My view on the GeForce FX

[frenchfry164]

I've been looking around hardware sites, and I am very disappointed with the way the GeForce FX has come out. Benchmarks have shown that even the Radeon 9600 PRO sometimes beats out the GeForce FX 5800, and GeForce FX 5500 & 5200 are even worse. In fact, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 a lot of times beats out the 5500. I mean, the GeForce FX cards aren't THAT bad, but I don't think all that hype was really worth it.

Linux users however, may consider the GeForce FX. As everyone knows, NVidia and OpenGL have always been a awesome combination, and the GeForce FX is no exception. GeForce is actually much faster using OpenGL than Radeon is, usually by at least 30 FPS.

Although, for their price they aren't bad. The prices for ATI cards are sometimes steep. I just expected more from NVidia.

PS: Man the GeForce FX brought down the price of the GeForce 4 MX. You can get a 64MB GeForce 4 MX440 for $25!! I Bought the same card for $99 a while back! http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...p?sku=P56-2633

[stumon]

>>>>PS: Man the GeForce FX brought down the price of the GeForce 4 MX. You can get a 64MB GeForce 4 MX440 for $25!! I Bought the same card for $99 a while back!

Thats because the G4 MX's series suck ass. There quality is crap, unlick their previous versions of MX (ex: G2's). If you go G4, you have to go Ti, i recommend 4200 because its runs the same as the 4600, there is no difference when playing with them. As far as the new FX, its just hype, something to make money with. So are the new ATI's, every game out will run fine on the G4 Ti4200, so there is no point is spending that much money.

[RoD]

hell look what the GF series has done to my 269.00 voodoo 5 >_<

[frenchfry164]

Actually some of the new games run and look a lot better with the new graphics cards.

The GeForce 4 MX 440 was definitely not worth the $100 I payed for it. When I get $200 I'll probably get myself a Radeon 9600 PRO.

PS: I actually saw a 256 MB GeForce FX 5600! Who needs that much video RAM for a card like a GeForce?

[stumon]

>>>>PS: I actually saw a 256 MB GeForce FX 5600! Who needs that much video RAM for a card like a GeForce?

No one yet, lol, there is no need for it in games yet. thats what its a waste of money, because by the time there is a need months down the line, there will be a lot better processors thrown in with that much memory.

[Fountain]

Surprised nobody has mentioned that the FX has direct x 9.0 support, and not many cards can say that. (if any others at all!)

So....in future it should be king.

The ATI top cards are blistering.....but I am sure they will never 3d mark 2003 higher than the MX purely 'cos they lack direct x 9.0 support............


.......and that 3d mark 2003 is unforgiving I can tell you!

[Kinasz]

I'll stick with my good old TNT2 anyday of the week!!

[TravisS]

Originally posted by Fountain
Surprised nobody has mentioned that the FX has direct x 9.0 support, and not many cards can say that. (if any others at all!)

So....in future it should be king.

The ATI top cards are blistering.....but I am sure they will never 3d mark 2003 higher than the MX purely 'cos they lack direct x 9.0 support............


.......and that 3d mark 2003 is unforgiving I can tell you!

Whatchoo talkin bout? Radeon 9800, 9700, 9600, and 9500 are all DX 9 cards. The 9700 was, I'm pretty sure, the first DX 9 card on the market.

[Fountain]

Or should I have said 'FULL' d x 9.0 support...

Hehe you knew what I meant

[frenchfry164]

Even the GeForce 4 had SOME DX9, but the GeForce FX is supposed to have the most complete support for DX. Radeon 9700/9800 have the second most complete. They are also FAST as crap (of course, you're paying for it too)

[RoD]

Both ATI's best card and Nvidia's best card have ups and downs....solution? Two comps one of each