Nvidia GeForce FX Question.

[DooMSlave]

I know alot of you probably dont like nvidia based cards because of hl2 and all but i myself am an nvidia buyer, its just what i prefer, but i had a question for those who know an awnser to... (hopfully).

Is there much diffrence between the GeForce FX 5900 256 and the 128 mb card ? i can gather that the 256 is faster ofcourse but is it like 80% faster then the 128 5900 or just like 20 % faster, because ive been looking at prices, and bb (best buy) its only like 289 for the 128, and online (since its the only place i can find the 256) its near 500 dollars. The steap price between the two is whats making me ponder on how much the preformance between the two really is. if its just 20 % greater then the 128 then im going w/ the 128, if its like an 80% speed diffrence then ill probably wait a few months for the 256 to go down.

 

[Ethos]

20%? You'd be lucky, more like 2/3%!!! Theres not much difference at all apart from high res's with aa + af on. I wouldn't spend the extra cash.

 

[RoyalEF]

On FutureMark the 3D scores of 128 vs 256 don't show any difference except when they are overclocked. The overclocked scores show as much as 30% at the upper extreme. If you view 3DMark03 as a decent indicator of speed.

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectsearch

 

[DooMSlave]

k, thx alot , clears up alot for me so i dont have the blah feeling of buying the 128 and then 3 months later when the price drops on the 256 to have the temptation to buy it because it was faster - and luckly its not faster by much from what ive seen, so ill save my money and go for the 128.

 

[dawdler]

You COULD always go ATI instead... If you buy Nvidia just cause you always have, you are being thickheaded (sorry for the expression). A 9800 Pro or XT wont bite you or blow up your computer, nor download porn on lonely nights. On the contrary, you'll probably like it and wonder why you even considered an FX.
But its your call, I wont stop you from buying an FX

 

[DooMSlave]

i would go ati, but im more familure w/ the Nvidia based cards, and ive always liked their driver support and ive never really had problems with the cards either, if something isnt broke, why fix it sorta speak . Im probably going to try an ATI Card out on my other machine for shits and giggles sometime when i get the side cash for it.

 

[TheRook]

" if something isnt broke, why fix it sorta speak "

um it is broke...

they cant fix it...

the directx9 performance of the fx based cards... is appawling... i had a geforce4mx440 at a lan last weekend and anotehr guy had a 8500Ati card and his image quality was 10x's better than mine... (this was playing halo) you could see the grass texture on his... on mine you just saw the colour green...

so the image quality is piss poor... and im not havin it...

the fx series cards are great on directx8 but directx9 they blow im sorry to say it but im a big time nvidia supporter...

but this battle they have lost im looking forward to the next

TheRook

 

[dawdler]

Like TheRook said, it is broke... The G4Ti is an awesome card, it can still manage good in many games (without all the DX9 bells and whistles of course), this makes it a good card.

The FX series fell flat on their stomach the first DX9 game that came out. Its not a good choice for the future... Not at all. A 9600XT, which is much much cheaper than the 5900 Ultra, will be ALOT better.

Trust me, I was a hardcore Nvidia fan once. I had only Nvidia cards, never even touched ATI (after their rumoured sucky drivers). I even decided to wait (can you beleive it, WAIT) for the FX, the next generation in gaming. I saw it previewed, and I bought an ATI 9700 Pro the next week after on a gut feeling.

I could never have been happier. Sucky drivers? I have had absolutely no problems since january. Every game run like a dream. Driver image quality has also remained the same, while speed has been gained, something I cant say about the Detonators.

 

[RoyalEF]

The MX440 is a low end card (1.1 billion texels/sec, 34 milliion vertices) compared to the 5900 (3.6 billion texels/sec, 338 million vertices). When the MX was released it was considered a budget card. So visual quality will be significantly between these two cards.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by RoyalEF
The MX440 is a low end card (1.1 billion texels/sec, 34 milliion vertices) compared to the 5900 (3.6 billion texels/sec, 338 million vertices). When the MX was released it was considered a budget card. So visual quality will be significantly between these two cards.

Image quality has nothing to do with speed, as we are shown over and over again in reviews

The problem with a G4MX is that its a G2+. That's why the difference is so big between them.

 

[AnTiCaMpEr]

well from what i have seen about doom 3 and HL2 benchmarks , the nvidia cards are up tp 50% slower then their equilivent ATI brethren . but as im a sucker i wanted the first dx9 card out so i got a fx5800 ( asus) not a bad card , 3dmark2001- 20023 , and 2003- just over 6500 . but i do have a hugely overclocked system , gfx at 549/1103 . amd 3000+ @ 2.47 ghz , and a gig of 400 ram ,. it does me for the games i have atm , all run at 1600*1200 ( if supported ) and they run well over 60fps , in some games i have seem over 500fps , but by the time this game is out i can see me getting a 9800pro or higher , if the game is released that late :cheers:

 

[Washuu]

i was a foolish one once, i thought only nvidia was good... * it is, up to the gf4 ti4600 * FX SERIES BLOWS, there is a better cheaper more powerful ati version of a fx card.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by AnTiCaMpEr
but as im a sucker i wanted the first dx9 card out so i got a fx5800

Since when was the 5800 the first DX9 card :dozey:
The very first previews showed it being massivly slower than the 9700 Pro. 5 times easily (the 5900 is still that slow in some areas) in the few DX9 benchmarks one had. Its only due to the recent Cheatonators it (and any other FX) have been able to speed up.