GeForce FX vs Radeon 9700 - your thoughts? - official thread
well, came across this article, - and well, the FX from what they say, whether true or not, as i am reading more and more - is not such a HUGE gain over the 9700 pro. . . ?? - and is bring features and speed that the ATi had over 4 months ago.
well, came across this article, - and well, the FX from what they say, whether true or not, as i am reading more and more - is not such a HUGE gain over the 9700 pro...?? - and is bring features and speed that the ATi had over 4 months ago.
Memory bandwidth - FX - 16g /sec - ATI 19g/ sec - but the Nvidia is also using DDRII - 1ghz speeds - ATI use DDR 1 - 600mhz speeds - so that should help - when games that can use that come out
Dissecting GeForce FX
These vapors aren't so potent
http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2002q4/geforce-fx/index.x?pg=1
Now this was done back in November - but how much have their specs changed?
As i find other more up 2 date articels i will post - as well - anyone else?
Since this card is to be out the first weeek of Feb. now.
WHO KNEW NVIDIA WOULD stick a Dustbuster to the side of its next-gen graphics card in order to cool the GPU to where it could reach clock speeds higher than the Radeon 9700? Honestly, I figured all the new technology, from a 0.13-micron fab process to DDR-II-type memory, would take care of things for NVIDIA on the performance front. But here we are after the product announcement, about four months from the product's projected availability date, and the GeForce FX reference design has an appendage a la Black and Decker.
Actually, I don't mind the OTES concept on a premium high-end card, even though it eats a PCI slot. But we found the Ti 4200 incarnation of this beast to be alarmingly loud. Let's hope NVIDIA's ultra-high-priced, high-end card doesn't sound like a Dustbuster.
Advertisement
However, the details of GeForce FX's chip architecture are surprisingly tame. We knew ATI had beaten NVIDIA to the punch, but most of us expected NVIDIA's counterpunch to be a little more potent. Now that the GeForce FX specs have hit the street, it's safe to say that ATI produced the exact same class of graphics technology over six months before NVIDIA. At the time I wrote my comparative preview of the Radeon 9700 and NV30-cum-GeForce FX, NVIDIA was being cagey about the NV30's exact specifications. They were claiming (under NDA, of course) that the NV30 would have 48GB/s memory bandwidth, but we now know the part has 16GB/s of memory bandwidth, plus a color compression engine that's most effective when used with antialiasing (where it might achieve a peak of 4:1 compression, but will probably deliver something less—hence the 48GB/s number). The Radeon 9700 Pro has 19.4GB/s of memory bandwidth, thanks to old-fashioned DDR memory and a double-wide, 256-bit memory bus.
NVIDIA was also fuzzy, back then, about the exact number of texture units per pixel pipe in NV30. We now know the GeForce FX has eight pipes with one texture unit each, just like the Radeon 9700. So don't expect any massive performance advantages for the GeForce FX in current games. Only the higher clock speeds, afforded partly by the Black and Decker appendage, will give the GFFX a nominal fill rate higher than the Radeon 9700.
Yawn.
I could go on. The GeForce FX features DirectX 9 compliance, floating-point color formats, adaptive anisotropic filtering, and an early Z routine to eliminate overdraw.
Just like the Radeon 9700.
The GeForce FX offers an antialiasing routine hitched to yet another marketing term; the new Intellisample replaces the outdated Accuview. Intellisample is gamma-corrected multisampling—just like the Radeon 9700. Only the color compression engine, which promises to conserve memory bandwidth, separates the GFFX from ATI's top chip. The thing is, the 9700's antialiasing is already very fast, and in true next-gen applications, GPU pixel processing power should become the big limitation, not memory bandwidth. (Update: Whoops, I forgot. The Radeon 9700 has color compression that it uses with antialiasing, as well.)
