[Pc_Support] How badis doeth thy GeForce FX sucketh? Yea, 'dat badis ...

[Bryan J. Smith]

Tom's Hardware Guide put up their latest VGA Charts VIII a
few days ago.  This one is pretty complete, and the Quake 4
benchmarks were not surprising:  
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga_charts_viii/page11.html
 

Yes, that is the "high-end" GeForce FX 5900 128MB that is
_losing_ to a $50-60 GeForce 6200 TC 256MB (64MB on-card). 
You have to jack the card up to 1024x768 at 4x Full Screen
Anti-Aliasing (FSAA), 8x Anti-isotropic Filtering (AF) and
ultra-quality for the 128MB on the GeForce FX 5900 to
overtake the only 64MB on-card in the GeForce 6200 TC 256MB.

Damn, that's sad!

Now consider the GeForce FX5800/5900 are a far better GPU
design with a much higher clock than the FX5700, of which the
common FX5700"LE" is 40% slower clock-wise, and the GeForce
FX5700 is still crapload better than the FX5200/5500
ultra-bottom feeder that can't even run much.

Yeah, that's the crap Best Buy and CompUSA are still trying
to sell you!

Now I'd _really_ like to see how the on-chipset GeForce
6100/6150 compares to a GeForce FX 5500 or even a 5700 LE. 
I'm sure the GeForce 6100 would still beat them handily,
which makes you wonder if you're not better off buying a new
GeForce 6100 mainboard for $55 and entry-level Sempron 64
2800+ CPU for $60 instead of buying a GeForce Fsck'ing
Xcrewed (FX) 5500 or 5700LE for a few bucks less.  @-ppp



-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)