Geforce FX Benchmarks

[neo1980]

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/220301/pages/geforcefx.html

Quake 3 Demo 001 1600x1200 2xAA

Geforce FX - 209 fps
Radeon 9700 Pro - 147 fps


UT 2003 Asbestos 1600x1200 2xAA

Geforce FX - 140 fps
Radeon 9700 Pro - 119 fps

3dMark Game4 1600x1200 2xAA

Geforce FX - 41 fps
Radeon 9700 Pro - 45 fps

 

[Goatman]

poor poor nVidiots.... the ATi clearly nominates in anything that requires memory bandwidth (Game 4).

the FX isn't even all that much faster in the other also, and who cares about Quake III it's a old benchmark, past it's prime... nVidia will forever be playing cath up to ATi now...

 

[Sazar]

the gf FX is faster... or will be... no point denying that because thats a fact...

IF it is released @ 500/500mhz... it will be faster its fill rate will be far higher than anything the 9700pro can produce @ stock clocks...

pump up the 9700pro to 400/400 and then it will match the performance/fill rate on paper...

now the limitations that the 128bit memory place are harder to overcome... that is a fact... but lets see...

also the 200m triangles of the gf FX v/s the 325 m triangles of the 9700pro is for me a big difference... though I will wait to see if this affects 2d/3d IQ to any great extent...

not too long now.. the gf FX is around the corner... or the next... or the one after that... or the one after that even...

 

[mikill]

Originally posted by Goatman
poor poor nVidiots.... the ATi clearly nominates in anything that requires memory bandwidth (Game 4).

the FX isn't even all that much faster in the other also, and who cares about Quake III it's a old benchmark, past it's prime... nVidia will forever be playing cath up to ATi now...

you say ati dominated in game 4, hmm 4fps? but in Q3 ati lost by 62 fps, big difference and also in UT2003 by 21. u obviously are biased toward nvidia, although it clearly dominated in 2 out of 3 results. if it was the other way around, you'd be singing praise about how ati whooped nvidia.

and the FX isnt all the much faster? but yet you're going to say ati dominated the FX by a measily 4 fps. get real atidiot, k?

 

[Taurus]

"with early drivers and freshly fabbed silicon, the card we tested isn't quite what you'll find in stores when the card ships in february or march."

give it time, people. it's way too early to be coming to conclusions.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by mikill
you say ati dominated in game 4, hmm 4fps? but in Q3 ati lost by 62 fps, big difference and also in UT2003 by 21. u obviously are biased toward nvidia, although it clearly dominated in 2 out of 3 results. if it was the other way around, you'd be singing praise about how ati whooped nvidia.

and the FX isnt all the much faster? but yet you're going to say ati dominated the FX by a measily 4 fps. get real atidiot, k?

play nice... there is no need to make personal comments like that...

btw for future reference you would refer to an ATi fan as a fanATIc... and for nvidia fans as nvidiots

anyhoo back to the question of the cards..

nature is a far more gpu intensive test than the other 2...

also the thing to remember is that the only tests allowed to be run were HAND PICKED by nvidia... they would not allow any other tests to be run...

however like I said before... the gf FX will be faster if it releases @ 500/500mhz...

question to remember like I also stated is 2d/3d IQ... will it be compromised?

 

[scriptasylum]

Originally posted by mikill
...get real atidiot, k?

Jeesh, so much emotion over a video card! I wish I had so little to worry about that I could get worked up over hardware. :happy:

 

[BonyTony]

Quake 3~~yes i remember long ago:happy:

but that time has passed i dont care what frames a game pulls if i no longer play it, as long as my new games play at high enough frames and look nice when maxed out i am happy and at the moment all my games do this i am still with nvidia but i think ATI is now the forerunner in graphic chips and i am not going to pay £300+ for a new card ever again. Ati seems 1 step ahead at the moment and as soon as the Fx is out ATi will be planning a better card...where does it stop?.

My next card for me & system will be ATi.

 

[Goatman]

First off, those are the benchmarks nVidia has allowed to be published, which means they are hte ones that their beta drivers are written for.

Game 4 is alot different than the Quake or UT benchy. Not to mention this card was supposed to slaughter the 9700 Pro, and it's not...

I didn't say the 9700 Pro was faster, the next Radeon will be much faster than the FX, but the 9700 is minutely slower. I just think that nVidia will finally die the death it deserves, people are fed up with frames per second, over quality.

 

[Taurus]

Originally posted by Goatman
I just think that nVidia will finally die the death it deserves...

better watch what you wish for. if nvidia did manage to somehow fade into nothingness, we'd all be stuck with one main graphics card company and prices would skyrocket... it's called a monopoly.

you should be encouraging nvidia. after all, this competition is what's driving technology ahead and keeping prices low. believe that.

 

[huFFamOOse]

Originally posted by taurus

you should be encouraging nvidia. after all, this competition is what's driving technology ahead and keeping prices low. believe that.

Not that they are exactly value for money prices for now, I mean £400 for a graphics card (FX's est price) is more than a whole PC can cost.

 

[Taurus]

yeah, but not that many people need it. my point is, without nvidia, you could be paying that much for an 8500le right now... and the 9k series probly wouldn't even be out.