Nymph demo chick: hot
You get the point. Other than slightly higher clock speeds, the GeForce FX doesn't appear to offer any compelling advantages over the Radeon 9700. TSMC's 0.13-micron fab process has proven to be much more of a headache and a liability than anything else, and the GFFX's availability date still hangs out in the air, at least four months away, as a result. The use of DDR-II-type memory instead of conventional DDR and wider memory paths has pedestrian advantages like potentially lower board costs and simpler PCB layouts, but those benefits will be available to ATI as its graphics cards make the transition to DDR-II memory.
Now, none of this is to say the GeForce FX doesn't have its appeal. For instance, the nymph chick in that NVIDIA demo is hot. Plus, any product as good as—or possibly even a little better than—the current Radeon 9700 Pro is one helluva spectacular graphics chip. The GeForce FX promises to be superior to the Radeon 9700 in extreme cases where loads of pixel shaders ops need executed in a single pass for performance reasons (though these are definitely non-gaming scenarios we're talking about here). And NVIDIA's overall assets as a company, from always-solid drivers to good board manufacturing partners to developer relations initiatives like Cg, should propel the GeForce FX to success.
That success, when it comes, will be much needed. Only now are the true effects of NVIDIA's missed product cycle with NV30 coming into focus. NVIDIA is no longer the graphics technology leader, in title or, soon, in sales. NVIDIA has held on to its market share over the past few quarters, even with the Radeon 9700 on the scene, because its mainstream and low-end products were still very competitive. That won't be the case for much longer, as ATI pushes its R300 and R200 technology generations down into the mainstream and value segments, respectively. Already, the Radeon 9000 Pro is the best choice for under $100, and soon, the Radeon 9500 and 9500 Pro will fill store shelves, ready to bring floating-point pixels to all the good little Christmas shoppers. All NVIDIA has to counter with are warmed-over versions of the GeForce and GeForce3 graphics cores mated to AGP 8X interfaces. That is to say, NVIDIA is a full technology generation behind in the value and mainstream market segments. Word has it that the GeForce FX-derived NV31 and NV34 chips are just now entering tape-out at TSMC, and in all likelihood, those chips won't hit the market until a month or more after the first NV30-based cards arrive.
Of course, the GeForce FX may be pretty darned fast when it arrives. The benchmarks will tell that story. Also, of course, ATI may have a faster variant of the Radeon 9700 on store shelves before the GFFX arrives. But now that we've had a real whiff of the GeForce FX vapors, the reality is clear: this concoction isn't potent enough to freeze the market for four to six months. If you want a next-gen graphics card now, you might as well go pick up a Radeon 9500 or 9700 and start enjoying it right away.
[/list:u]
Memory bandwidth - FX - 16g /sec - ATI 19g/ sec - but the Nvidia is also using DDRII - 1ghz speeds - ATI use DDR 1 - 600mhz speeds - so that should help - when games that can use that come out
Dissecting GeForce FX
These vapors aren't so potent
http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2002q4/geforce-fx/index.x?pg=1
Now this was done back in November - but how much have their specs changed?
As i find other more up 2 date articels i will post - as well - anyone else?
Since this card is to be out the first weeek of Feb. now.
WHO KNEW NVIDIA WOULD stick a Dustbuster to the side of its next-gen graphics card in order to cool the GPU to where it could reach clock speeds higher than the Radeon 9700? Honestly, I figured all the new technology, from a 0.13-micron fab process to DDR-II-type memory, would take care of things for NVIDIA on the performance front. But here we are after the product announcement, about four months from the product's projected availability date, and the GeForce FX reference design has an appendage a la Black and Decker.
Actually, I don't mind the OTES concept on a premium high-end card, even though it eats a PCI slot. But we found the Ti 4200 incarnation of this beast to be alarmingly loud. Let's hope NVIDIA's ultra-high-priced, high-end card doesn't sound like a Dustbuster.
