New G-Force cards!

SynthetiX · Post by **SynthetiX** » 12 Mar 2003, 10:07

Check out the info on the new GeForce cards,
 And then the review on the new ATI Radeon cards,
 
 Who will grab the crown this time in the battle of the Graphics cards wars.
 Click <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030311/index.html" TARGET="_blank">here for the GeForce cards</A>
 
 AND
 
 Click
 <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/index.html" TARGET="_blank">here for the ATI Radeons</A>
 
 Which one do you think is gonna walk away with the crown this time?
 Post your comments here
 
 My money is on ATI as usual. [ Edited by SynthetiX On Date March 12, 2003 ]

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 12 Mar 2003, 17:32

I´ve heard the Radeon 9700 is faster than the Geforce FX in some cases.

SnowMonkey · Post by **SnowMonkey** » 13 Mar 2003, 07:47

You heard wrong the 9800 yes not the 9700! <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif">

SynthetiX · Post by **SynthetiX** » 13 Mar 2003, 08:19

To be exact.
 The Geforce was faster than the 9700 but as soon as you up the resolution the 9700 starts taking the lead.
 
 I would rather take the 9700 if I had to decide between the FX and 9700
 Aswell as the fact that the FX sounds like a vacuum cleaner when you run 3D graphics.
 
 Unless you sitting infront of your PC with earphones, the sound WILL get annoying.
 
 LONG LIVE ATI !
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_cool.gif"> [ Edited by SynthetiX On Date March 13, 2003 ]

SnowMonkey · Post by **SnowMonkey** » 13 Mar 2003, 08:46

Have you seen the FX in action?
 If so where did you get it from? <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_confused.gif">

SynthetiX · Post by **SynthetiX** » 13 Mar 2003, 10:26

Not myself but one of my online friends that stays in US.
 And I have read a lot of reviews.
 One being from TomsHardware.com
 <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20 ... index.html" TARGET="_blank">Click here to see their review</A>
 
 He afterwards swapped his FX for 9700.
 He said that he probably wont go back to Geforce cards.
 He says that the Fx gave him a lot of problems in the beginning and the fact that it took up the space for the AGP slot aswell as one PCI slot.
 And he said that the noise made by the fan was a bit to much to handle. [ Edited by SynthetiX On Date March 13, 2003 ]

SnowMonkey · Post by **SnowMonkey** » 13 Mar 2003, 10:56

Ok I hate noisey computers! I guess the FX is not for me then!
 I`m looking to bye The 9700Pro from sahara do you have any Idea who the card is made by and how well does it run? <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_confused.gif">

Koolkat · Post by **Koolkat** » 13 Mar 2003, 14:59

go to <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com" TARGET="_blank">tom´s hardware </A>, you should be able to find, on the front page, a link to a review on the FX cards, they didn´t do very well at all!!!!!
 
 I think that it may have something to do with the fact that they are designed with directX9 in mind and there are no directX9 games out yet.
 
 The GeForce-FX 5200 did worse than the GeForce 4 4200 in most of the test.
 
 KOOLKAT

SnowMonkey · Post by **SnowMonkey** » 13 Mar 2003, 15:32

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-03-13 14:59, Koolkat wrote:
 The GeForce-FX 5200 did worse than the GeForce 4 4200 in most of the test.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 Thats great cause I have a Geforce 4 Ti 128MB!
 
 I must the FX performed a hell of alot worse the I thought they would! Such a long wait for such a dissapiontment <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_frown.gif">

Koolkat · Post by **Koolkat** » 13 Mar 2003, 17:05

I also thought it was a bit of a disappointment that they performed so badly but maybe it has got to do with the fact that they weren´t made for DX8.0/8.1 but for DX9, i don´t think that any DX9 games have been made yet, I think the first will be doom3
 
 
 KOOLKAT

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 13 Mar 2003, 17:28

Nvidia initially said the Geforce FX series would be at least twice as fast as the Geforce 4 Ti range... *sigh* <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_confused.gif">

SynthetiX · Post by **SynthetiX** » 18 Mar 2003, 07:29

That just shows you one thing again.
 Never doubt the power of the underdog!
 Long live the king that is ATI
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_cool.gif">
 
 [ Edited by SynthetiX On Date March 18, 2003 ]

MadAtter · Post by **MadAtter** » 18 Mar 2003, 08:20

i wish i had a 9700 they kick a$$ ive got a geforce 4 ti4200 at the moment and its not bad i get around 9855 on 3dmark2001se witch im pretty happy with.
 long live ati viva
 and geforce aint so bad either

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 18 Mar 2003, 08:55

It´s just too bad the ATI´s cost at least twice as much as their Nvidia counterparts. <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_mad.gif">

Post by **Synkronos** » 18 Mar 2003, 09:11

The other problem with ATI is that they are the ones who leaked the Doom3alpha, so I doubt ID like them very much anymore [if you don´t know the story check <a href="http://www.netmag.co.za/modules.php?op= ... 0">here</a> for my post about it]. Doom3 will now probably be optimised for everything _except_ the ATIs.

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 18 Mar 2003, 13:22

Lol, if anything Doom 3 will probably run at 5FPS on a 9700 Pro and be smooth as a baby´s bottom on a Ti 4200... <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif">