Where do you stand with the FX

[KimB]

Now I think it's finally caught up to them. Amazing how it took a full three years for the competition to finally put out a product that truly could best nVidia in the FSAA department

Actually, ATI caught up to them in August of 2002. Remember, The Fx is being compared to an older product.

Ah, yes, sorry, 2.5 years. And the Voodoo5, while it did offer excellent FSAA, it wasn't without its problems. For one, it really wasn't fast enough to use that FSAA across all games (for most people, anyway), and it required low-level tweaking on the part of the consumer to optimize the quality (texture quality, specifically...by default textures were blurred). And the fact that it took "playing a lot of titles to see the strength of the product" is exactly what I was talking about. The GeForce2 GTS really did best the Voodoo5 in most situations because of this. For a "niche crowd" the V5 was the much better card (mostly those who play lots of flight/racing sims). But it wasn't really able to best nVidia.

But the Radeon 9700 Pro really does have better FSAA than the GeForce FX, and it is usable in every game in existence. The only things that I really don't like about the 9700 Pro are related to drivers (which I've stated before, and I don't really feel like restating) and its anisotropic implementation. (Edit: This last part is a rant specifically agains the 9700 Pro. It has no bearing on the FX, though, from past history, the FX should have fewer driver problems than the 9700 Pro not long after release)

 

[jjayb]

Oh, you mean like the flawless FX drivers?

One interesting thing to note in this game is that the fog doesn’t seem to appear in it on the GeForceFX. Compare the 9700 Pro pictures to the GeForceFX. See how on the 9700 Pro there is a gray fog in the background, but on the GeForceFX it isn’t present at all. This could simply be a driver issue to be worked out though and not a hardware issue.

Our tests were not without error on the GeForceFX either. I experienced texture/polygon corruption in UT2003 and NFSHP 2. The texture corruption did not appear in UT2003 until you enabled 4xS, 6xS, or 8xS modes. And when I did, you can see the result above in the first picture. That pattern dances all around the screen as you move around no matter what map. Once I turned AA off the patterns went away.

In Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 I got horrible texture and polygon corruptions no matter what AA mode was used, even if it was disabled. It was like pieces of the textures were missing, and that blue triangle strip kept popping up.

All of the problems I experienced seem to be driver problems that I hope are fixable.

We followed the same procedure as we did with our AF investigation, and in doing so we managed to uncover a bug in the 42.63 drivers NVIDIA sent us for testing;

 

[KimB]

Oh, you mean like the flawless FX drivers?

Driver problems are not problems until the card is available.

 

[gkar1]

LoL,
Can you picture it? The straws being grasped?

 

[jjayb]

It's a problem for Nvidia when the whole world read about it today now isn't it?

 

[Reverend]

Since I have lately been reduced to the role of the general public and do not have the luxury of getting the latest-and-greatest free video cards and hence no longer have the compulsion to post less-then-damning reviews, as a gamer, I have absolutely no intention of "upgrading" from a 9700Pro to the state of the GeForceFX (board, drivers, etc) as displayed by the few sites that have had the privilege of previewing the GeFX.

It may, however, be tougher for those that do not already own a 9700Pro. And it will also depend a great deal on whether that person is an avid programmer or not. If such is the case (a programmer), I'd probably opt for the GeForceFX since it affords me a little extra over the R300 in terms of functionality.

As a gamer, I have not had a such a rush for gaming with the Radeon 9700Pro as I had with the original Voodoo Graphics.

 

[Doomtrooper]

I'd probably opt for the GeForceFX since it affords me a little extra over the R300 in terms of functionality.

1)Explain functionality

2)What good is the functionality if it runs very slow

With the review on this very site comparing tech, nothing stands out that the R300 couldn't do..

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/nv30r300/

A programmer would also opt for a 400mhz Quadro vs. a 60+ db gaming card.

 

[KimB]

I'd probably opt for the GeForceFX since it affords me a little extra over the R300 in terms of functionality.

1)Explain functionality

Well, I can think of, at least, higher-precision math functions (sin/cos/log) and branching in the VS.

2)What good is the functionality if it runs very slow

And why do you think the FX will be slow with more advanced pixel shaders?

While its performance will definitely depend on the shader used, the FX does have much higher fillrate, and even higher PS performance when 16-bit floats are used (which is enough for pretty much any color data). So, I imagine the 9700 Pro will come out ahead in shaders that don't have many instructions, but use dependent texture reads (and few textures), while the FX will be better for situations with lots of texture reads and situations which include longer programs.

 

[Doomtrooper]

I will wait for the advanced shader testing from Thomas's site.

 

[Typedef Enum]

These numbers are actually fascinating.

So far, almost 50% of the people flat out won't buy the FX. Between the R350 and R300 crowd, that makes up 33%.

I'll be very curious to check out ATI's _and_ nVidia's next fiscal report, given the 9500/9700 availability over the last several months.

Man, in almost every single release since the TNT-era, there was a buzz surrounding these initital reviews. How badly they toasted the competition, how many people were lining up to buy nVidia's latest-n-greatest. To a man, I cannot recall a time in which so many people were just insulted by an nVidia product launch!

 

[Johnny Rotten]

To a man, I cannot recall a time in which so many people were just insulted by an nVidia product launch!

Its almost scary how out of touch nvidia seems to be this go around. I mean its not that that the FX is neccessarily a terrible product. Its clearly a gigantic step over the GF4. But its almost like nvidia is just pretending the 9700Pro doesnt even exist. Thats how off base they are with the pricing given its relative performance and awful thermal cooling. I mean I would maybe give it consideration if it was within $50 of the 9700 pro (actually I wouldnt since my next pc will be as close to silent as i can possibly) but $100+?? Not the remotest of chances.

I suspect that nvidia will only be doing very small - teeny! - production runs of this card.

 

[Reverend]

I'd probably opt for the GeForceFX since it affords me a little extra over the R300 in terms of functionality.

1)Explain functionality

"Functionality" means what I can do with the NV30/GeFX above and beyond the R300 programming-wise.

2)What good is the functionality if it runs very slow

I do not believe Anand's and HardOCP's previews (which I mentioned as the two previews that I have read... pray tell me other previews) have shown that such "extras" (programmable functionality) of the NV30 runs slow or that much slower than the R300, although I do not doubt it will be the case (rather obvious, isn't it?). I do remember reading that CodeCreatures benchmark runs reasonably faster on the NV30 than the R300, a benchmark laden with shader effects.

Of course, I have to assume you don't know that programmers do get excited over any additional functionality regardless of performance.

With the review on this very site comparing tech, nothing stands out that the R300 couldn't do..

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/nv30r300/

This site is about gaming as well as the advancement of tech AFAIK, not about comparing tech per se. The article at this site that you mentioned, on the contrary, tells me a great deal about what the R300 couldn't do compared to the NV30 programing-wise (not AA or AF, stuff a programer really wouldn't care about)... ... or are you confused or not reading right?

What "stands out" to you, DT? And do they "stand out" to me or another programmer?

A programmer would also opt for a 400mhz Quadro vs. a 60+ db gaming card.

Duh. Maybe we're on the wrong wavelength... I was talking specifically and only about functionality.

Do not forget that I said that I would not replace a R9700Pro with a GeFX, in case your "Rev is a NV protaganist" mindset comes into the picture based on anything remotely negative against ATI that I may have said.

 

[Doomtrooper]

"Functionality" means what I can do with the NV30/GeFX above and beyond the R300 programming-wise.

Well show me what a NV30 can do above a R300..I keep hearing that arguement..nobody backs it up.

I do remember reading that CodeCreatures benchmark runs reasonably faster on the NV30 than the R300, a benchmark laden with shader effects.

Ya PS 1.1..

What "stands out" to you, DT? And do they "stand out" to me or another programmer?

No No Rev, YOU stated above R300 functionality..and I asked what you thought was 'better'...not this spin.

Do not forget that I said that I would not replace a R9700Pro with a GeFX, in case your "Rev is a NV protaganist" mindset comes into the picture based on anything remotely negative against ATI that I may have said.

Wow there's a constructive post, good answer..methinks you overeact at anyone that doubts your views.

 

[Randell]

and it required low-level tweaking on the part of the consumer to optimize the quality (texture quality, specifically...by default textures were blurred). And the fact that it took "playing a lot of titles to see the strength of the product" is exactly what I was talking about. The GeForce2 GTS really did best the Voodoo5 in most situations because of this. For a "niche crowd" the V5 was the much better card (mostly those who play lots of flight/racing sims). But it wasn't really able to best nVidia.

2 things

- I hardly call a slider in the drivers 'low-level' tweaking'. What do you call low level - editing the registry or installing a third party tweaker to access functionality?

- the V5 was faster at 2xAA in many situations over the GTS, not to say edge quality and texture was far superior. In a strict FSAA quality and usability sense the V5 did best the GTS you reallu have to be blinkered to think nVidia was better in 2000 at AA.

 

[Reverend]

"Functionality" means what I can do with the NV30/GeFX above and beyond the R300 programming-wise.

