Very Odd FiringSquad GeForceFX review

[Nagorak]

Re: quality of AF: ATi vs NV ?

GF4 AF is better and slower than Ati's AF in R300. Much better than R200's AF
FX balanced is faster and a bit worse than GF4's AF
R200 AF is bad. Not always, but sometimes is really bad (no AF at all at some angles.)
R300 AF is better than R200s. But on 22.5/45 etc. degrees is bad too
So..... who sees what he wants to see and who sees what he sees...

Any thoughts? 10x

GF4 AF is crap because it's too slow to use (who cares what it looks like?).
GF FX AF balanced is just crap.

Have you ever actually seen any anomalies in-game with the R300, or just when looking at screenshots? In any case FX max is 8X, R300 is 16X. Even with the angle problem, at most it drops down to 8X.

I'm really not sure what there is to discuss.

 

[Bambers]

No the r300 drops to ~ 2x at 22.5 degrees and the r200 drops to 1x at 45 degrees. However it isn't actually that noticable in game really. It think it may be due to the lack of angled surfaces in games and especially the fact that its non organic style surfaces (tiles etc) that get the best out of AF and its very rare to find these other than on walls floors and ceilings.

 

[RussSchultz]

Wow, that A300 looks...ummm....snazzy.

You'll never see the dustbunnies, and you'll never stab yourself on a capacitor lead, either.

Plus, its well protected from radiation.

 

[Sharkfood]

I don't consider this to be a good review at all. For one, it's full of obvious bias.

Haha. Sorry, I didn't mean to say the actual "meat and potatoes" of the review was worth a damn- just the screenshots.

Interestingly enough, I even pasted the WRONG URL, so the review I pasted wasn't even the one I intended to paste (duh).

http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx.htm

Most notable is the "NVIDIA- The way it was meant to be played" logo looking completely like ass.

I see two points that are just not clicking at other sites.

1) The benchmarks given are using default IQ settings which look like:

2) Multiple sources have now confirmed they have had to run benchmarks multiple times (with cooling between) in order to get a full run at the 500mhz clockspeed. How legitimate are benchmarks at a clockspeed that the product can't even maintain for the duration of a benchmark or two?

 

[chavvdarrr]

Re: quality of AF: ATi vs NV ?

GF4 AF is crap because it's too slow to use (who cares what it looks like?).
GF FX AF balanced is just crap.
Have you ever actually seen any anomalies in-game with the R300, or just when looking at screenshots? In any case FX max is 8X, R300 is 16X. Even with the angle problem, at most it drops down to 8X.

"We don't need more pixels, we need BETTER PIXELS" (Carmack?)
I don't care if its SLOW,... i can run @ 1024x768 or even 800x600, all these DX7,8,9 are for better quality.
And what means "FX max is 8x, R300 is 16x" ? Are you saying that if Sis says that Xabre supports 32x Af its better ?! Let's face it - implementing pure, 100% AF is impossible today, both Ati&NV use faster approximating algorithms.

(btw just a rumour, NV35 comes in may)

 

[SvP]

"We don't need more pixels, we need BETTER PIXELS" (Carmack?)

No, Nvidia PR

 

[surfhurleydude]

GF4 AF is crap because it's too slow to use (who cares what it looks like?).
GF FX AF balanced is just crap.

Have you ever actually seen any anomalies in-game with the R300, or just when looking at screenshots? In any case FX max is 8X, R300 is 16X. Even with the angle problem, at most it drops down to 8X.

I'm really not sure what there is to discuss.

GF FX AF Balanced is crap? Have you not read a single GF FX Ultra preview? Agressive is utter shit, Balanced is nice...it just needs to be 16x instead of 8x. Go read anandtech's GeForceFX preview.

 

[Althornin]

Wow, that A300 looks...ummm....snazzy.

You'll never see the dustbunnies, and you'll never stab yourself on a capacitor lead, either.

Plus, its well protected from radiation.

It would be beautiful if you have a case window.

GF FX AF Balanced is crap? Have you not read a single GF FX Ultra preview? Agressive is utter shit, Balanced is nice...it just needs to be 16x instead of 8x. Go read anandtech's GeForceFX preview.

I dunno, my main problem with "Balanced" is that there are indications (certain, it appears) that it is not full trilinear, and that it affects non-AF modes also. If this is the case, all non-AF benchies need to be redone, because the GFFX is not actually using trilinear. (and its getting compared to cards that ARE doing trilinear). Also, as a not-really full trilinear case, it seems to me that it would probly closely compare quality wise with the R300 8x quality setting - which might actually look better!

 

[nelg]

It would be beautiful if you have a case window.

And a muffler.

 

[chavvdarrr]

"We don't need more pixels, we need BETTER PIXELS" (Carmack?)

No, Nvidia PR

DO we need more ugly pixels" ? Is there a man who wants to play again The Civilization in its original video quality? Or MOO? Or RTCW/Q1/D1 ?
No , we all want Unreal2/Doom3 .... and want them looking better...

 

[V3]

2) Multiple sources have now confirmed they have had to run benchmarks multiple times (with cooling between) in order to get a full run at the 500mhz clockspeed. How legitimate are benchmarks at a clockspeed that the product can't even maintain for the duration of a benchmark or two?

You mean with that huge cooling solution, it still over heat ?

A benchmarks, don't last 5-10 minutes, what kind of crap is that ?

 

[kyleb]

I think Russ is taking for granted his knowledge of where the line gets drawn between marketing and engineering in the industry. To someone who doesn't understand this, it may seem natural that a company would be just as likely to ship a product that can't operate according to spec as they are to call a 4x2/8z organization "8 pixel pipelines".

But Russ is right. If the 5800 Ultra were really overheating under normal operating conditions, it would likely be recalled. But much more likely is that it wouldn't have shipped if the problem is as common as it appears to be in the review samples. Instead it's almost certainly either fixed in the final boards, or fixed or at least identified if it's a driver issue.

i missed this one erlier but need i remind everyone of the original intel p3 1.13? or how about the via 686a? it would be nice to be able to have blind faith and never be let down, but this is reality we live in here.

 

[RussSchultz]

Did either one of those end up shipping in quantity?

 

[kyleb]

well it depends on how you define quantity i suppose but i don't see how you can argue against the relevance to the dissucusion regardless of your definition.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Did either one of those end up shipping in quantity?

Are you implying that the situation is any different than the 5800 Ultra?

 

[RussSchultz]

No, its no different.

If there's truly a problem, it won't ship.

No company would ship product that does not meet the implied warranty of merchantability.

 

[kyleb]

but you are talking in the future sense as if these things have not already happened. if that were actually the case i would be more included to accept your opinion.


ohh ya i have a damn 686a sitting right here in my other rig. unfortnatly i didn't even realize that drive transfers between ide channels was 486-style slow until about six months after i got the thing. despite the fact that i was really pissed i figured it would be too much trouble to get my money back. but even if i did, i had my time wasted by people trying to screw me over with a product that damn well never should have been released or at least sold for what it is.