PDA

View Full Version : GeForce 5 this Fall...


arn
May 24, 2002, 09:33 PM
MacGamer published (http://www.macgamer.com/NEWS.chtml) a brief interview with NVidia which provides a timeframe for GeForce 5:

Q: Can you tell us anything about the GeForce 5?
A: Fall of this year with pricing consistent with the $249-299 scheme. No technical details as of yet.


Rumored specs (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/05/20020520180335.shtml) were leaked last week.

King Cobra
May 24, 2002, 09:44 PM
Let me add to the speculation. Suppose GF5 was ready in the fall, and suppose the the G5 would debut in 2003. I think that it would make sense for the GF5 to be in the G5. And if this is so, then maybe the G5 will get a healthy dose of graphics acceleration.

Again, all speculation, but reasonable.
__________________

Fear the King.

mozez
May 24, 2002, 09:53 PM
why is this total bull? because nvidia has the full market right now. ati's best consumer retail is the 8500 all in wonder, and it can't come close to the gforce 4 in fps. next, hmm, let's check on how long it's been out, since feb, they go at least a year before even introducing a new chip because if the said this fall that a new one was coming out, nobody would buy the old one, especially when it has plenty of life in it. next, geforce 5 will as always premiere on a pc, not a mac, it has never premiered on a mac and it never will because 90% of nvidia market is pc. apple got in big trouble for trying to claim they had it first and had to remove it from their site after a call from nvidia lawyers. apple said they had it first, but really you could only preorder it in a new pm and then wait a month for it, about 3 and a half weeks after the pc release was the earliest you could get a mac with a gf4. same will be with the gf5.

Rower_CPU
May 24, 2002, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by mozez
...next, hmm, let's check on how long it's been out, since feb, they go at least a year before even introducing a new chip because if the said this fall that a new one was coming out, nobody would buy the old one, especially when it has plenty of life in it...

Actually, nVidia typically follows a 6 month refresh cycle. That's why ATI has such a hard time keeping up with them.

I agree that it's too early for a completely new chip, but not at all for an updated one. Who's to say that nVidia won't call the NV25 or 30(which is it?) a GeForce 5?

Ludicrosity
May 24, 2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by mozez
ati's best consumer retail is the 8500 all in wonder, and it can't come close to the gforce 4 in fps.

ATI's best consumer retail card is the 8500 128Mb, not All-In-Wonder. Please, do you really think that everyone will go out and buy the most expensive chip when you can get an awesome one for a whole lot less money? Who the hell cares about how may FPS you can pull, when there's hardly any games that will take advantage of it. Look at Quake 3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein, does 200+ look better than 100+? In my opinion no, but if you think so then by all means waste your money ;)

Mr. Anderson
May 24, 2002, 10:26 PM
What I find most curious is that its a 8xAPG card. What if Apple in their new desktop design opts for this type of card, woudl that hold up the delivery or would they just go with a 4x and say it can handle an 8x later down the road.....

Zenith
May 25, 2002, 08:58 AM
ATi's card has always been known for good image-quality and great 2D performance. That's really important when you're a graphics pro, webdesigner, etc. When I'm going to buy a new gfx-card I'll rather get a 8500 than a GeForce. Plus I'll save money...

Matrox has also been known for image-quality and high-resolution sharpness, so I'm looking forward to the new Parhelia 512-based gfx cards that I hope will come to the Mac platform as well. I'm sure they will pack a punch for most hardcore gamers as well.

britboy
May 25, 2002, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I agree that it's too early for a completely new chip, but not at all for an updated one. Who's to say that nVidia won't call the NV25 or 30(which is it?) a GeForce 5?


It's the NV30, followed by the NV35 in Q1/2 2003.

With the developers of Doom III saying that a geforce 3 won't be enough to play the game, it doesn't surprise me that such a powerful card is planned so soon. Don't graphics cards usually remain one step ahead of games, and take a little while before they're fully utilised? The site mentioned directx 9.1, which hasn't been released yet.

AlphaTech
May 25, 2002, 02:31 PM
If that gf card is AGP 8X only, then it will fly about as well as a lead brick. People will only be getting it inside systems, and will not be upgrading what they have. IF it will run equally well inside an AGP 2x/4X slot, then it has a chance.

