FX owners...

No, I'm not a troll, just genuinely interested in some feedback.

I am just wondering what you are thinking just now with all these
revelations coming out about the FX. My mate bought a 256mb ultra (against
my advice I might add) and he seems genuinely concerned about everything and
I'm not surprised. Imagine spending £350+ on a card and it isn't doing what
it is supposed to. Where do fx owners go from here if this issue isn't
rectified?
Will Nvidia refund people or offer them the new gpu for free?

I am genuinely interested folks, so any fx owners can you reply without
flaming me......

"methylenedioxy" wrote in message
...
No, I'm not a troll, just genuinely interested in some feedback.

I am just wondering what you are thinking just now with all these
revelations coming out about the FX. My mate bought a 256mb ultra (against
my advice I might add) and he seems genuinely concerned about everything
and
I'm not surprised. Imagine spending £350+ on a card and it isn't doing
what
it is supposed to. Where do fx owners go from here if this issue isn't
rectified?
Will Nvidia refund people or offer them the new gpu for free?

I am genuinely interested folks, so any fx owners can you reply without
flaming me......

Dunno...i am really confused also, to the point of not buying an FX Ultra
and waiting things out.

"methylenedioxy" wrote in message
...
No, I'm not a troll, just genuinely interested in some feedback.

I am just wondering what you are thinking just now with all these
revelations coming out about the FX. My mate bought a 256mb ultra (against
my advice I might add)

I wouldn't be too sure 256mb would help. Speed of the RAM is more a limiting
factor and 128mb should be enough I would guess (any ideas how much doom 3
and HL2 will be throwing at the games in high res full quality?). I think
they do it to get system builders to try and use their cards so they go wow
256mb! (ATI are guilty of this too with their lower end cards showing high
end cards just don't need that much.)

In terms of refund etc and fit for purpose I believe it's the retailer you
have to convince at the end of the day unfortunately. If need be you may try
and convince a small claims court. You can try the latest beta drivers to
see if they resolve your issues and if you really want rid of it, read the
vendor's T&C and think up some cock and bull story perhaps, eg. incompatible
or something...

"tHatDudeUK" wrote in message
...

"methylenedioxy" wrote in message
...
No, I'm not a troll, just genuinely interested in some feedback.

I am just wondering what you are thinking just now with all these
revelations coming out about the FX. My mate bought a 256mb ultra
(against
my advice I might add)

I wouldn't be too sure 256mb would help. Speed of the RAM is more a
limiting
factor and 128mb should be enough I would guess (any ideas how much doom 3
and HL2 will be throwing at the games in high res full quality?). I think
they do it to get system builders to try and use their cards so they go
wow
256mb! (ATI are guilty of this too with their lower end cards showing high
end cards just don't need that much.)

In terms of refund etc and fit for purpose I believe it's the retailer you
have to convince at the end of the day unfortunately. If need be you may
try
and convince a small claims court. You can try the latest beta drivers to
see if they resolve your issues and if you really want rid of it, read the
vendor's T&C and think up some cock and bull story perhaps, eg.
incompatible
or something...

I'm not an nvidia owner anymore so it isn't for me, but if Nvidia themselves
aren't admitting a problem it is going to be impossible to get anywhere with
small claims or with local vendor. If this problem becomes a serious issue
(lets be honest it isn't totally conclusive yet, but when games come out
using this technology then nvidia will either be caught out properly with no
denying or they won't) and people have spent £150+ on cards then I think it
should be a case of a mass movement to sue nvidia because people are
sticking with them for brand loyalty and because they have been promised a
fully dx9 capable/compatible card, if it isn't then they haven't upgraded at
all and are going to have to once more.
This was the reason I asked in here about what peoples ideas about this
whole issue are, it affects a lot of people.

"methylenedioxy" wrote in message
...
I am genuinely interested folks, so any fx owners can you reply without
flaming me......

I just bought a 128meg FX 5900 on the 10th. This is right before the
firestorm and right after I had read reviews and MAximum PC (mag that I have
trusted for years even in the "Boot" days).

