Howdy all, while this is my first post here - I've been a long time visitor of Toms Hardware since the Voodoo Banshee days. I wanted to post this because of what I see in the market place and get others opinion on this. Before you read about the subject, I've owned theses cards in order: Voodoo1, Banshee, V3 2000 & 3000, TNT2Ultra, GF2mx, GF2Ultra, GF3-Ti200, GF4-Ti4200.
---------------------------------
How Nvidia messed up the GeForce 5 (FX)
It seems the “5” series of graphic technology is bad luck, if anyone can recall the 3Dfx Voodoo5 series – you know what I mean. Both the GF5fx and V5 share the same problems.
1 – Promoted as State of the Art
2 – Very Late (Voodoo5 was very late)
3 – Performance NOT quite as good as it should have been
4 – Manufacturing cost are high
5 – Street price higher than competing products
6 – Both have “fx” in their name (hehe)
Unlike 3Dfx, the GF5fx is not going to KILL Nvidia. They are a much stronger company doing business in many markets. But the fx line will be their big black eye and it WILL take them quite a while to recover from it.
The NV35 (rumored to be reveled at E3 in May) should be faster than the ATI 9800Pro – which is currently shipping more so than the GeForce 5600/5800 will NOT save Nvidia! They may take the performance crown, but that’s it. Why?
The entire GeForce5 (I call it what it is… look at the model numbers 5200/5600 etc) is in shambles! It’s so bad, why did they waste money bothering with it? It’s bad enough to lose out to a competitor – its another to LOSE out to your OWN products that are over a year old.
I base this on my experience with my own GeForce 4 card and the current reviews (what little there is) of the GeForce5. In games like UT2003 (which I play), I get good game play without the use of FSAA, the GeForce5600Ultra performs as good as the 4200 and even better with FSAA on in comparison. But UT2003 is too demanding without USING FSAA. The ATI 9500 does a better job. In other games, the 5600Ultra is sometimes noticeably SLOWER than the Ti4200!
Now this wouldn’t be bad if we were talking about the MX440 vs the Ti4200 – you expect a lower end card to not be as good as a high end. But we are TALKING ABOUT the replacement of the Ti4200! Which has oddly been discontinued already! Geez, the GF2 line was not stopped until the GF4 was shipping in good quantity. Nvidia and their partners have already STOPPED manufacturing the GF4 Ti series and most likely the GF4MX as well. Perhaps this is so if someone REALLY wants to get a Nvidia card – it will only be the GeForce5.
Why does this sound bad? This is based on the Price / Performance scale. I use STREET prices like CompUSA – even thou about 15~30% savings is possible online – most buyers go to the bigger stores.
Here is what I see.
Until recently, the Ti4200 was on the shelf for $120~160. (obviously $200 when new)
$100~120 = GeForce5-5200 (AGP / PCI) 64mb
$180~200 = GeForce5-5200 ULTRA (AGP) 128mb
No GeForce5 5600 / 5800 on the shelf. But I can get my hands on a 5800non &Ultra today – for about $350/400.
With this price structure – the 5600 would sell for :
$200~250 = GeForce5 5600
$250~300 = GeForce5 5600 Ultra
This is VERY BAD! At CompUSA & BestBuy – they sell the ATI 9700Pro for about $300, the AIW version for $400! And for $175~225, the ATI 9500/Pro.
In what way is a $200 GeForce5 5200 Ultra a good deal? It’s sometimes MORE than half the performance of the GeForce Ti4200! Never mind the plain 5200 which is about HALF the speed of the 5200 Ultra. (there is NO info on these GPUs from Nvidia – compared to what they USUALLY publish about the GF2 ~ GF4!!!)
When the GeForce5 5800Ultra is generally slower than the ATI9800, why would an educated buyer PAY $300 for the slower 5600Ultra which is 2-3 feet from the ATI9700 or 9600?
It would have been cheaper for Nvidia to simply SELL the Ti4200 for $80, the MX440 for $50, the TI4600 for $175… THOSE would be an excellent deal over the ATI 9000~9200 and the ATI 9500-9600. And then come out with the NV35 as their TOP dog.
The GeForce5 5200 Ultra is in the same class as a GF3 Ti200 (we need better reviews) And the 5200 plain is about a MX420~mx440. This is not exactly a MOVE up for Nvidia.
When the GF3-Ti200 hit the market for under $175, it sold like hot-cakes (I bought one) and it was the SAME with the Ti4200 which I replaced my GF3-Ti200. These cards were POWERFUL and sold at a GOOD price point. Nothing in the GeForce5 line can say the same thing.