How many people (besides the reaking rich) can justify getting a new system JUST for a video card?? Better still, to get a few more fps out of a game? I have an ATI Radeon 8500, 64MB version, inside my game peecee because it was much cheaper then gf cards that performed as well. I was tempted to replace it with the 128MB version, but thought about it for a few and realized a few things. One, games won't require that much video card memory for some years now, and two... what would I do with my 64MB card???

I firmly believe that ATI cards are a better product. Maybe my feelings are based on the fact that ATI chips have been used in Mac systems for ages. That kind of loyalty earns it a special place in line for my hard earned money. nVidia is too new to the Mac scene, so I feel no loyalty to them, or from them to Apple.

I have to wonder when ATI will be releasing their next generation of GPU. ATI's 8500 chip pushed nVidia to develop the gf4ti just to keep up. I remember that ATI had dual head video cards before nVidia did, and for less $$ too (standard issue with ATI cards, more recently added to ones with nVidia gpu's).

Personally, I see the current cards from ATI being able to handle anything you can toss at them for the next few years. I have no intention of going to a new video card until AMD comes out with their next generation chip. Then I will wait for the motherboard to come out that I want (on board RAID controller). At that point, I MIGHT make a new system and get a top end video card (95% sure it will be from ATI).

Bottom line, unless there is a game either out, or soon to be out (less then a month away) that REQUIRES (not recommends) a higher video card, keep what you have. If it comes down to that your software is dragging because of your video card... well, you have bigger problems then that since your system is probably a generation or two old anyway.

LethalWolfe
May 26, 2002, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by mozez
next, hmm, let's check on how long it's been out, since feb, they go at least a year before even introducing a new chip because if the said this fall that a new one was coming out, nobody would buy the old one, especially when it has plenty of life in it.

No offense, but you don't know crap 'bout PC gamers. "Hardcore" gamers get the next gen cards w/in a month of release and I'd say most serious gamers get a new card atleast every 12months. And As stated before Nvidia worx on a 6 month product cycle (and they have been for years). That's one reason they are king of the hill. No one else can keep up.

As for the ATi being so "lowly" compared to Nvidia... Caramack used an ATi card to demo Doom III.


Lethal

Pants
May 26, 2002, 07:48 AM
hmmm.... fully dx9 compliant anyone?

The next gen games due for release are expected to play pretty poorly with the current crop of vid cards. Epic/DE seem to have taken the opinion that its better to release a game that pulls ~60fps on current game cards and expect graphics cards to catch up, rather than one that pulls 150 at release and in six months looks 'flat' and ugly. DE are on record as saying that ut2003 is expected to pull around 60fps on a current pc, and that there are no current video cards that fully do justice to the render engine.

MacAztec
May 26, 2002, 12:39 PM
Man, when ATI makes the 9000, 9500, or even the 10000, nVidia is doomed...

AlphaTech
May 26, 2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec
Man, when ATI makes the 9000, 9500, or even the 10000, nVidia is doomed...

Hell YEAH!!! I would purchase an ATI card long before one with nVidia's GPU inside it. When I get my next Mac tower, I will either go with the cheapest card (probably a low end ATI one) or get a good ATI one installed by Apple. If I opt for the cheapie, then I will go out and snag a top end video card from ATI and put that inside the tower instead of the stock one. I like the way the ATI cards react and render. The Radeon 8500 and 7500 that are inside the game peecee and my TiBook (respectively) rock.

MacAztec
May 26, 2002, 12:55 PM
We know whats up in the gaming world.

ATI makes awesome cards. Seems to me that nVidia is interested in MBs of RAM, and not stability and quality of their card.

AlphaTech
May 26, 2002, 01:01 PM
MacAztec, even Photoshop seems to like ATI cards better then nVidia ones. Considering how graphics show up better via an ATI card then nVidia even when you are talking the exact same image file. I have actually tested this at work, where we have mostly Mac's with ATI video cards. There are a few with nVidia cards, and the color accuracy is not there compared to ATI's cards.

Rower_CPU
May 26, 2002, 01:06 PM
It's weird that it's just the opposite on the PC side.

nVidia is the benchmark against which other cards are measured...even ATI.

ATI has not shown the same consistency of driver quality that nVidia has. There are even questions as to ATIs rendering of certain elements, such as sky textures, in 3D games.

