[Yan Wang]

I'm typing this as I read the anandtech review...

Hm, Tom's Hardware used a AMD 2700+ setup on the new Asus A7N8X versuses a 3.06HT P4 at Anandtech.

It mentions that the cooling system is loud and that the card slows itself down in 2d mode so that you aren't annoyed. However, if you think about this and listen to the mp3s they provided, it's LOUD when you game, which is when you need the card the most. If I cared about 2d performance, I'd just stick with this 32mb DDR ATI Radeon 7200.

Hm... the FX did worse on every test but one vs the 9700 Pro in UT2003 w/out AA or AF. It's nice that fill rate was 30% better than the 9700 Pro but why care if you'll get less fps?

FX did better in Serious Sam, but again, with a small percentage (9%) average, which seems low for a new graphics card that was supposed to be the 'dawn of cinematic computing'. I remember when the 9700 Pro came out in early September and it completely blew away the TI4600.

Hm, the FX's AA and AF aren't better than the 9700's but it does take up less sys performance.

On every AMD processor with a 266mhz FSB, anandtech guys did a UT2003 flyby and then posted up the data in a graph... the FX line never was above that of the 9700 pros... "The interesting thing is that the GeForce FX never overtakes the Radeon 9700 Pro, it consistently falls behind by 4 - 6%."

blah blah blah from me...

Anyways, the review didn't have a 'totally different view on things'... it told me pretty much what I knew and didn't give more insight. However, it does seem that the FX does better on a Pentium based machine so that may influence my opinion about it as I'll get a free 2.4ghz machine in mid march. Darn 1.5ghz!

Oh, this quote from anandtech sums up the whole situation... and how the FX is disappointing:
"A card that is several months late, that is able to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro by 10% at best but in most cases manages to fall behind by a factor much greater than that."