Advertisement
However, the details of GeForce FX's chip architecture are surprisingly tame. We knew ATI had beaten NVIDIA to the punch, but most of us expected NVIDIA's counterpunch to be a little more potent. Now that the GeForce FX specs have hit the street, it's safe to say that ATI produced the exact same class of graphics technology over six months before NVIDIA. At the time I wrote my comparative preview of the Radeon 9700 and NV30-cum-GeForce FX, NVIDIA was being cagey about the NV30's exact specifications. They were claiming (under NDA, of course) that the NV30 would have 48GB/s memory bandwidth, but we now know the part has 16GB/s of memory bandwidth, plus a color compression engine that's most effective when used with antialiasing (where it might achieve a peak of 4:1 compression, but will probably deliver something less—hence the 48GB/s number). The Radeon 9700 Pro has 19.4GB/s of memory bandwidth, thanks to old-fashioned DDR memory and a double-wide, 256-bit memory bus.
NVIDIA was also fuzzy, back then, about the exact number of texture units per pixel pipe in NV30. We now know the GeForce FX has eight pipes with one texture unit each, just like the Radeon 9700. So don't expect any massive performance advantages for the GeForce FX in current games. Only the higher clock speeds, afforded partly by the Black and Decker appendage, will give the GFFX a nominal fill rate higher than the Radeon 9700.
Yawn.
I could go on. The GeForce FX features DirectX 9 compliance, floating-point color formats, adaptive anisotropic filtering, and an early Z routine to eliminate overdraw.
Just like the Radeon 9700.
The GeForce FX offers an antialiasing routine hitched to yet another marketing term; the new Intellisample replaces the outdated Accuview. Intellisample is gamma-corrected multisampling—just like the Radeon 9700. Only the color compression engine, which promises to conserve memory bandwidth, separates the GFFX from ATI's top chip. The thing is, the 9700's antialiasing is already very fast, and in true next-gen applications, GPU pixel processing power should become the big limitation, not memory bandwidth. (Update: Whoops, I forgot. The Radeon 9700 has color compression that it uses with antialiasing, as well.)
Nymph demo chick: hot
You get the point. Other than slightly higher clock speeds, the GeForce FX doesn't appear to offer any compelling advantages over the Radeon 9700. TSMC's 0.13-micron fab process has proven to be much more of a headache and a liability than anything else, and the GFFX's availability date still hangs out in the air, at least four months away, as a result. The use of DDR-II-type memory instead of conventional DDR and wider memory paths has pedestrian advantages like potentially lower board costs and simpler PCB layouts, but those benefits will be available to ATI as its graphics cards make the transition to DDR-II memory.
Now, none of this is to say the GeForce FX doesn't have its appeal. For instance, the nymph chick in that NVIDIA demo is hot. Plus, any product as good as—or possibly even a little better than—the current Radeon 9700 Pro is one helluva spectacular graphics chip. The GeForce FX promises to be superior to the Radeon 9700 in extreme cases where loads of pixel shaders ops need executed in a single pass for performance reasons (though these are definitely non-gaming scenarios we're talking about here). And NVIDIA's overall assets as a company, from always-solid drivers to good board manufacturing partners to developer relations initiatives like Cg, should propel the GeForce FX to success.
That success, when it comes, will be much needed. Only now are the true effects of NVIDIA's missed product cycle with NV30 coming into focus. NVIDIA is no longer the graphics technology leader, in title or, soon, in sales. NVIDIA has held on to its market share over the past few quarters, even with the Radeon 9700 on the scene, because its mainstream and low-end products were still very competitive. That won't be the case for much longer, as ATI pushes its R300 and R200 technology generations down into the mainstream and value segments, respectively. Already, the Radeon 9000 Pro is the best choice for under $100, and soon, the Radeon 9500 and 9500 Pro will fill store shelves, ready to bring floating-point pixels to all the good little Christmas shoppers. All NVIDIA has to counter with are warmed-over versions of the GeForce and GeForce3 graphics cores mated to AGP 8X interfaces. That is to say, NVIDIA is a full technology generation behind in the value and mainstream market segments. Word has it that the GeForce FX-derived NV31 and NV34 chips are just now entering tape-out at TSMC, and in all likelihood, those chips won't hit the market until a month or more after the first NV30-based cards arrive.
