get away from mindless fan forums, but it is unrealistic to expect there to be no partisanship.

Arguments are necessary, if only because some of the most interesting facts and theories come up in arguments. I wish everyone could argue without imputing dishonesty or stupidity to the other side. The very lowest marketing usually goes is "crafty", and even major decisions that seem like huge blunders in hindsight were usually made by very smart people working with very limited information.

I can understand people's frustration when they end up having arguments with people who are rude, tireless, and/or don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Sometimes its best to let the ignorant have the last word.

(And having said that, I don't expect any further replies)

My God. Are you American. Antlers4 for the Pragmatic President. Too much damn elitism around here any way. Nothing like mixing it up a little to stir the gene pool. Go fanbois (of all stripes) Go!!

 

[Tahir2]

I wonder what overclockers.com and Ed are saying about the Geforce FX. I seem to remember a seemingly bizarre editorial on the virtues (and lack of) of ATI and the launch of the Radeon 9700 Pro.

Oh.. but his page is down.. d'oh!
edit: back up again and Ed was being surprisingly sane it seems..

 

[Reverend]

Now can someone please tell me if Democoder was male or female as I have no idea.

You probably shouldn't use the past tense... I'm sure Ray (that means he's male) still reads the forums.

And now my short say :

Personally, I don't have anything against anyone who is biased and I also don't think there is any "need" to defend against such biasness. Except if that person is a reviewer. The reason for this should be understandable. I do, however, object to a biased person that keeps posting stuff that are basically no more than "hate posts" about a company they don't support. It is not healthy for this site and that really is all I care about. The B3D staff may all be non-biased guys but industry folks look at "Beyond3D" as not just "Wavey, Kristof, John, Marco, Reverend" but includes its forum participants as well. It helps "Beyond3D", the site, if discussions are reasonable. You guys, in turn and hopefuly, will look at that as helping you as well.

I have been guilty, many times, of being susceptible to the urge of "putting someone in his place" with not-so-mature words. Jeezuz, it's so hard to be exactly like Wavey and Kristof! I apologize to you guys and to Wavey.

That said, all we need to do is to be less serious about participating in these forums. I don't mind the occasional flame-bait, to be honest, if the words used are acceptable. It's what I personally regard as "fun".

 

[Althornin]

Who is getting flamed for highlighting positive things about the GF FX?

DemoCoder and Chalnoth for instance.

Erm, this is not quite correct.
Chalnoth has blinders on re: the gffx - anyone can see it. And when he makes absurd statements (which may just be his form of overcompensationg for all the negatives said here lately) he is gonna get dealt with.

You also keep bringing the FX Flow noise issue up - hasnt that confined itself to one thread now, pretty much?
And if it hasnt, isnt it an issue? It IS loud.
Sure, its not a technical reason for FX inferiority.

Let me say that i dont think anyone here is saying "support for longer shaders is bad" or "the GFFX is sooooo slow".
They are saying "are the shaders extra length useful? or is speed the limiter here, that and the technology curve that games seem to be behind on."
And you knwo what? The answers to that one arent known. The only shader benchies we have (in another thread) dont apint the GFFX in such a good light.
And about the speed complaints - it really is nVidia PR's own fault. THey hyped the FX as the second comming, to prevent people from purchasing a 9700. Is there any wonder there is a huge backlash?

I think most people here would agree that barring price and noise the GFFX is at LEAST on par with the 9700, overall. (except maybe in FSAA, which is another huge disappointment - i thought it was about "better pixels"....)

The problem is, from a cost/gain analysis, the FX doesnt make sense right now. Factoring in the noise, its a big deterrent to some people.
These are legitimate beefs, and to unilaterally label them as "flames" at chalnoth/democoder is simply wrong.

 

[KimB]

Oh my, you seem to have selectively skipped some sentences, Chalnoth. Here, let me get the rest of that paragraph for you:

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?

Oh, not at all like ""the GF FX is the obvious choice for high resolution gaming", right? I must have misunderstood and the GF FX must have been the "more FSAA" choice?

Did you notice the part previously about more fillrate-limited games?

Anyway, this is, very roughly, the comparison I expect (I don't think this has been done yet):

In UT2k3, for instance, the Radeon 9700 Pro at 1280x1024x4 (4x FSAA, that is) should perform similarly to the GeForce FX at 1600x1200x2 (The FX will likely be a little bit slower, but the performance should still be very comparable).

For games that are more fillrate-limited, as I stated, it's a mute point. Notice that I did single that out. The FX definitely isn't universally better for higher resolutions (since the 9700 can run just fine at very high resolutions w/ FSAA in most games).

 

[Fuz]

I can't believe ppl are making an issue out of this.

Nvidia is the market leader. They have been the market leader for some time now. When you are at the top of your game, and stumble, people notice. Also, you better expect some criticism too. Is this so hard to understand? Actually, I am sure most understand this, but seem not to accept it

You can bet your arse the FX will cop a lot of flak in the coming weeks, and rightly so. Its a great product, but we already have one of those on market, the 9700. We wanted more.

