DirectX 10 Shootout: Nvidia vs. ATI

[homerdog]

Memory Bug? I know there is some kind of 'bug' in some games like QW where the vid card refuses to use virtual memory, which is why framerates drop more than they should at 16 AA

It is that issue where performance would drop like crazy and not get better until the user alt-tabbed out and back into the game. It happened in a lot of games under dx9 until the new drivers came out, but it still remains in dx10. Test this in the World in Conflict demo if you like.

First make sure you have the latest drivers (163.69 or 163.71 beta). Then load the game up at a normal rez such as 1280x1024 under dx9. Set the graphics quality on the highest preset available. You can even use 2xAA if you like without too much of a performance hit. Play a little bit of the mission and notice that it is pretty smooth most of the time.

Now load it up under dx10, with all other settings being equal. Don't enable AA though. Load up the mission and notice that it is smooth just as it was with dx9. Now scroll around the map a bit. BOOM, framerate drops by like half. Switch to the megamap and back; the framerate is OK now until you scroll around a bit more, at which point you will have to go to the megamap again to get back to playable framerates.

I assume that going to the megamap has the same effect as an alt-tab does with regards to flushing textures and such. With previous drivers this exact same thing happened under dx9.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/f...rint=0&numreponse=0&quote_only=0&new=0&nojs=0
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/12993

 

[weskurtz81]

First of all, I don't agree with most of you. I am glad I didn't buy any of these cards. Why would I want a card that will probably only run the first gen DX10 games, and not run them very well? When they start to use more features available with DX10 I think ALL of these cards will start lagging behind. However, it probably really depends on how bloated these first set of games are and if they can refine the DX10 games in the future so that they run better on the hardware.

General_Di sturbance.....

Do you honestly think that AMD bought ATI and screwed R600 up? R600 was already well on it's way and close to completion by the time AMD bought the company. Do you honestly think AMD came in and decided to make changes to the product that made it run worse? Give me a break. This is all on ATI.... they designed it, they made it what it is. I hope you are able to think about this logically.

 

[ethel]

The 8800 GTX is a one year old card - what amazing performance it has considering that. It reminds me of the Radeon 9700 PRO and the dominance it had in DX9.

It's a bad state of affairs for ATI though - I really hope they can come up with some DX10 competition soon.

 

[jsc]

I am guessing that the card tested were donated. And no one donated any top end ATI cards. There have also been several comments on the OC'ed nVidia cards. Those card are retail cards.

I did a quick check of newegg for 2600 cards. The only card I found marked as "OC" was a 256MB Diamond 2600XT with a core clocked at 850 MHz. I think that it is possible that the retail OC ATI cards are hard to find because they do not have much OC headroom.

 

[sgtwally]

It seems all ( most ) video card talk is related to crysis and dx10, to be honest, with a release date of Nov 16, and the beta having all these issues, mainly performance and fps related. I find it hard to believe they will actually release the game at that time.. unless perhaps it's released with a patch ( i'm not sure if it's more video driver issues or game code ) but either way, you guys really see this game coming out clean and smooth and on time?, we all know its gonna be a great game ... but how long before the majority will enjoy it problem free?

 

[techguy911]

Ati cant be doing too good because we have never sold an ati card for months sold plenty of 8800 gts, few gtx, been months since we ordered a ati card for a customer.

 

[Ironnads]

surprising how little difference there is between the 320meg Nvid and its gts big brother (with tons more mem) . Indeed the cheaper OC 320 gives the gts a spanking in nearly all tests.. Strange Nvid should bring out a card which is cheaper and runs better than a card already in stock.. Anyone buy a GTS after the 320meg (OC or normal) came out must be kicking themselves.. I was thinking about getting the AMD 2900 card and am lad I didn't. Seems like the real champ is the shiny Nvid 320 meg OC!

 

[Ironnads]

I meant to be glad - not lad..

 

[Ironnads]

On the issue of next round of cards.. When are the 3000 series Nvids due out? anybody know??

 

[mactronix]

This is all well and good, I said the tests were lopsidesd with the budget DX10 review and at least this time they made a better fist of being representative hell in the budget test they included a gts in the benchmarks,its not there fault that ATI are not releasing the cards to be tested.
Having said that though how relevant to the gaming comunity is it really?
What sort of percentage are actually running Vista/DX10?
Im only asking because it seems to me that just latley ATI have been inproving the DX9 performance of its cards,or is that a by product of improvements made for DX10?
Recent benchmarks have the X2600XT beating a 1950 pro in DX9 yet on release they struggled to live with 7600GT and X1650XT cards.
Thanks Mactronix

 

[Jakc]

I understand the reasoning for the nvidia based games, not much you could do differently there. As previously stated nvidia was first with the technology so games were made by their standards to start.

With all that aside this article would still come off bias to me. Just by how it was written and the choices of cards to compare. Just a week or two ago an article was made saying that a 2900 pro would give you more bang for your buck then an 8800 gts. At that point I wanted to see THG benchmarks to prove it to see whether or not my 8800 was a worse investment. And this article doesn't even compare the two. It just doesn't make sense to me that they would compare 6 high end cards to 1 ATI. They put in over clocked nvidia cards and fail to front even the stock high end version of the ATI card.

Completely agree, I too do not really understand the point of having all these tweaked and custom nvidia cards being compared to only a few of the older ati cards.
How about including the pro? How about OCing the 2900XT (most overclockable card out there), how about overclocking the 2600XT? etc etc

Too bad.

 

[ethel]

strangestranger - you are right, unlike the 9700pro the GTX blew everything else away in DX9 when it was released, but one year on it is still dominant and that is a shame for the market.