Of course, the GeForce FX may be pretty darned fast when it arrives. The benchmarks will tell that story. Also, of course, ATI may have a faster variant of the Radeon 9700 on store shelves before the GFFX arrives. But now that we've had a real whiff of the GeForce FX vapors, the reality is clear: this concoction isn't potent enough to freeze the market for four to six months. If you want a next-gen graphics card now, you might as well go pick up a Radeon 9500 or 9700 and start enjoying it right away.
[/list:u]
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
GeForce FX Benchmarks Revealed! (FROM 3DRAGE) - 3:14 pm
EST - MrB
http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2003-01-03.html
Maximum PC has published one of the first benchmarks of the GF FX. The benchmarks were done on a prototype Alienware system on a beta board GF FX with unpolished drivers. Here are the results of the test that nvidia allowed them to take:
GeForce FX
Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 209fps
UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 140fps
3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 41fps
Radeon 9700 Pro
Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 147fps
UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 119fps
3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 45fps
"It would be silly to extrapolate fine details about the card’s performance from such a small benchmark sample. It would also be unfair, considering the un-optimized condition of the drivers. But we can make some broad guesses about the strengths and weaknesses of nVidia’s new technology. In Quake III running at 1600x1200, 32-bit color and 2x anti-aliasing, the GeForce FX is about 40 percent faster than the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro at the same settings. The GeForce is almost 20 percent faster than the 9700 Pro in the Unreal Tournament 2003 Asbestos fly-by demo at these same settings. However, in the 3DMark 2001:SE Game 4 benchmark at these settings, the Radeon 9700 is about 10 percent faster than the GeForce FX.
What does this suggest? That the GeForce FX is very fast -- particularly when memory bandwidth isn’t an issue. Remember that the GeForce FX’s 128-bit memory bus runs at 500MHz, but has a maximum bandwidth of just 16GB/sec. Meanwhile, the Radeon 9700’s 256-bit memory interface accommodates 19.8GB/sec, even though it runs at just 325MHz.
"[/list:u]
EST - MrB
http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2003-01-03.html
Maximum PC has published one of the first benchmarks of the GF FX. The benchmarks were done on a prototype Alienware system on a beta board GF FX with unpolished drivers. Here are the results of the test that nvidia allowed them to take:
GeForce FX
Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 209fps
UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 140fps
3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 41fps
Radeon 9700 Pro
Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 147fps
UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 119fps
3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 45fps
"It would be silly to extrapolate fine details about the card’s performance from such a small benchmark sample. It would also be unfair, considering the un-optimized condition of the drivers. But we can make some broad guesses about the strengths and weaknesses of nVidia’s new technology. In Quake III running at 1600x1200, 32-bit color and 2x anti-aliasing, the GeForce FX is about 40 percent faster than the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro at the same settings. The GeForce is almost 20 percent faster than the 9700 Pro in the Unreal Tournament 2003 Asbestos fly-by demo at these same settings. However, in the 3DMark 2001:SE Game 4 benchmark at these settings, the Radeon 9700 is about 10 percent faster than the GeForce FX.
What does this suggest? That the GeForce FX is very fast -- particularly when memory bandwidth isn’t an issue. Remember that the GeForce FX’s 128-bit memory bus runs at 500MHz, but has a maximum bandwidth of just 16GB/sec. Meanwhile, the Radeon 9700’s 256-bit memory interface accommodates 19.8GB/sec, even though it runs at just 325MHz.
"[/list:u]
Not all of these sources may be reliable, - but hey - u never know! - but with a name like "THE INQUIRER" - hard to trust that as a source.
ATI's R350, RV350 taped out already?