For PC gamers, ATI is seen as a cheap substitute for an nVidia card. Strange...

AlphaTech
May 26, 2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
It's weird that it's just the opposite on the PC side.

nVidia is the benchmark against which other cards are measured...even ATI.

ATI has not shown the same consistency of driver quality that nVidia has. There are even questions as to ATIs rendering of certain elements, such as sky textures, in 3D games.

For PC gamers, ATI is seen as a cheap substitute for an nVidia card. Strange...

You can't prove that with my Radeon 8500 (64MB version) inside the game peecee that I built. It does everything really sweetly. I have zero complaints about the card. Now, I just need to reinstall everything on that system since I pulled the hard drives that were in it out and installed a new pair on the RAID. I will be booting from that (I want the speed of RAID 0 on booting) as well as installing all my software (mostly games of course) onto the 320GB drive that is created by the RAID (two 160GB drives).

Do you think that will be enough?? :D

Rower_CPU
May 26, 2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech
You can't prove that with my Radeon 8500 (64MB version) inside the game peecee that I built. It does everything really sweetly. I have zero complaints about the card. Now, I just need to reinstall everything on that system since I pulled the hard drives that were in it out and installed a new pair on the RAID. I will be booting from that (I want the speed of RAID 0 on booting) as well as installing all my software (mostly games of course) onto the 320GB drive that is created by the RAID (two 160GB drives).

Do you think that will be enough?? :D

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong. I'm just saying that nVidia's track record on the PC is much better than ATI's.

You, as a tech, will be able to troubleshoot/setup a system better than an average user, so it's expected that you wouldn't have experienced too many problems. I think ATI probably ironed the driver issues by the time you got the card. At the time this article was written, they were finally starting to see decent performance from the 8500: http://anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1558

AlphaTech
May 26, 2002, 01:24 PM
ATI also recently released a driver update (about a month or so ago) which also fixed some issues.

Yes, since I am a tech, and know what I am doing, I avoid some problems that others might encounter.

sparkleytone
May 26, 2002, 02:23 PM
as far as the very high end cards go, ATI may in fact be catching up with nVidia in the PC gaming world. the plain and simple fact still is that nVidia dominates this market from the bottom up. Just live with it. nVidia is indeed the standard of PC gaming. Example, I spent $150 on an ATI 64MB card a few months ago. I took it back in less than a week and got a Geforce2 Ti with 64MB as well. The nVidia was way better at gaming than the ATI. It was just no contest. In Macs it does seem to be the other way around. Definitely interesting.

AlphaTech
May 26, 2002, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
as far as the very high end cards go, ATI may in fact be catching up with nVidia in the PC gaming world. the plain and simple fact still is that nVidia dominates this market from the bottom up. Just live with it. nVidia is indeed the standard of PC gaming. Example, I spent $150 on an ATI 64MB card a few months ago. I took it back in less than a week and got a Geforce2 Ti with 64MB as well. The nVidia was way better at gaming than the ATI. It was just no contest. In Macs it does seem to be the other way around. Definitely interesting.

Which ATI card???

I know more then a few people that have tried out both, and the ATI Radeon 8500 wins top spot. If you buy a cheap video card, you get a cheap video card... not much thought needs to go into that. Get a top end card from ATI and it will blow your pants off...

Rower_CPU
May 26, 2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech
...Get a top end card from ATI and it will blow your pants off...

Get a top end card from nVidia and it will blow your wallet up. :D

That's been my main complaint about their hardware: price.

PC gamers who want the latest thing from them are truly on the "bleeding edge" of technology.

AlphaTech
May 26, 2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Get a top end card from nVidia and it will blow your wallet up. :D

That's been my main complaint about their hardware: price.

PC gamers who want the latest thing from them are truly on the "bleeding edge" of technology.

Yet another reason to go with ATI... cost. I spent under $300 for my Radeon 8500 when it first came out. nVidia cards were selling for at least $100 more then that, and were not as good. nVidia had to come out with driver patches just to compete. I still favor ATI over nVidia, but at least there is a choice.

I once used to go out and get the latest as soon as it came out, then I had to be more intelligent with my spending. So, I have calmed down a bit. Not to say that I won't get a new video card when ATI puts it's next generation out, but I will wait for it.

