Author Topic: GeForce FX Cards reviewed... (Read 975 times)

« **on:** January 27, 2003, 08:07:48 PM »

Anandtech
Tom\'s Hardware

It\'s not that much faster than a Radeon 9700 Pro, and even slower when AA is turned on. And it gets better, listen to the card when 3DMark gets up and running.

GFFX Mp3

:eek:

« **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2003, 11:05:30 PM »

lol it sounds like a vaccum cleaner.
actually i was kinda expecting more from this card, but it seems ati have done a much better job with their R9700.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2003, 08:51:21 AM »

Pity. Especially with all the hype that was going around.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:51:35 AM »

Heh, people in PC forums are going crazy over this. Even some die hard nVidia fanboys are canceling their preorders and picking up a 9700 Pro.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:55:30 AM »

the GF card will continue to outsell ATI by an obscene margin

to say either card is crap is rediculous

« **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2003, 11:16:04 AM »

« **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2003, 12:51:08 PM »

not any louder than a typical AMD heatsink fan

« **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2003, 01:17:49 PM »

Dunno about that; never had an AMD. I do own a vacuum cleaner though - I\'m not sure whether it or the FX is louder.

Kurt Angle · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2003, 01:24:11 PM »

Sounds like my washing machine.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2003, 02:41:58 PM »

I told you all SO!!!!!!!!! did you believe me....noooooooo

:hat:ScottyJ:hat:

« **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2003, 03:11:14 PM »

It\'s rather dissapointing from the reviews so far.

The FX takes up two PCI slots, one for the card itself and the other for the exhaust cooling mechanism they came up with. The card uses over 70W of power compared to the 9700Pro which uses about 54W. Even with the huge cooling mechanism Tom\'s review claims that the vent on the back of the card reached about 60 degrees Celcius, that\'s about 154 degrees for those of us in the US. The fan has also been noted to be rather loud.

I don\'t mind the faults so much but ATI\'s six month old 9700Pro consistently performs only slightly worse than the FX. In some cases it actually performs better. There are no excuses for that.

As it stands I\'d say the FX is only for the hardest of the hardcore.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2003, 04:13:09 PM »

Quote

The FX takes up two PCI slots

it kills when when people say this

if you have a AGP vid card, you absolutely never put any device in the 1st PCI slot below it. yer begging for trouble

and honestly, who doesnt have 2-3 open PCI slots in thier rig?

« **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2003, 04:24:06 PM »

Yeah, that PCI deal is nothing.

People make it sound like they only have 2 or 3 slots built into their MB.

§ôµÏG®ïñD · « **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2003, 05:07:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mm

it kills when when people say this

if you have a AGP vid card, you absolutely never put any device in the 1st PCI slot below it. yer begging for trouble

and honestly, who doesnt have 2-3 open PCI slots in thier rig?

i don\'t.

and the only loud AMD sinks are the ones with high RPM fans on them. Same as p4s. My rig is very quiet.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2003, 06:11:49 PM »

quiet for an AMD box?

Hello

Author Topic: GeForce FX Cards reviewed... (Read 975 times)