If the GeForcefx5 line wants to be a REAL upgrade to the GF4, the price/market points will need to be adjusted. Here is what I would consider as GOOD deal :
$ 50 = 5200
$ 75 = 5200 Ultra
$ 90 = 5600
$130 = 5600 Ultra
$200 = 5800
$250 = 5800 Ultra
Of course, this price structure doesn’t work for BRAND new product. Even if the 5600 was on the shelf for $130 next to the Ti4200 – many educated buyers MAY opt for the Ti4200 anyway…. Unless the REPLACEMENT card is faster in EVERY WAY over the older model, it’s not much of an upgrade.
The GF3Ti200 was in everyway, FASTER than my GF2 Ultra. And not even the GF3-Ti500 (which sold for $400 about 18 months ago) could touch the TI4200.
With such LOW performances and high prices… how does Nvidia expect US to buy their cards? Nvidia and ATI and everyone else know that the SWEET spot is under $200 for the budget hard core gamer and $100 for the casual gamer. Even if I made $100,000 a year – I wouldn’t buy a $400 graphic card. Not when the $200 one does the job – because USUALLY – when a game actually needs more power, there are newer cheaper cards on the market.
Here is what I would ask of the hardware review sites, especially Toms Hardware (which I have been visiting back in the OLD days when it was a much smaller site).
We need to see a complete review of the shipping GeForce5fx line of cards (All PRO and NON pro versions) compared against the GF3Ti200, GF4 MX440, GF4 Ti4200 & 4600. The ATI 9000~9200, ATI 9500, 9600, 9700 and 9800. Maybe a Trident Blade 3D for the FUN of it… we don’t hear much from other card
Use TWO base systems please:
AMD XP 3000 (or P4 3ghz)
AMD XP 1700 (For the mid-budget player, many players are still using 1ghz systems as well as lots of sub AMD 2000 / P4 2ghz) I think it’s a good balance.
Res. Of 1024x768 is fine. But if you WANT to show more POWER range, SKIP the 1280x1024. Just do 1600x1200 which is harder on the hardware and 640x400 to show how NEW games run a bit better when using LOW-END video cards…
Playing games in anything UNDER 1024x768 is NOT ACCEPTABLE to me. But many people HAVE to when they have a GF3 or GF2 card and try to run Unreal2.
Games should be UT2003 of course, as well as 2-3 others in which one be OPEN GL. Please include the flight sim IL2 : Forgotten Battles. And perhaps a CAR Game.
Thanks for your time.
--------------------------
Amiga - The Original Power
---------------------------------
How Nvidia messed up the GeForce 5 (FX)
It seems the “5” series of graphic technology is bad luck, if anyone can recall the 3Dfx Voodoo5 series – you know what I mean. Both the GF5fx and V5 share the same problems.
1 – Promoted as State of the Art
2 – Very Late (Voodoo5 was very late)
3 – Performance NOT quite as good as it should have been
4 – Manufacturing cost are high
5 – Street price higher than competing products
6 – Both have “fx” in their name (hehe)
Unlike 3Dfx, the GF5fx is not going to KILL Nvidia. They are a much stronger company doing business in many markets. But the fx line will be their big black eye and it WILL take them quite a while to recover from it.
The NV35 (rumored to be reveled at E3 in May) should be faster than the ATI 9800Pro – which is currently shipping more so than the GeForce 5600/5800 will NOT save Nvidia! They may take the performance crown, but that’s it. Why?
The entire GeForce5 (I call it what it is… look at the model numbers 5200/5600 etc) is in shambles! It’s so bad, why did they waste money bothering with it? It’s bad enough to lose out to a competitor – its another to LOSE out to your OWN products that are over a year old.
I base this on my experience with my own GeForce 4 card and the current reviews (what little there is) of the GeForce5. In games like UT2003 (which I play), I get good game play without the use of FSAA, the GeForce5600Ultra performs as good as the 4200 and even better with FSAA on in comparison. But UT2003 is too demanding without USING FSAA. The ATI 9500 does a better job. In other games, the 5600Ultra is sometimes noticeably SLOWER than the Ti4200!
Now this wouldn’t be bad if we were talking about the MX440 vs the Ti4200 – you expect a lower end card to not be as good as a high end. But we are TALKING ABOUT the replacement of the Ti4200! Which has oddly been discontinued already! Geez, the GF2 line was not stopped until the GF4 was shipping in good quantity. Nvidia and their partners have already STOPPED manufacturing the GF4 Ti series and most likely the GF4MX as well. Perhaps this is so if someone REALLY wants to get a Nvidia card – it will only be the GeForce5.
Why does this sound bad? This is based on the Price / Performance scale. I use STREET prices like CompUSA – even thou about 15~30% savings is possible online – most buyers go to the bigger stores.