Sofar I have to say that it is way better than the ATI 9700 pro that I had
performance wise. ATI has better AA and image quality. I do believe that
Nvidia took liberties with the DX9 standard and I do believe what I have
heard about HL2.

I also, don't care much. I plan to play HL2 and I plan to use the FX 5900
as well. The main reason is that I got the FX for $239.00 and it is really
smokingly fast with games I play right now! UT2003 and Star Wars Galaxies,
etc. all run flawlessly.

"methylenedioxy" wrote in message
...
No, I'm not a troll, just genuinely interested in some feedback.

I am just wondering what you are thinking just now with all these
revelations coming out about the FX. My mate bought a 256mb ultra (against
my advice I might add) and he seems genuinely concerned about everything and
I'm not surprised. Imagine spending £350+ on a card and it isn't doing what
it is supposed to. Where do fx owners go from here if this issue isn't
rectified?
Will Nvidia refund people or offer them the new gpu for free?

I am genuinely interested folks, so any fx owners can you reply without
flaming me......

I must say I was a bit surprised about the results. I own a GeforceFX 5800
non-ultra, and it works like a charm for me in all current games.. I actually
replaced my Radeon 9700 Pro with it, and I've seen nothing but positive results.
Then again, that card turned out defective too, so it might have had some other
problems.. But brr, I can't say I'm a big fan of the Catalysts :P

How FX will suck in DX9 games I'm not really sure about. I will wait and
see.. A year ago, a friend of mine got hold of the infamous DoomIII alpha, and
ran it on a Geforce3 Ti500 at more or less stable 30 fps. Pretty good.. I can't
see how an FX card could possibly perform bad on DoomIII at least? And if so,
why would it in Half-Life2? Excepting the sucky 5200-version of course, the
black cheap (pun fully intended) of the family.

That aside, if it turns out all DX9 games are virtually unplayable, I
wouldn't be surprised to see class-action law suits, since that's what the FX
series is all about - cinematic quality, unparalleled speed, the way it's meant
to be played and all that. If it turns out all of them or at least two out of
three are false, that is false marketing for sure.

What I expect? Better drivers, BIOS flash updates, that stuff. If I don't see
that, and hear ATi has got better drivers since the 3.6:es, I'll definately go
ATi next time. Again. I don't exactly expect to see a free GPU upgrade from
nvidia, but damn, that would be nice :P Just like naked angels on fluffy clouds
of cotton candy would be.

--
Regards,
Henric

"Henric" wrote in message
...
"methylenedioxy" wrote in message
...
No, I'm not a troll, just genuinely interested in some feedback.

I am just wondering what you are thinking just now with all these
revelations coming out about the FX. My mate bought a 256mb ultra
(against
my advice I might add) and he seems genuinely concerned about everything
and
I'm not surprised. Imagine spending £350+ on a card and it isn't doing
what
it is supposed to. Where do fx owners go from here if this issue isn't
rectified?
Will Nvidia refund people or offer them the new gpu for free?

I am genuinely interested folks, so any fx owners can you reply without
flaming me......

I must say I was a bit surprised about the results. I own a GeforceFX
5800
non-ultra, and it works like a charm for me in all current games.. I
actually
replaced my Radeon 9700 Pro with it, and I've seen nothing but positive
results.
Then again, that card turned out defective too, so it might have had some
other
problems.. But brr, I can't say I'm a big fan of the Catalysts :P

How FX will suck in DX9 games I'm not really sure about. I will wait
and
see.. A year ago, a friend of mine got hold of the infamous DoomIII alpha,
and
ran it on a Geforce3 Ti500 at more or less stable 30 fps. Pretty good.. I
can't
see how an FX card could possibly perform bad on DoomIII at least? And if
so,
why would it in Half-Life2? Excepting the sucky 5200-version of course,
the
black cheap (pun fully intended) of the family.

