X-bit labs

Started by: PreacherBoy | Date 03/16/04

Comments: 5 | Last Comment:  03/23/04

[1-5]

1. A lot of these details are wrong, which shouldn't be a shock coming from Xbit Labs. For the most part your news coverage is nice, but you do absolutely no research at all. Can I get something other than assumptions and uneducated conclusions?

You said:

> Judging by all evidence, the company doesn’t have many chances to regain
> its top position. At least, in the beginning of this year ATI and NVIDIA are
> both running neck and neck. ATI showcases samples of its PCI Express
> solutions (with an integrated support of this bus), while NVIDIA even
> launched a new family of products, GeForce PCX. Well, that was purely a
> marketing advance as the new products are actually the old chips
> accompanied with an AGP-PCI Express bridge chip. The GeForce FX 440 is
> now called GeForce PCX 4300, the GeForce FX 5200 transformed into the
> PCX 5300, the FX 5700 was replaced by the PCX 5750, and the FX 5950 –
> by the PCX 5950.

> This renaming extravaganza gives you no performance gains as the bus
> bandwidth remains the same, while the translation can only be negative for
> the performance. On the other hand, the new indexes of the products
> indicate their novelty and, seemingly, higher performance. I really wonder
> if the price remains the same. Anyway, such graphics processors will only
> come to our computer systems in the middle of this year when there appear
> systems to install these graphics cards into. So we deal with a “paper”
> announcement – NVIDIA never resorted to this sort of thing before.

Required reading for those who are too lazy to do research: http://www.pcperspective.com/article.php?aid=20&type=expert&pid=4

There is more than a marketing advantage. If you were to do a little research you'd find that the AGP downstream has been changed to support speeds around AGP 16x. No performance gain? Bus bandwidth remains the same? This is pure speculation on your part, and void of any true skills as a journalist.

2. Can you belive, what i heard about NVIDIA "Turbo-mode" AGP 16X in AGP-PCI Express bridge without this link? :)

What about factical bandwidth - let's wait for tests and see. Probably, you will get the unpleasant surprise. The tip - in THE SPECS RDRAM had much higher bandwidht, than PC 133 SDRAM. Do you remember this story yet? :)

3. Yes, let's wait for the tests instead of jumping to assumptions and providing bad journalism.

4. Here's more support against the claim of a performance disadvantage for nVIDIA's use of a bridge...

http://www.3dgpu.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=81

5. Here's more real information for you:

http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=article&dId=626&dPage=2

The scans of the nVIDIA documentation show that the overclocked AGP 16x bus will meet the demands of PCI Express 16x.

Are you going to replace your assumptions with the real information as provided? It is still March.

[1-5]