smoke and mirrors from Nvidia

By iss
Jan 21, 2003
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. smoke and mirros from Nvidia

    well the pics that are now coming out of the FX certainly tell a story. now we know why all previous pics of the card were without Heatsink attached.

    Nivida didnt want the pics of the "FX" they have been claiming was their 9700 pro killer out to soon because it reveals the truth. and that truth is that the REAL FX cannot decisively outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro.

    so What Nvidia has done is create this Massively overclocked LIMITED EDITION monstrosity to reclaim the fastest card crown and has focused everyone's attention on the performance of this card. this is the card that is going to retail around 500-600 dollars. the Real FX card, the one that will be widely availble for 399.00 and Nvidia is not mentioning its performance capabilities.

    By focusing attention oon the limited edition versionof the card they hope to sell more of the lesser FX cards to people who think they are getting a great deal on the new SUPER FX card.
  2. ---agissi---

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,382   +15

    sounds like rumors to me :p
  3. ---agissi---

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,382   +15

    BTW, FYI: this has just about nothing to do with hardware tweaking ;)

    TechSpot OpenBoards > Hardware & Tweaking > Audio and Video > smoke and mirros from Nvidia
  4. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,896

    try comapring the specs. the one that is shown has 256 MB of DDRII ram and is clocked higher the one advertised for sale for 399.00 has 128 MB of DDR II ram and is clocked lower.
    and its not a coincidence that no pics of this lower priced card is being shown.


    the thread is Hardware AND tweaking not hardware tweaking( thats what the little & stands for, AND) and this section is about audio and video so does a graphics card fall in the category of Video? DUH...............:rolleyes:
  5. TS | Thomas

    TS | Thomas Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,327

    Am I the only that dare draw parrellels between the GeForce FX & the Voodoo 5 (6000)?
  6. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    Thomas> I've been doing that for a while now... I'm really interested if Nvidia will go the same way, or if they'll manage to focus and pull through...

    As someone on another board so amptly put it
    :D
  7. Arris

    Arris TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,534   +92

    I really hope Nvidia don't struggle. I can't see it happening long term. I only see this as a desperate grab for the performance crown. I can't see Nvidia truely going down.

    Does make me feel good about not waiting for the FX to come out and getting my hands on a 9700 pro instead :D
  8. TS | Thomas

    TS | Thomas Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,327

    I think NVIDIA should be fine in the end. Or at least they're in a better position than 3dfx were, e.g. NVIDIA have nForce doing well. 3dfx hadn't really anything in the end bar launching a TV card several weeks/few months before they sold.
  9. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,896

    Nvidia's size and diversity means it wont go down as quickly as 3DFX did. I think it will lose more and more market share to ATI this year. ATI has a better mainstream and budget card lineup. and I expect the FX's reign as fastest card will be a short one if ATI delivers its R350 chip in april. and since the R350 chip taped out last october there is a good chance it will be released on time.

    So if Nvidia loses the speed crown AGAIN and still has nothing to compete effectively with ATI in the all important mainstream and budget card categories Nvidia is going to lose more and more market share this year.
  10. mrslippyfist

    mrslippyfist Newcomer, in training Posts: 64

    Hopefully people will stop considering nividia to be the only card maker worth buying, i know many people won't buy ati cards, simply because some of the previous generations had dodgy drivers, this little problem with the fx should even this out a bit. Better still nvidia might reduce their prices to be inline with ati, since they don't have the status of speed king and their products don't compare favorably with anything ati has to offer anymore.
    I don't think they'll go down though, they have their fingers in too many pies such as xbox and nforce, plus they have many die hard fans, who would buy a slap round the face if it was from nvidia :D
  11. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    As far as comparing the Geforce FX and the Voodoo 5, well... empires DO rise and fall...

    It would be a shame if Nvidia went "into the West" along with 3Dfx, but these things DO happen.

    It will probably make or break them.

    I must admit, I am not happy about this way that the card occupies the space taken by the adjacent PCI slot, and the power connector straight from the PSU is a little dodgy as well.

    I know that these things are normal for high end graphics cards such as the 3DLabs Wildcat, and so forth, but this is surely a card aimed more at crazed gamerz than anyone else...

    HOWEVER.... Lets all wait until we have actually seen / used one. For all we know its the best thing since sliced bread...
     
  12. nebulus

    nebulus Newcomer, in training Posts: 62

    How can a picture of the card without the heatsink make you come to the assumtion that this is Nvidia's denial of GFFX not being a 9700pro killer? Strange logic?

    I think they dont want to show the cooling system yet, because what i have read (link to article below), is that the current cooling in use is a ducted-plastic exhaust monstrosity that isnt too pretty to the eye.

    Also what I have read in an article disputes your claim that the 9700 is better than the GFFX, although these words do come from Nvidia themselves so obviously I cant prove this is gospel:

    From article @ http://www.gamer.tv/page/feature/3329239.htm
    Quotes:
    ----------------------
    "What nVidia is saying, is that its new chip, the GeForce FX, is benchmarking 46fps at 1280x960 in Doom III, versus 27fps for a Ti4600. And if you're saying Ti4600 - pah! I've got an ATi Radeon 9700, you'd better be ready for this: GeForce FX's Doom III frame rate is 40 percent higher than that card too. Of course, this figure is nVidia's, but considering the company's reputation for brute force graphics power, don't be surprised if independent reviews bear this out."
    ----------------------

    5 months (or so) between these two cards release would also suggest to me the most obvious, that the difference between quality in these two cards is gonna be quite considerable!
  13. Arris

    Arris TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,534   +92

    But when you consider when the final core for FX was ready and when the FX was originally slated for release this 5 months won't have been spent adding that much extra power to the card. More than likely it will have been spent ironing out problems and perfecting that huge heatsink system. I think that the FX in some benchmarks will outclass the 9700Pro but not in all of them. Thats my prediction for the time being.
  14. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    I would be very surprised if the FX didn't do well in Doom3, considering Carmack has said it'll run ok on a GF3!