That aside, if it turns out all DX9 games are virtually unplayable, I
wouldn't be surprised to see class-action law suits, since that's what the
FX
series is all about - cinematic quality, unparalleled speed, the way it's
meant
to be played and all that. If it turns out all of them or at least two out
of
three are false, that is false marketing for sure.

What I expect? Better drivers, BIOS flash updates, that stuff. If I
don't see
that, and hear ATi has got better drivers since the 3.6:es, I'll
definately go
ATi next time. Again. I don't exactly expect to see a free GPU upgrade
from
nvidia, but damn, that would be nice :P Just like naked angels on fluffy
clouds
of cotton candy would be.

--
Regards,
Henric


I have both the 5900 (128MB) and the 9800P(128MB), I bought both so that I
could sort out the stuff that I've been reading across the web, even b/4
this latest HL2 benchmark fiasco.
Right now i prefer the 5900 for the games I play (IL2:FB, Madden 2K4,
BF1942).
It seems that to get the "full" HL2 experience visually the 9800 will be
needed but I'd like to see just how the game looks with both.
To be sure the screenies seem to prove that point, then again who is going
to inspect evey corner of a scene while playing the game?
I figure it's going to take the nexy-gen to play at my prefered 1280x960
with AA/AF, even the 9800 seems to only get 60FPS at 1024x768 no AA/no AF
There is an onslaught of info on the web and this issue has brought the
worst of the trolls out from under thier respective bridge-time to let the
dust settle.


Mike G




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03

I have both the 5900 (128MB) and the 9800P(128MB), I bought both so that I
could sort out the stuff that I've been reading across the web, even b/4
this latest HL2 benchmark fiasco.
Right now i prefer the 5900 for the games I play (IL2:FB, Madden 2K4,
BF1942).
It seems that to get the "full" HL2 experience visually the 9800 will be
needed but I'd like to see just how the game looks with both.
To be sure the screenies seem to prove that point, then again who is going
to inspect evey corner of a scene while playing the game?
I figure it's going to take the nexy-gen to play at my prefered 1280x960
with AA/AF, even the 9800 seems to only get 60FPS at 1024x768 no AA/no AF
There is an onslaught of info on the web and this issue has brought the
worst of the trolls out from under thier respective bridge-time to let the
dust settle.

You bought 2 £400 graphics cards just so you could play spot the difference
???
Would you like to adopt me ?

"Axis" wrote in message
ink.net...
"methylenedioxy" wrote in message
...
I am genuinely interested folks, so any fx owners can you reply without
flaming me......

I just bought a 128meg FX 5900 on the 10th. This is right before the
firestorm and right after I had read reviews and MAximum PC (mag that I
have
trusted for years even in the "Boot" days).

Sofar I have to say that it is way better than the ATI 9700 pro that I had
performance wise. ATI has better AA and image quality. I do believe that
Nvidia took liberties with the DX9 standard and I do believe what I have
heard about HL2.

I also, don't care much. I plan to play HL2 and I plan to use the FX 5900
as well. The main reason is that I got the FX for $239.00 and it is
really
smokingly fast with games I play right now! UT2003 and Star Wars
Galaxies,
etc. all run flawlessly.


I know what you mean mate! I just brought a Creative 3D Blaster 5 - Geforce
FX5900 Ultra 256MB, everything seemed convincing slightly higher results on
3D mark 2003 etc, from reviews I had read in magazines, and then all of a
sudden it is a useless piece of £380.00 turd! From what I have seen of my
5900 Ultra on URT 2003 etc, it seems absolutely incredible, with a XP2600+
1GB ram etc.

Lee.

methylenedioxy wrote:
because they have been promised a fully dx9 capable/compatible card,

I doubt any GPU manufacturer ever said their card is fully DX9
compatible. They say it is compatible, meaning that using it won't
crash. They never (on a legal point of view) said the card they make
respect every single specification of Direct3D 9.

I think before taking any legal action, one should re-read the EULA of
the driver they have installed.

--
XandreX
/I'm that kind of people your parents warned you about/