Well show me what a NV30 can do above a R300..I keep hearing that arguement..nobody backs it up.

Chalnoth answered that as examples. It's obvious. You can also ask, for example, Humus, Kristof, DemoCoder (who I read has left... wonder why and cause by who).

NOTE that this is all based on the paper specs of the NV30 tech. Until I have a NV30 to play with, you have every right to provide your arguments on my stated "extra functionalities of the NV30".

I do remember reading that CodeCreatures benchmark runs reasonably faster on the NV30 than the R300, a benchmark laden with shader effects.

Ya PS 1.1..

Er, PS version isn't what I was talking about. But you did state what I didn't say outright... why is a benchmark laden with PS 1.1. effects faster on a GeFX Ultra than a R9700Pro but games with little-to-no shading slower overall on a GeFX?

What "stands out" to you, DT? And do they "stand out" to me or another programmer?

No No Rev, YOU stated above R300 functionality..and I asked what you thought was 'better'...not this spin.

Whose "spin" is that, DT? You brought up the subject of "what stands out"... I merely stated the extra functionalities of the NV30, not what "stands out". Extra programming flexibility does not mean extra "stand outs".

The NV30's extra vertex and pixel instructions (according to the NVIDIA tech papers) compared to the R300 do not "stand out" - they are simply that, more than the R300's. That's what I mean by a programmer possibly opting for a NV30, for the extra flexibility to play with, maybe just to see the impact of the end result.

Do not forget that I said that I would not replace a R9700Pro with a GeFX, in case your "Rev is a NV protaganist" mindset comes into the picture based on anything remotely negative against ATI that I may have said.

Wow there's a constructive post, good answer..methinks you overeact at anyone that doubts your views.

Not anyone.

Let's leave this "argument", DT. You're overreacting to a statement of mine. And, personally, if that statement of mine isn't truly a constructive post, especially the words before the comma, what is then DT? Your posts?

 

[Dave Baumann]

Chalnoth answered that as examples. It's obvious. You can also ask, for example, Humus, Kristof, DemoCoder (who I read has left... wonder why and cause by who).

NOTE that this is all based on the paper specs of the NV30 tech. Until I have a NV30 to play with, you have every right to provide your arguments on my stated "extra functionalities of the NV30".

It has also been pointed out that, equally, R300 could provide the same level of functionality via the use of mulitpass – that is a legitimate questions to ask “what can NV30 do via the use of its long shaders that R300 can’t do with Multipass”?

Of course, then there is the issue of whether ATI / API’s provide the mechanisms for multipass rendering in such a fashion (although, while NV30’s drivers do not support DX9 then it’s extra functionality isn’t going to be used for that API either, so it’s a moot point on both sides for DX9 right now).

[Edit] FYI, reading Chalnoth's last post (too much been going on here to have read everything over the last few days), he mentions maths functions that are achievable on R300 hardware via DX9 macro's. So, essentially, the same functionality is there but there are potential execution performance differences.

 

[pcchen]

Since the pixel shader of GFFX does not provide dynamic branches (only predications are supported), I think it is safe to say that almost everything that can be one with a GFFX's pixel shader can also be done with a Radeon 9700 (with more passes).

One notable exception is dsx/dsy/texldd. I think Radeon 9700 lacks such instructions, and they are quite hard to emulate.

 

[alexsok]

I must admit, this is the first time ever that i'm so much dissapointed in a product in my lifetime!

I can safely say that if i had a choice between a GFFX and a R9700PRO, i would opt for a R9700PRO without looking back!

I was an avid fan of NVIDIA for the last couple of years, but i lost all my faith in them and unless they manage to win it back with the NV35 (i assume it would utilize a 256-bit bus, otherwise, what's the point?), i'd definetly move to ATI products...

NVIDIA's accent is on NV31/NV34 products right now, and i seem to be hearing they're facing plenty of problems with them as well...

 

[Randell]

I was an avid fan of NVIDIA for the last couple of years, but i lost all my faith in them and unless they manage to win it back with the NV35 (i assume it would utilize a 256-bit bus, otherwise, what's the point?), i'd definetly move to ATI products...

Be a fan of the products not the company and switch to the better product at the time it suits you. A lot less heartache that way. Just because I own a 9700pro doenst mean to say I wont own a NV40 or PVR series 5.

 

[maskrider]

So far I have been very happy with the 9700PRO (except that the first one has problem after a month and got replaced), I have a hair dryer at home already and don't need one more.

I will wait and see whether there will be a faster and normal FX Ultra card available.