~/indigo
May 27, 2002, 10:14 PM
Whenever I buy anything I do it because I can respect what it is trying to do or I respect what the manufacturer is trying to do. Hence why I use PPC hardware and would never use x86, why I will use anything over Windows no matter what petty sacrifices I may have to make (like waiting that extra month for a game to come out or, in the case of Linux, going pretty well without games).

For this reason, I could never buy a nVidia card. The only reason why they work well is due to their tight integration with Windows proprietary 3D APIs (such as dx). Since I don't want to help someone who is ushering in an era where open standards die (OpenGL) in favour of proprietary ones I can never make myself buy one.

It always amazes me how many people never think of things that way. It is re-assuring, however, that I can usually make a Windows mule into a Linux jockey or Mac user after about an hour talking about this. It is nice to know that there are others that think that way when asked to.

Do you understand the weight of your dollar? Do you all know that what you buy now decides what you can buy later?

Consider it because seeing this issue clearly is very important to those of us that are power users and developers and may completely change the way you look at computers and innovation in general.

But that is just my point of view and my humble opinion,
Jeff.

sparkleytone
May 27, 2002, 10:17 PM
nice post, welcome to the boards.

Kid Red
May 27, 2002, 10:34 PM
Ok, seems to be some knowledgable folks out there about graphics cards, so i'll pose a question-

I have the Dual gig with GF4MX. So, I also have the annoying "flashing" bug associated "supposedly" to the GF4MX card. My dilema is to-

1)wait for Apple to fix the problem (driver update, etc) and live with the card.
2)get a GF4Ti (which I heard still exhibits the 'flashing"
3)get the 8500
4)wait a few months and get the next card release

Now, 80% of my work is in Photoshop, then DreamWeaver, then email, surfing, ftp, etc. So which is the best card for what I do? What is the best card period? I've seen benchmarks where the GF4MX beats the 8500 repeatedly in certain tests which adds to my confusion.

Hopefully, someone can school me on graphic cards. Also, are there any limits to the ATI 8500 like DVD playback or something?

AlphaTech
May 27, 2002, 10:37 PM
I'd go and get the Radeon 8500 card... Screw nVidia.

MacAztec
May 27, 2002, 10:39 PM
Get the 8500. Its the best card out there.....

I would buy your old card off of you, for I am still with the ATI Rage 128 Pro.

My dad got an 8500, and the thing is flawless.

AlphaTech
May 27, 2002, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec
Get the 8500. Its the best card out there.....

I would buy your old card off of you, for I am still with the ATI Rage 128 Pro.

My dad got an 8500, and the thing is flawless.

See, two out of two Mac faithful agree... get the Radeon 8500 :D

Rower_CPU
May 27, 2002, 10:48 PM
I'm gonna have to look into ATI for my next Mac, since you all seem so adamant about its performance...

BTW- Congrats on 2K Alpha!:D

AlphaTech
May 27, 2002, 10:51 PM
Thanks Rower_CPU...

ATI has always treated me right when it comes to video cards.

~/indigo
May 27, 2002, 11:11 PM
For 2D you are better off with the ATI since they have the best copybits performance in the industry. End of discussion there.

Something else I like about the ATI cards is how they are used for DVD decoding. Have you ever used the trick with background colours? (red: 0, green:16, blue:0). Make a background of that colour (and be sure to save it as a format that will preserve the colour attributes), make it your desktop, start a DVD, full screen it, then hide the DVD player app. Voila, you now have the DVD running on your desktop. Not very useful but a neat trick nonetheless.

It is also a cheap card for the power and uses highly portable drivers (for example, try running X11 on a Radeon as opposed to a GeForce). nVidia is a nazi like that. They are one of those "in Microsoft's pocket" companies.

My vote: Radeon!

Jeff.

Kid Red
May 27, 2002, 11:18 PM
So why do you guys feel the 8500 is better when it lost a lot of tests to the GF3 and some to the GF4MX?

http://www.barefeats.com/graf30.html (BareFeats)

I have a cinema display, would that be a problem with the 8500? Also, how will the 8500 stack up to the GF4Ti once it ships?

Kid Red
May 27, 2002, 11:21 PM
[QUOTE]For 2D you are better off with the ATI since they have the best copybits performance in the industry. End of discussion there.
/QUOTE]

Then why did the GF4MX scroll faster then the 8500 in PS? That's why I'm confused. I hear that ATI makes the better 2D card, and that the picture is sharper, but it seems to be slower then what I have now in some tests.