Nvidia may have missed the boat
http://www.inquirerinside.com/?article=6661
By Jansen Ng: Tuesday 10 December 2002, 16:08
THE INQUIRER has received several tips recently regarding ATI's R350 and RV350.
The first reiterates that ATI's R350 is being built on a 0.15 micron process. ATI's RV350 mainstream part is however being built on a 0.13 micron process.
What is new is that both the R350 and the RV350 have already taped out with their production partner TSMC, which did not do quite as good a job with their friend Nvidia.
The Nvidia NV30 super graphics VPU was planned to be launched using TSMC's 130nm copper and Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) low k dielectric process using Applied Materials' CVD low k Black Diamond product to wipe the floor with ATI. That would have been the first chip tape out for volume production using the most advanced foundry process currently available.
ATI has been more conservative in its process selection by relying on TSMC's proven 0.15 micron copper process without a low k dielectric.
Nvidia's GeForce FX using the NV30 chipis expected to be available to consumers in February, missing the Christmas boat. Many people have been snapping up Radeon 9700s and Radeon 9500s because they are widely available, and the best performing products to boot.
ATI's taping out means that those people who were waiting until February for NV30 might as well give up and buy Radeons now for little Timmy, or else wait a little bit into February and buy a Radeon 9900 Pro.
[/list:u]
ATI's R350, RV350 taped out already?
Nvidia may have missed the boat
http://www.inquirerinside.com/?article=6661
By Jansen Ng: Tuesday 10 December 2002, 16:08
THE INQUIRER has received several tips recently regarding ATI's R350 and RV350.
The first reiterates that ATI's R350 is being built on a 0.15 micron process. ATI's RV350 mainstream part is however being built on a 0.13 micron process.
What is new is that both the R350 and the RV350 have already taped out with their production partner TSMC, which did not do quite as good a job with their friend Nvidia.
The Nvidia NV30 super graphics VPU was planned to be launched using TSMC's 130nm copper and Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) low k dielectric process using Applied Materials' CVD low k Black Diamond product to wipe the floor with ATI. That would have been the first chip tape out for volume production using the most advanced foundry process currently available.
ATI has been more conservative in its process selection by relying on TSMC's proven 0.15 micron copper process without a low k dielectric.
Nvidia's GeForce FX using the NV30 chipis expected to be available to consumers in February, missing the Christmas boat. Many people have been snapping up Radeon 9700s and Radeon 9500s because they are widely available, and the best performing products to boot.
ATI's taping out means that those people who were waiting until February for NV30 might as well give up and buy Radeons now for little Timmy, or else wait a little bit into February and buy a Radeon 9900 Pro.
[/list:u]
Quote:2 slots for a video card doesn't mean much since most of us don't use the PCI slot next to the AGP slot anyway and it's been common practice for how many years?
true, for some people, and alot of mobos come with 6 pci slots. But i do know of people who use all 6, i myself was using all 5 in my old comp
vid in AGP
NIC (smallest so put near gfx)
2nd nic for ICS
sound
scsi card for tape backup drive
firewire card
as for other, some people may have a tv pci card or an add-on mp3 card for their sound blaster.
for most it won't be an issue, but there will be that odd person that will bug them or they will have to make some change, but oh well!
true, for some people, and alot of mobos come with 6 pci slots. But i do know of people who use all 6, i myself was using all 5 in my old comp
vid in AGP
NIC (smallest so put near gfx)
2nd nic for ICS
sound
scsi card for tape backup drive
firewire card
as for other, some people may have a tv pci card or an add-on mp3 card for their sound blaster.
for most it won't be an issue, but there will be that odd person that will bug them or they will have to make some change, but oh well!
u said it - wait till the product is out and people actually own both the cards above - or at last 2 card worht comparing.