Here is what I see.
Until recently, the Ti4200 was on the shelf for $120~160. (obviously $200 when new)
$100~120 = GeForce5-5200 (AGP / PCI) 64mb
$180~200 = GeForce5-5200 ULTRA (AGP) 128mb
No GeForce5 5600 / 5800 on the shelf. But I can get my hands on a 5800non &Ultra today – for about $350/400.
With this price structure – the 5600 would sell for :
$200~250 = GeForce5 5600
$250~300 = GeForce5 5600 Ultra
This is VERY BAD! At CompUSA & BestBuy – they sell the ATI 9700Pro for about $300, the AIW version for $400! And for $175~225, the ATI 9500/Pro.
In what way is a $200 GeForce5 5200 Ultra a good deal? It’s sometimes MORE than half the performance of the GeForce Ti4200! Never mind the plain 5200 which is about HALF the speed of the 5200 Ultra. (there is NO info on these GPUs from Nvidia – compared to what they USUALLY publish about the GF2 ~ GF4!!!)
When the GeForce5 5800Ultra is generally slower than the ATI9800, why would an educated buyer PAY $300 for the slower 5600Ultra which is 2-3 feet from the ATI9700 or 9600?
It would have been cheaper for Nvidia to simply SELL the Ti4200 for $80, the MX440 for $50, the TI4600 for $175… THOSE would be an excellent deal over the ATI 9000~9200 and the ATI 9500-9600. And then come out with the NV35 as their TOP dog.
The GeForce5 5200 Ultra is in the same class as a GF3 Ti200 (we need better reviews) And the 5200 plain is about a MX420~mx440. This is not exactly a MOVE up for Nvidia.
When the GF3-Ti200 hit the market for under $175, it sold like hot-cakes (I bought one) and it was the SAME with the Ti4200 which I replaced my GF3-Ti200. These cards were POWERFUL and sold at a GOOD price point. Nothing in the GeForce5 line can say the same thing.
If the GeForcefx5 line wants to be a REAL upgrade to the GF4, the price/market points will need to be adjusted. Here is what I would consider as GOOD deal :
$ 50 = 5200
$ 75 = 5200 Ultra
$ 90 = 5600
$130 = 5600 Ultra
$200 = 5800
$250 = 5800 Ultra
Of course, this price structure doesn’t work for BRAND new product. Even if the 5600 was on the shelf for $130 next to the Ti4200 – many educated buyers MAY opt for the Ti4200 anyway…. Unless the REPLACEMENT card is faster in EVERY WAY over the older model, it’s not much of an upgrade.
The GF3Ti200 was in everyway, FASTER than my GF2 Ultra. And not even the GF3-Ti500 (which sold for $400 about 18 months ago) could touch the TI4200.
With such LOW performances and high prices… how does Nvidia expect US to buy their cards? Nvidia and ATI and everyone else know that the SWEET spot is under $200 for the budget hard core gamer and $100 for the casual gamer. Even if I made $100,000 a year – I wouldn’t buy a $400 graphic card. Not when the $200 one does the job – because USUALLY – when a game actually needs more power, there are newer cheaper cards on the market.
Here is what I would ask of the hardware review sites, especially Toms Hardware (which I have been visiting back in the OLD days when it was a much smaller site).
We need to see a complete review of the shipping GeForce5fx line of cards (All PRO and NON pro versions) compared against the GF3Ti200, GF4 MX440, GF4 Ti4200 & 4600. The ATI 9000~9200, ATI 9500, 9600, 9700 and 9800. Maybe a Trident Blade 3D for the FUN of it… we don’t hear much from other card
Use TWO base systems please:
AMD XP 3000 (or P4 3ghz)
AMD XP 1700 (For the mid-budget player, many players are still using 1ghz systems as well as lots of sub AMD 2000 / P4 2ghz) I think it’s a good balance.
Res. Of 1024x768 is fine. But if you WANT to show more POWER range, SKIP the 1280x1024. Just do 1600x1200 which is harder on the hardware and 640x400 to show how NEW games run a bit better when using LOW-END video cards…
Playing games in anything UNDER 1024x768 is NOT ACCEPTABLE to me. But many people HAVE to when they have a GF3 or GF2 card and try to run Unreal2.
Games should be UT2003 of course, as well as 2-3 others in which one be OPEN GL. Please include the flight sim IL2 : Forgotten Battles. And perhaps a CAR Game.
Thanks for your time.
--------------------------
Amiga - The Original Power
Sorry I misread the press release. So those must be goblins, but what the heck is that dust? Oh yeah it's the smoking remnants of an FX left on a Screensaver!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram