- Joined
- 13 Feb 2002
- Messages
- 854
I have noticed that there have been lots of whining about the GeForce FX (not necessarily here, but all over the internet), especially in regards to preliminary benchmark tests. But, really, how many frames per second do we really need? Film operates at 24 fps, PAL at 25 fps, NTSC at 29.97, and SECAM at 60 fps (I think?). DV always attained for 60 fps itself, so where is the advantage of climbing up to 200 / 300+ fps?
Looking at some of the FX demos has amazed me, honestly. Can the Radeon 9700 bring that? (it's an honest question....can it? LOL). I almost think there is a point where quality is going to have to take a front seat to raw benchmark speed, if only in the short term.
Anyhow, FYI, I'm not a die-hard ATI or nVidia fan. I had an ATI card, which I loved, and, when it became obsolete, I bought a GeForce4 Ti 4200 (AGP 8X), which I also love. In about three years, I'll likely reevaluate the products out there, and who knows which company I'll go with.
Overall, though, I have yet to see a reason why to flame the GeForce FX even before it has come out and quibbles over a dozen or two fps differences, when it is already mindnumbingly faster than our eyes can handle.
Your thoughts?
Melon
Looking at some of the FX demos has amazed me, honestly. Can the Radeon 9700 bring that? (it's an honest question....can it? LOL). I almost think there is a point where quality is going to have to take a front seat to raw benchmark speed, if only in the short term.
Anyhow, FYI, I'm not a die-hard ATI or nVidia fan. I had an ATI card, which I loved, and, when it became obsolete, I bought a GeForce4 Ti 4200 (AGP 8X), which I also love. In about three years, I'll likely reevaluate the products out there, and who knows which company I'll go with.
Overall, though, I have yet to see a reason why to flame the GeForce FX even before it has come out and quibbles over a dozen or two fps differences, when it is already mindnumbingly faster than our eyes can handle.
Your thoughts?
Melon