My uncles will most certainly be buying ATi new card or the 9700 PRO AIW if and when they come out with a 256mb version - to which ATI did not deny when i emailed them, they said simply keep an eye out on their site, they also did not deny the rumours of the r350 - they said just keep an eye on the upcoming enws page on their site.
but yeah, each card has their advantages - as i say ATI is an ALL around better card - where as, of course, NVIDIA is more aimed at the gaming market - and matrox @ the 2d world, and also 3d - but they try to sneak in to the gaming world now and then with some of their adverts.
My uncles will most certainly be buying ATi new card or the 9700 PRO AIW if and when they come out with a 256mb version - to which ATI did not deny when i emailed them, they said simply keep an eye out on their site, they also did not deny the rumours of the r350 - they said just keep an eye on the upcoming enws page on their site.
but yeah, each card has their advantages - as i say ATI is an ALL around better card - where as, of course, NVIDIA is more aimed at the gaming market - and matrox @ the 2d world, and also 3d - but they try to sneak in to the gaming world now and then with some of their adverts.
I'm currently using a 64MB GF4 Ti4200.
Although this is a good card (and it was a free upgrade from my GF3 Ti200) I was keeping my eye on the next generation - true DirectX 9 cards.
I've never actually been that much of an NVidia fan, however I've felt forced to take that route since I left Matrox a while ago.
Even when NVidia rulled the waves I went for a Matrox G400 MAX and I'm pleased I did, I rate it as a much better card than what NVidia had out at the time.
When I purchased my GF3 I also had the option of the Radeon 8500 and went for the NVidia option due to ATI's lack of driver writing ability.
Sure NVidia had some terrible driver releases, but ATI's were even worse.
NVidia appeared to be the de facto card to go for, like the word "Soundblaster" was once the standard all other sound cards attempted to be compatible with I felt that all graphics cards were attempting to be NVidia compatible.
The GF FX has been delayed and then delayed again and even now you cannot actually go and buy one.
They 6 month product cycle went to pot and the best they could do for Christmas was hit us with some AGP 8X versions of their existing cards, we all know the AGP 8X is really a waste of time and not that many people even had the motehrboards to support this extra bandwidth.
So now the covers are off, we can see what we've all been waiting for all these months from the wonderful people over at NVidia and disapointment is really the best word here.
I was considering an ATI 9700 however I think I'll wait to see what ATI have got up their sleeves for their next release.
Word on the street is that ATI will paper release their next card on the GF FX release date to spoil their party (as NVidia has attempted to do to ATI numerous times in the past).
If NVidia don't watch out we could well be looking at another 3DFX fiasco here.
There was a time when 3DFX rules everything, nobody wanted anything by any other manufacturer and their future looked very rosey indeed.
Up until a little while ago NVidia held that crown with 3 stunning releases, GF2, GF3 & GF4.
The next leader of the pack will be ATI and NVidia are very much going to find themselves in second place for a while - let's hope the ATI driver writers don't ruin the good work the designers have done and release lackluster drivers.
Although this is a good card (and it was a free upgrade from my GF3 Ti200) I was keeping my eye on the next generation - true DirectX 9 cards.
I've never actually been that much of an NVidia fan, however I've felt forced to take that route since I left Matrox a while ago.
Even when NVidia rulled the waves I went for a Matrox G400 MAX and I'm pleased I did, I rate it as a much better card than what NVidia had out at the time.
When I purchased my GF3 I also had the option of the Radeon 8500 and went for the NVidia option due to ATI's lack of driver writing ability.
Sure NVidia had some terrible driver releases, but ATI's were even worse.
NVidia appeared to be the de facto card to go for, like the word "Soundblaster" was once the standard all other sound cards attempted to be compatible with I felt that all graphics cards were attempting to be NVidia compatible.
The GF FX has been delayed and then delayed again and even now you cannot actually go and buy one.
They 6 month product cycle went to pot and the best they could do for Christmas was hit us with some AGP 8X versions of their existing cards, we all know the AGP 8X is really a waste of time and not that many people even had the motehrboards to support this extra bandwidth.