MacAztec
May 28, 2002, 12:08 AM
I have seen many tests. Infact, I saw one comparison with the 7500 Dual and the G4MX. Showed me that ATI was better right there.

The 7500 ranked better performing in all the games, most graphic intensive work, final cut, and some other things.

The only thing that the 4mx beat it in was like shadowing a picture or something.

Macmaniac
May 28, 2002, 06:33 AM
I hope they release it in the Mac first again!!!! I would love to see the windows users drooling over it!

AlphaTech
May 28, 2002, 10:36 AM
MacAztec, the 8500 gpu is even better then the 7500 gpu, so it should do even better. When the 8500 came out, a magazine (a peecee mag) reviewed it and gave it a 10 out of 10. They even compared it to the top end gf chipset at the time, and the ONLY reason the gf came close was because nVidia had JUST released a driver update. If it wasn't for that, the ATI card would have completely wiped the floor with it.

sturm375
May 28, 2002, 12:06 PM
I got in a little late I guess, but I think it is time we hear from the other camp. While the only experiance I have with ATI on Apple is the card in my TiPB 500. It does a fine job, but I didn't buy the TiPB for gaming. Everything else that I use I will use nothing less than nVidia. This comes from years of building my own computers. In the PC world nothing compares to the speed, and compatibility of nVidia. I'll give you an example:

One of the more recent computers I built, I put in an ATI All-In-Wonder Raedon. I did this because the person I was building for, wanted the flexibility of that "All-In-Wonder." Now I have been building computers for years, and I know what I am doing. While installing, I came accross a huge bug. In Win98, the sound card will not work. I tried 3 different cards: SoundBlaster(SB) Live MP3+, SB Live Platnium 5.1, and SB Audigy MP3+. Not one worked. Put in a different video card, an old TNT2, and all three worked. I must have spent 3 days going through different configurations of puting the Sound card in different slots, using different drivers, not using OEM drivers, absolutly nothing. I gave up and told the person I built it for, that while in Win98, you will not have sound. Fortunatly, he wanted a dual boot system with Win2K as well, and in Win2K, they both worked. I had to disable some features on the ATI card, but at least the sound and video worked.

That was the worst conflict I had with ATI, but not the only one. By the way I did finally trace it down to a 16-bit legesy sound driver. Since Win2K can't use 16-bit drivers, it works.

As for the speed issue, I believe that when they came out(ATI 8500 series) the benchmarks were very close to that of the nVidia GF3 Ti series. On average I believe the ATI cards won out, however remember, that was competing against 5-6 month old technology. Now that the GF4 series is out, I find it hard to believe that ATI cards can hold a candle to them.

AlphaTech
May 28, 2002, 12:17 PM
Hey sturm375, I have heard of problems caused by the motherboards with the new Radeon cards (8500). Personally, only Giga-Byte motherboards will do for me, since they are rock solid and have NO issues with AMD chips. I tried one from Asus last year when I was building my t-bird rig (1.4GHz) and the thing wouldn't even show the booting screen correctly. Switched to the Giga-Byte GA-7DXR mobo and it works flawlessly. I even updated the bios to accept the XP2100+ chip (which is now on the mobo). This is not the first Giga-byte board I have used, and I have to say, each and every one that I have used is rock solid. This one uses DDR memory (PC2100) which makes it even nicer. It does have sound on it, but I disabled that and went with a Soundblaster Audiogy card (firewire port on it even).

I'd suspect the mobo you chose had more then a little to do with the problems with the video card... Also, which all-in-wonder did you install?? Did you go cheap and just get the Radeon, or did you go new and get one of the 7500/8500/8500DV models??? I never skimp when there are better cards out. If you go with the old model, you really only have yourself to blame. PLUS, I would NEVER install w98 onto a new system... win2k or Linux (even though I have yet to do linux).

sturm375
May 28, 2002, 08:23 PM
Motherboard: Abit I can't remember the number, but it had raid, and DDR.

Bought the MB, Processor(AMD T-Bird 1.4 GHz) combo at www.monarchcomputing.com. At the time, 7500, 8000,and 8500 were not yet to market, 1-2 months away.