"After long weeks of impatient waiting, it has finally arrived. NVIDIA has distributed the first GeForceFX cards to the press. Now, NVIDIA has to prove that it really has what it takes to topple ATI and its successful Radeon 9700 PRO from the throne. Also, check out our MP3 downloads for an assessment of noise levels between the test systems. This is one graphics card you want to hear!"

New article on Tom's Hardware -

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/index.html

Eric,

http://www.legge40.freeserve.co.uk/BuyerBeware.htm

Think this has been covered in the front page news and other Geforce FX threads.

I'd recommend reading Anadtech's and [H]'s review..They are much more in depth than Tom's, and both has the added "feature" of including pictures to show the difference between the two cards!
(see frontpage for links)

I can't understand how Tom's could post a review of a graphics card without posting any picture showing the IQ of the card!

And if they're "hiding" behind the filters nvidia is talking about, ok, that's an argument for FSAA, but not for Aniso, as you can't apply aniso changes to the finished frame....

Besides, there were problems with the GF4 and pics with FSAA, but AFAIK there are programs that managed to capture those...

Frankly, I think X-bit did an excelent job in summarizing the GeforceFX reviews.

Their conclusion:

card hasnt been offically released yet, drivers could be different, the cards could just be test models. I heard that the top card would come in 256 MB ddr awhile ago... what ever happened to that?

I don't trust those benchmarks until the card is offically released... they can make dramatic changed in the next month or so before the card is released...

Something just doesn't seem right though, the cards specs are nearly 50% better than the ati radeon 9700 pro, nvidia always has better drivers, those benchmarks just aren't making much sense to me.

50% better???

N30 core 400Mhz, R300 Core 325Mhz
N30 memory 2.0ns 500Mhz DDRII 128bit bus, R300 memory 310Mhz 2.6ns 256bit bus.

With Compression technologies the 9700 Pro has equal or even superior bandwidth.

50% better specs is nowhere near correct. It has later versions of shader support and a few other DirectX 9 bits and bobs but 50% better is a misconception.

I'm disappointed in this card too and expected it to do better but at no point was it looking specification wise 50% better....

The " I cant believe the card perfroms this poorly" type of thinking comes from comparing the FX to the 9700. Nvidia didnt design the FX against the standard of the 9700. Nvidia's standard was the Ti4600. and against that standard the FX is a leap forward.

Nvidia was almost done with the FX when the R300 chip was released. and Nvidia was caught with it's pants down. they never imagined a card like this from ATI. that is why a card that was originally planned to run between 350 mhz and 400 mhz became a 500mhz card with that horribly loud dustbuster on it.

ATI' inclusion of the 256 bit memory bus is what tipped the scales in the favor of the R300. and the FX's 128 bit memory bus is what is hobbling it COMPARED to the R300. but compared to the Ti4600 the FX is not a poor performer at all.

well nvidia always could pull some sweet drivers out of their bag like they have done before giving about a 20% increase in framerates...

People who think that Nvidia is going to save the FX ultra via improved drivers tend to forget that Nvidia has had 5 months additional time to work on their drivers. the drivers used in these reviews are certainly not "beta " drivers.

and as far as Nvidia vs. ATI, improved drivers for the FX are a moot point since by the time any improved drivers are available the competition wont be the R300 it will be the R350.

Hell, who needs bandwidth saving techniques??

The R9700 has 19.8 GB of raw bandwidth.
The NV30 has only 16GB of raw bandwidth.

$5 says NVIDIA is the next 3DFX

It would not surprise me. There are many similarities to 3DFX's last days.