So now the covers are off, we can see what we've all been waiting for all these months from the wonderful people over at NVidia and disapointment is really the best word here.
I was considering an ATI 9700 however I think I'll wait to see what ATI have got up their sleeves for their next release.
Word on the street is that ATI will paper release their next card on the GF FX release date to spoil their party (as NVidia has attempted to do to ATI numerous times in the past).
If NVidia don't watch out we could well be looking at another 3DFX fiasco here.
There was a time when 3DFX rules everything, nobody wanted anything by any other manufacturer and their future looked very rosey indeed.
Up until a little while ago NVidia held that crown with 3 stunning releases, GF2, GF3 & GF4.
The next leader of the pack will be ATI and NVidia are very much going to find themselves in second place for a while - let's hope the ATI driver writers don't ruin the good work the designers have done and release lackluster drivers.
I think performence takes a back seat when it comes to that noise. Sounds like a vacum cleaner. Too loud.
Quote:P.S.=> Champion, you'd HATE my system... I can hear it across the house! Fans galore... had to go that route, 8000rpm ones on my CPU's alone! Last summer was a record shattering one, So many days that broke 100 degrees F in a row that broke heat records that stood 100++ years here, I had to cool my rig, & noise WAS the price! apk
I only have 2 case fans (unknown speed but pretty slow) and a 4500rpm CPU fan. I thought that was pretty loud seeing as I had a Celeron 633 with just the stock cooler before.
P.S. If I needed 2 8000rpm fans I'd start looking towards water cooling or some other form of quieter cooling. I find hearing TV programs over my fans annoying enough.
I only have 2 case fans (unknown speed but pretty slow) and a 4500rpm CPU fan. I thought that was pretty loud seeing as I had a Celeron 633 with just the stock cooler before.
P.S. If I needed 2 8000rpm fans I'd start looking towards water cooling or some other form of quieter cooling. I find hearing TV programs over my fans annoying enough.
Well
from ati - they should have the 9700 PRO 256mb cards coming out soon, and they would not give me much detial on the
R350 Chip - which is supposed to be their next project - but with ATi driver support far better now - their next release would not suprise me - word was that it was tobe released with the FX - but that was very doubtful.
Anyways - Nvidia better get their act together - drivers can give an improvement, but right now NVIDIA needs the numbers - so the drivers they have now better be good! as people who are likely to buy this card want it NOW and not have to wait 4, 5 months for drivers to come out that will give %25 boost! in perfromace.
from ati - they should have the 9700 PRO 256mb cards coming out soon, and they would not give me much detial on the
R350 Chip - which is supposed to be their next project - but with ATi driver support far better now - their next release would not suprise me - word was that it was tobe released with the FX - but that was very doubtful.
Anyways - Nvidia better get their act together - drivers can give an improvement, but right now NVIDIA needs the numbers - so the drivers they have now better be good! as people who are likely to buy this card want it NOW and not have to wait 4, 5 months for drivers to come out that will give %25 boost! in perfromace.
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=33662506
HAHA..!! Very funny pics, just look through!
HAHA..!! Very funny pics, just look through!
hehehe
u could get a hurricane going in there!! i think it is time for like a super duper giant server case, heck just get a server closet and put in an A/C unit
u could get a hurricane going in there!! i think it is time for like a super duper giant server case, heck just get a server closet and put in an A/C unit
Well
"rumour" has it that Nvidia is only making a limited number of the cards, 100,000, and are leaving this card and concentrating ona better one.
frankly, i think it is too late and ATi will now be king for a while, if nividia screws up like this again.
"rumour" has it that Nvidia is only making a limited number of the cards, 100,000, and are leaving this card and concentrating ona better one.
frankly, i think it is too late and ATi will now be king for a while, if nividia screws up like this again.
For the GF FX Vs ATI 9700 question I made my choice.
Been running a 9700Pro for about 25hrs now and love it to bits!
Been running a 9700Pro for about 25hrs now and love it to bits!