I guess another way of looking at this is that the GTX / 9700pro were both good designs, but the competition in both cases was poor and it takes a new architecture for the competitor to retaliate.

mactronix - I think you are right on the button here. A DX10 comparison is all well and good for high end cards that can run it effectively, but for mid-range / low end cards it is the DX9 codepath that really matters - and here ATI have done very well with their drivers over the last few months.

 

[justinmcg67]

Well, I am ordering my 8800GTS tomorrow. the 2900 cards are okay.... but they just don't seem worth it. Shoot, you can't even find a 2900Pro at the current time.

My 2900 Pro might arrive today, but estimated for tomorrow. But what made me quote you was you said it wasn't available right now? Holy crap...they either sold them all or something. =)

 

[sailer]

The 8800 GTX is a one year old card - what amazing performance it has considering that. It reminds me of the Radeon 9700 PRO and the dominance it had in DX9

except that when the 9700pro was released it was all dx8 games and only when the dx9 games came out did it really shine against the likes of the fx series which were still dx8 orientated.

If the 8800 can still keep up or out pace ati's next gen cards in dx10 then it might be comparable to the beast that was the 9700.

correct me if i am wrong.

I never had a 9700 Pro, having moved from an old Nvidia card to the 9800 Pro, and that 9800 Pro is still in use to this day, presently in my son's computer. A great card when new, and a decent card even now. The 8800 series seems comparable to the old ATI 9700-9800 at present, but I don't think it will have the lasting power of the old ATI cards.

I've sometimes made the argument that today's DX10 cards, be they the 8800 series or the 2900 series, are more like the best and last of the DX9 cards. They are able to run DX10, but not all that well. I think the 8800 is a very good card, whether of the GTS or GTX form. I like the GTS well enough that one is in my present gaming computer and except for a couple problems, does its job very well. I suspect though, that the problems we're seeing in Vista and DX10 reflect the fact that all new designs need to come out from both Nvidia and ATI. Vista's demands and the early games show this fairly well.

Someone said that it will probably be a couple years before Vista, games, and the video card companies get it all sorted out, similar to what happened when XP came out, and for that matter, when Win95 came out. I expect when this happens, both the 8800s and 2900s will be looked upon with distain, stoneage products struggling in a modern era. That may be one difference in comparing the 8800 with the old 9700-9800 Pro cards. They were the first developed that really took advantage of Xp, and they did it well. The 8800 may be the card that bridged XP and Vista, but I look more for some new card that will work really good in Vista, and that card, whichever company makes it, will be the one that gets remembered and used for many years.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[General_Disturbance]

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6911.html


Well, it looks like the RV680 isn't going to be worth talking about either...unless it's sold for dirt cheap, which will be what it is worth

 

[justinmcg67]

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6911.html


Well, it looks like the RV680 isn't going to be worth talking about either...unless it's sold for dirt cheap, which will be what it is worth

So their source is their "friend?" Well in that case, a friend told me that article was bullsh**.

 

[General_Disturbance]

So their source is their "friend?" Well in that case, a friend told me that article was bullsh**.

lol...yah really. They're a good site though. Besides, we all know who lies in endless paper releases of non-existent products.

 

[sailer]

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6911.html


Well, it looks like the RV680 isn't going to be worth talking about either...unless it's sold for dirt cheap, which will be what it is worth

Looks like that rates more for the rumor mills then anything else. I mean really, "but we were told by a friend that the next high end GPU will not only sport double the performance of the ATI R680, but actually triple the performance". A friend, with no identification yet? How convenient, no name, no Nvida representative, just an unidentified "friend". And its due sometime next spring, maybe. It may be true, but if I'll leave it as being a rumor and nothing else at this point. I sure as heck wouldn't gamble the farm on such news.

 

[systemlord]

I honestly think there is some serious nvidia bias to this article. And with articles like this I lose faith in achieving a fair comparison from this site.

What!?! Bias, for those that have been paying attention Nvidia has had four great Graphics cards out for the past 8 months. Those would be - the 8800GTS 320-640MB, 8800GTX/Ultra, ATI on the other hand has how many Graphics cards out now? ATI's HD 2900XT and I won't even mention anything below this as those cards aren't worthy.

 

[justinmcg67]

lol...yah really. They're a good site though. Besides, we all know who lies in endless paper releases of non-existent products.

My guess is ATI... >.>

 

[cliffro]

Well Extremetech tested a version of 7.10 cats

Catalyst 7.10 Improves DX10 Performance

To sum it up

Hardware used:
* Core 2 Extreme QX6800
* Windows Vista Ultimate
* 2GB DDR2 800 RAM
* Radeon HD 2900 XT
* Sound Blaster Audigy 2

■Company of Heroes
■ Catalyst 7.9 Catalyst 7.10
■1920x1200 25.4 27.6
■1920x1200 4xAA 17.9 18.5

■Call of Juarez
■ Catalyst 7.9 Catalyst 7.10
■1920x1200 20.7 23.2
■1920x1200 4xAA 13.9 16.5


Not large gains, but gains none the less

 

[sailer]

My guess is ATI... >.>

Or their partner in the non-existent or delayed products, AMD?

 

[TSIMonster]

Yeah, the only place that had them was NewEgg, and now the egg is sold out. I was sold for the 2900Pro when it first showed on the egg for $265 shipped. That was a great deal. But now, at almost $290 shipped, its not such a great deal.

 

[randomizer]

Did they use the patched WIC (1.0001) coz it is supposed to increase DX10 performance.

 

[jsc]

I suspect though, that the problems we're seeing in Vista and DX10 reflect the fact that all new designs need to come out from both Nvidia and ATI. Vista's demands and the early games show this fairly well.

The curent cards are all new designs. I suspect that the problem is software (drivers) not hardware. Either Vista/DX10 is terribly demanding or programmable shaders are a bitch to program efficiently. Or both.