well the gt matchs the xt pe in most of the benchs
This is the Quake 3 argument. Yes at 1024x768 the GT is very capable of matching the XT, however crank it up to 16x12 and suddenly it lags behind. Just like a GF4ti can outperform an FX5900 or R9800 in low res tests.
so how can you compair the ultra to the xt pe in price vs. performance?
Because considering the small difference in performance in real terms outside of AA/AF they are close enough. If the AA/AF turns out to be global (which it doesn't match in many of the current benchies), then thats something else to consider, but it is but one game sofar. However I need not compare as you made the statement about <i>"Over all ATi and nV's cards are very close but nV's cards are 100 bucks less for the same performance."</i> So either you're talking about the GT and the ULTRA, or misleading people about the performance of the GF6800 if it is to be the second in the "nV's Cards" category. So which is it? I have no argument that the GT is a great deal, but don't try and pretend that I chose the cards to compare.
Whats there to look beyond the benches? They already went over the IQ which both cards are now very similiar, everyone knows this, Anandtech, Techreport, Xbit all said this, as did Guru 3d, and Beyond 3D.
Well what was there to look at after the initial GF6800 and X800 reviews, I guess NO ONE found any irregularities? Right? How did EVERYONE miss them if they checked as hard as you say people do. These initial Benchies have minimal attention to detail. They look for Bugs, like the one for the X800 in the Anand review, and the one for the GF6800 in the Xbit review. They don't grind the IQ for days yet, if ever even that. The reviewers I listed take the time, if not now, later to look at the tests/IQ in detail. Anand basically admitted they didn't do all the testing they wanted since they used the nV based benchies and picked some of their own that didn't potentially stress the advantages of the patch and access to SM3.0.
If ya still have doubts and don't trust 5 independent benchmarkers might as well buy the cards and test for yourself.
Well, I'll leave the testing to people I KNOW can do a better job than I, and also are paid to do it. They also have better tools at their disposal, so I trust their final words. I'm sure that everyone should've trusted those initial FX reviews too, eh? The ones that said they were tops. I'll wait. I admit there's significant improvement, but outside of the AA/AF, it's not a phenomenal as you predicted. And BTW, where's that performance improvement for the FX series you spoke of. Everything so far shows the opposite.
And can drivers pull out more preformance for nV, just have to see about this *hint*
Sure they can, we've seen it before, but can they do it without adding other issues, now that's the question. Can ATI pull out faster speed with their drivers, sure they can, but at what cost. I'll wait for TRUE IQ tests not just a random sampling of screenies taken while someone rushes to meet their release deadline. And as Xbit hints, there's obviously more headroom in the ATI's too, their final remark is quite telling;<font color=blue><i>For an unknown reason the RADEON X800-series graphics products’ performance slightly dropped in FarCry version 1.2 compared to the version 1.1. The reasons for the drop are not clear, but may indicate that ATI also has some speed headroom with its latest family of graphics processors and the final judgement is yet to be made…</i></font color=blue> And that very last line is exactly where I stand on it.
Also you can't deny the fact that now the ultra is now faster, and with a small over clock like like BFG does the gt and ultras are even faster.
Yes they are faster for the most part, in one game. But even then the XT does have it's victories, which isn't the global thrashing you predicted.
The funny thing is that the standard results aren't that far off from those that Digit-Life got with the <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/nv40-3-p3.html#p17" target="_new">1.1patch and SM2.0</A>, so I wouldn't say it's THAT impressive. The AA/AF are the impressive ones, but don't try and convince me that we shouldn't question those scores considering both companies recent activities in this area, and THAT TOO is a GIVEN.
You keep talking about 1 frame rates difference all you want thats not going to change the fact that I was right from 3 weeks back,
Global 30% then? Just by drivers alone then? Increase in FX then? Nah, haven't seen that yet. Sure a little bit of this and a little bit of that has brought them up, but it's still so far just in one game. Show me some other stellar improvement like you promised.
and you were talking about speculation and benchmarks, and now they are out, trying to deny it all you want but this is the truth.
The truth doesn't match your promises except in certain areas, this global increase you spoke of never materialized.
yeah the fx line left a bad taste in everyones mouth but things are about to change.
No one is saying they are the FX line, nor that things aren't different, however the bill of goods that nV and yourself have tried to sell still hasn't materialized. It's got better performance, but nothing so much as to make people say, gee, damn, NOW that's efficient. Bring me a non-TWIMTBP game that actually optimizes for more than the less than 1% of cards out there, and then you'd have a more convincing argument. So far, it's doing well in a game that it should so well in since they've optimized specifically for it. Show me equal improvments in a game like TombRaider AOD where they currently struggle, and then you'd have something. This isn't some kind of ground breaking earth shattering performance difference like the HL2 initial numbers, this is something that is the few frames difference, and not very different from those previous Digit-Life benchark results. The AA/AF is impressive, and if it does hold true, then that's something, but this being some demo of a pure raw SM3.0 advnatage is very unimpressive. I expect D]|[ to provide a much larger gap than this. So really, for all the lead up and hoopla, not really that impressive. Sure there's benifits, but nowhere near what was advertised.
Don't be so skeptical next time.
Yeah that'll be the day. Without so much as a 3Dmark (still having trouble posting them?), what did you have to offer? And still the end result wasn't as good as what you said. If it were, then these results <A HREF="http://www.techreport.com/etc/2004q3/farcry/index.x?pg=3" target="_new">TechReport1</A> and <A HREF="http://www.techreport.com/etc/2004q3/farcry/index.x?pg=4" target="_new">TechReport2</A> wouldn't be so close, despite what has become an obvious drop in performance for the ATIs due to the patch.
Remember I'm still making my engine backward compatible so I can't do without 2.o or even 1.1 support, we are using them as fall back just in case a card doesn't have 3.0 or is not fast enough to do 2.0.
Which is exactly what Crytek didn't do in this case. This entire patch was meant for basically 1% of card holders. Any FX users got hosed simply to highlight this card. Considering the number of people who own GF6800s it seems to be quite the slap in the face to old users. As for improvements, I wonder how many FX users will decide not to add the patch simply so they can save their performance numbers at still reasonable levels. You wonder why I question and doubt, it's simply because CryTek has been the willing PR participant from the start with their trumpeting PS3.0 support in Patch 1.1, which you said wasn't there, so either it's a lie or simply a rushed feature that wouldn't work. Either way, that kind of 'effort' makes me a little sceptical to say the least. IT's surprising too that the patch usually hurts the X800s performance, whereas prior to the patch things were rather fine. Even in the Hexus results the difference between nV post patch/SM3 and ATI pre patch runs at closer to less than 10% Surprising how without the patch the X800XT at high res. + AA/AF did better than the GF6800U with the updates, yet 'patch' the X800 and suddenly it's struggling. That seems to be the case alot of the time.
And another one when the ultra is faster without sm 3.0.
Yes see above, but linked to the proper page, like I said, as an improvement over THAT, it's not impressive. So how much is SM3.0 and how much was driver version 61.34?
The main thing is that the GF6800s do very well, but does the improvement come anywhere near the promotion? I don't think so, and most of the reviewers so far tend to agree.
The future may offer far better tests, and like I said before, likely games that are built AROUND SM3.0 will show bigger differences IMO. So far, the differences are somewhat limited, even if they are something that looks good in PR print ads.
- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram