Graphics GFFX = slower than MX400!!!!!!!!

a link worth 1000 words...

http://www.darkcrow.co.kr/News/Eng_News.asp?board_idx=2013

 

Omg, thats really poor from nvidia, i dont understand why they would bring out something they know is that slow compared to there past cards, maybe that site is dodgy?

or maybe the FX does just suck?

 

Bear in mind that the card tested wasn't even the Ultra version and only retails at ~$70, still it's the only test i've seen so far of the normal FX5200 so I guess we'll have to wait for more results.

 

That's gotta be wrong - I mean, why on earth would nVidia market, as well as sell a Vidcard for $300+ or however much if they know their own MX series could beat it? There had to be some driver weirdness going on or something.

It just dosn't make sense.

 

ndtinker as I mentioned in the previous post this isn't the FX you've seen being reviewed before, check my article on the FX family for details on the model in question (fx5200). The fx5200 is very limited in it's normal state and these results could be valid, although I'll wait til mine arrives for test before I believe it

 

Also, I would severely question any testing where an 8500 outperforms every other competitor....looks decidedly dodgy.

 

But the 8500 does out perform all of the listed cards.

Dodgy my ass the card is crap the entire GFFX line up is crap, I wish Bit-tech would pull its head out of Nividas ass

 

GF-FX 5200 is all you need to know about that.....its the budget version of the FX line so this is like saying 'ahahaha the GF4 slower than a Radeon 9000' when its the MX version thats being benchmarked, and basing that judgement against the whole GF4 line based around the crappiest card in the range.

Its not even the GF FX 5200 Ultra which is a faster card either it seemes, so the model in the original benchmark is the slowest of the slow when it comes to GF FXs!

As for the GF FX being crap, its not as good a card as everyone hoped and it is beaten by ATIs offering if you take value for money into consideration, but its not really *that* bad - how many here would not want a GF FX in their system? Its not great, but its still not the appalling product you would get the impression of from listening to what some people say.

 

I'd hardly say we're like that kevo, after all do you see me using an FX? I use ATI cards for my own use but I look at review cards objectively rather than just on others' pre ordained opinions... The FX family are good cards, so maybe they're not as great as people expected but whos fault's that? The fact is that the FXs aren't crap, they're not as quick as we thought they might be but how does that make them crap?

 

unfortunately for NVIDIA, even though the FX line is not crap they are not the best. So for the same amount of money you can get a faster and quieter ATI card. Though the FX are good cards why settle for second best when you can get the best for the same price.

 

Bah! too many ati fan boys here... I suppose the way those tests were going my intel onboard 810e would have beaten it also?? I just have to say the fx may be slower than the 9800 but i don't think its slower than the 8500... I mean honestly it had to be a mark up or a bad driver or crap card.. I mean even the cheap fx has to perform better... And i would rather Have my head up the ass of people who put out good drivers than the s*** that ati sends out....

 

sounds like the reply of an nvidia fanboy to me.

i have to say the current catalyst drivers are great, ive had absolutely no problems with them, and my 9500np softmod clocks insanely too. last card i had was a Ti4200 btw

i used to be amazingly loyal to 3dfx, until i bought a voodoo3, which i wasnt impressed with. now i say buy the best card for the money, doesnt matter who its made by

 

I'm an nVidia fanboy (I guess) but this next time around (as in by the end of the month) I will be the proud owner of a 9700 Pro..

And I wish nVidia could come up with some notation so we know a card is a budget card, no matter if it is a G2, G4, or FX.

I thought the "MX" designation was at least a good start.

 

well, i wouldnt bother with FX currently, its a rushed interim product that should have been out for christmas.

the next gen nvidia chip i believe has been tapped out, so i reckon mebbe end of may/juneish till we see em retail, until then id say go ATI

 

The rumor is that the NV35 will be anounced at next months E3.

 

Btw I currently own a gainward 4800 I have used a 9700,9700pro and I must say I was most impressed by the 9700... Heh My new mobo has problems with the 9700pro but not the 9700? heh anyways I currently use the 4800 cause i like it the best... Anyways I must say that I have seen the pro do great things and its in my server box a epox 8x w/ 2400xp 1gig PC2700 ram and it flys... But not on my asus board.. But anyways I think that both companies are very good and im glad they are competitors cause that means more bad ass stuff for us.. I think that now ATI has the hardware but NVIDIA has the Software.. and use to have the hardware but i think nvidia woke up and realized ati is someone to take seriously.. I wish both companies the best of luck And I think both have had their share of crap cards....

 

yer isnt the one to look for the fx 5800 Ultra
but y would u want a leaf blower in ur computer

i hear the fx isnt meant to be so flash anyway
it was intended as an intermediate stage.. for the NV40

 

yeah, thats what i like to hear and also this is because the MX440 pwns, as does all other MX cards, especially th GF2 MX range, that was a class range, and even runs UT2003 at descent speeds

pwnd!