Its like back in the days, if Jordan scored 25 points in a finals game, it would be considers a sub-par game. Now, if Jhon paxon scored 25 points in that game, it would be an awesome game from him. People just expect the best from Jordan, and when we dont' get it, we critcise him.

Same with Nvidia, we expect a market leading product from a market leading company. If we don't get it, we criticise them.

Its just a shame that some people take criticism against Nvidia personally.

 

[g__day]

Saw these lovely piccys in the how noisy is that fan file, not sure if NVnews attributed them to the author who I hear is a 3dGPU guy

 

[demalion]

Oh my, you seem to have selectively skipped some sentences, Chalnoth. Here, let me get the rest of that paragraph for you:

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?

Oh, not at all like ""the GF FX is the obvious choice for high resolution gaming", right? I must have misunderstood and the GF FX must have been the "more FSAA" choice?

Did you notice the part previously about more fillrate-limited games?

Did you notice the part about "partial quoting", neatly snipped here with no reply from you? Do your remember your argument about higher quality you seem to be trying to selectively snip?

Apparently not. Some more snipped text concerning "fillrate-limited games", written by me, ignored by you:

What you are doing (and you haven't changed, from molex power adapters, to this, to the next thing...you get "points" for consistency) is suiting what exists in your world to what you want to exist there, by, for example, arbitrarily excluding consideration of games that are able to offer both FSAA and higher resolution (a situation where, "coincidentally", the 9700, shines, and the GF FX does not, in comparison).

How about my response specifically quoting your mention of "fillrate-limited games", again snipped, again making your question a waste of time:

I also stated that for older games, the FSAA quality and performance of the FX are of less importance, as it will look good and be fast no matter what. The real differences will be seen in more fillrate-limited games.

The thing is you lump Serious Sam and Quake III, and any game that is not...hmm...let's say 10 fps faster average than UT2k3 at 1600x1200x32 with AA and aniso (some people consider 50 to 70 fps average playable you know) in with counter-strike under the heading of "older game" where "the FSAA quality and performance of the FX are of less importance", based solely on the fact that they can be playable at high resolution with AA. It is just a "coincidence" that as much as the FX will "look good and be fast no matter what" in these circumstance, the 9700 might happen to look better, and, god forbid, be faster...so these high resolution circumstances don't matter when comparing. A choice between "Higher resolution, or more FSAA", you say?

Why is it only "fill-rate" limitation matters, and "bandwidth limitation" not matter? You'd think both matter for high resolution...or atleast I would. Let's see, is it because fillrate in actual games doesn't require bandwidth? Hmm...no, no, that doesn't make sense. It couldn't be because the GF FX has less bandwidth than the 9700 and more fillrate, is it? Nah, that would mean when you snipped:

"Disregarding positive things about the 9700" does not equal "highlighting positive things about the GF FX".

you just wasted my time and text again, and that couldn't be, could it?

Anyway, this is, very roughly, the comparison I expect (I don't think this has been done yet):

In UT2k3, for instance, the Radeon 9700 Pro at 1280x1024x4 (4x FSAA, that is) should perform similarly to the GeForce FX at 1600x1200x2 (The FX will likely be a little bit slower, but the performance should still be very comparable).

What about the 9700 Pro at 1600x1200x2? You know, the discussion you are selectively snipping wasn't about the GF FX performing faster at 1600x1200x2 with regards to the 9700, but your arbitrary (and now apparently inconvenient and therefore selectively removed by you here) determination that it had higher image quality while being faster, presuming the degree to which it was faster was conclusive, and ignoring all cases where it was not.

Yes, for example that aniso comparison you snipped, I mentioned in that last post, and that you snipped again.

To be fair, however, it seems the AA quality is going to be closer than most, if not all, screenshots have illustrated. In fact, to be fair, I mentioned just that in the other thread, and in fact allowed your assumption that 2x AA on both was equal in quality for comparison. Deja vu.

For games that are more fillrate-limited, as I stated, it's a mute point. Notice that I did single that out.

Yes I did notice that you blithely assume the 9700 versus GF FX at 1600x1200x2 is an open and shut case in terms of quality and performance.

The FX definitely isn't universally better for higher resolutions (since the 9700 can run just fine at very high resolutions w/ FSAA in most games).

Do you think I would have argued with something like this? Do you remember the comments like "absolutely better" texture filtering you used to support your argument?
Are you trying to rehash your argument here while pretending you didn't make such comments, under the banner of "I got picked on for highlighting the positives about the GF FX"?

 

[tamattack]

Geez... guys (and gals), calm down. The thread is called "NVnews fun...", but it stopped being fun many pages ago. (Well, except for those excellent photoshopped pics of the FX in action).

There's no need for so much name calling from the senior members of this board.