    As for why the hsf is "proof"...
    What little info has gotten out shows that the FX is a good card, but aren't all that much faster than the 9700pro... If it were clocked lower it'd most likely have equal/lesser performance than the 9700pro...
    But by slapping on that huge HSF, they're able to reach 500Mhz and outperform the 9700pro...

    Don't you think that if nvidia could have done without the huge HSF and still beat the 9700pro, they'd done it?
  15. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,896

    Like Mr Garabaldi allready pointed out the performance of the FX we have seen so far pretty clearly shows that without that heatsink which allows it to be clocked to 500mhz the FX would not decisivly outperform the 9700 pro. take a look at the pics of the quadro FX released yesterday. the quadro FX is clocked at 400mhz and doesnt have the monstrous fan and heatink that the "Ultra" FX does.

    personally I wish the FX would come out tomorrow and be a huge sucess because ATI would drop the price of the 9700 pro to compete and I could get a 9700 pro for well under three hundred dollars.:D
  16. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,896

    I think that Nvidia was caught by suprise by ATI. Nvidia undoubtably knew the limitations of the first genreation of .13 micron chips. but they banked on the assumption that ATI's card was going to be the same as previous ATI offerings. ie; only marginally better than nvidia's current best offering. they thought their new .13 micron chip would be able to beat ATi's new card even clocked at 400 mhz. Nvidia would then have time for the .13 micron process to mature and reap the performance gains in theri next card.

    what a shock they must have had when ATI delivered a card that not only stomped the Ti4600 decisevly but could even match or beat Nvidia's upcoming card. this made Nvidia go back to the drawing board and figure out a way to push their new .13 micron chip to 500 mhz. this I think is the real cause of the delays in getting the FX to market.
  17. StormBringer

    StormBringer Newcomer, in training Posts: 2,871

    This entire post is subjective and pointless. The whole thing is based on conjecture and opinions based on a picture and some stats. Before you condemn the card, or make a god of it either, wouldn't it be fair to wait until you actually get a few real users opinions of it?

    All the mud that has been flying around in this thread almost made me think it was a political debate.
  18. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,896


    that was hilarious.........basically it's " let me voice my subjective opinon based on my conjectures about your subjective opinons."

    :haha:
     
  19. Arris

    Arris TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,534   +92

    Nothing wrong with a bit of discussion about what might or might not be true of the FX. I don't see why its so pointless. Its always interesting to see what people think no matter what information they have to base it on. There have been some benchmarks and a reasonable amount of data released about the FX surely just because we don't have a set of definitive results we are not allowed to discuss our thoughts on the subject. I doubt we will ever find out if the HUGE heatsink system on the FX is due to the 9700 Pro performing on par or better than the standard clocked FX, its merely speculation, which to be honest I don't see as being completely pointless.

    Most of the discussion in this thread has neither been condeming or deifying the FX. Its just been discussion about why it has been delayed and the possible theories that people have put forward. As far as performance goes we might all be completely wrong but that shouldn't stop us wondering.
  20. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    Considering there is talk about a 400Mhz core, I think it's highly likely that we'll find out how the FX stands up to the 9700pro...

    And if those aren't released, I'm quite sure that one or more sites will underclock the FX to 400Mhz (or lower) to see how that would alter the picture... (and to see how the vertex shaders different performance on the same Mhz..)


    StormBringer> I'm not condemning the card.... It'll most likely be a good card... But I do think it's been overhyped/hyped to death...
    Some sites has claimed this card will be the best thing since sliced bread, and from what we've seen so far I don't think that'll come true...
  21. Arris

    Arris TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,534   +92

    I just meant its unlikely that someone from Nvidia will say "Yes, we bolted on the huge heatsink purely because the standard clock that we planned for the FX didn't beat the ATI product".
  22. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    Arris> That's be like Intel admiting that the early p4 really sucked, and that any AMD with the equivalent Mhz outperformed it...

    There's just so much honesty you can expect of a company...
  23. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,896

    anyone who has followed the FX story can recall that initial info about the upcoming FX was that it would have a 400 mhz core speed. after the delivery of thee Radeon 9700 suddenly there was no more info about the FX at all.

    NOW we have the quadro's arriiving with 400 mhz cores and NO dusbuster cooling solution.. so Nvidias professional graphics entry level card is now 100 mhz slower than the consumer card?....hmmmmm.

    specifically I think what caught Nvidia by suprise was the 9700's 256 bit memory. face it a 9700 with a 128 bit memory would have been outperformed by a FX with 400 mhz core and DDRII memory. but the 256 bit memory changes the whole equation suddenly the planned FX with a 400 mhz core and DDRII memory isnt enough. because it cannot decisevly outperform the 9700 and make no mistake nVidia is unwilling to settle for merely equaling or marginally outpperfroming the 9700.

    to completely redesign the FX is out of the question this late in the game so Nvidia was left with only one option. Find a way to get the new FX chip to run at 500 mhz.
  24. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 2,896

Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.