So add the numbers up and 6800 is now faster.
I can see that the 6800 is basically within the margin of error of the X800. I said they're close, you say there's something special to differentiate the speeds. You talk about complex shaders, yet the difference is still minimal.
Which when you reported that there was something starange in Anandtech's number and someone showed techreport, I said this same thing.
Right, you said the numbers aren't as high but the ratio is the same. Sure that's doubt. The ratio/% increase is still what we're talking about, and it's not there.
So how can you still argue when everything you said was bs from 3 weeks back.
Because you said drivers would do it alone, and you were wrong, then you said wait next drivers would do it and you're wrong. Finally after about 6 updates plus CryTek's NV40 only boosts (at the cost of other players) you finally get the increase you said would come from the drivers alone. Talk about BS, man you spread it pretty thick. And you wonder why people question your numbers, yet we can't question numbers that look fishy, which you defend and ask me why I doubt them, or more accurately, <i>"Don't be so skeptical next time"</i>, which shows you were wrong again, because once again reality didn't match the intial hype.
Well the hell are ya still talking about the fx line,
Cause you said that the drivers and DX9.0c would help it too, and you were wrong about that and FarCry too. It's just an example of you throwing alot out there and hoping something would stick.
which i've stated quite a few times thier quality wasn't good. Theses drivers are probably not going to effect that. I wasn't even referring to the fx line.
The quotes just a few posts back, if you want I can re-highlight it for you, but since your memory is SOOoooo good I probably don't have to, right?
You talk about the 40% difference, which is in direct reference to the last generation. You keep asking why I bring it up, simple, because you keep mentioning it.
And if you look at it this way it was let say 25 fps now its doing 55 fps
Let's say you cobble together a test that is the same that shows your improvement. You talk about the Anand and Firing Squad benchies, and while they do use the same basic setup (except for Anand has a faster drive) the benchmarks are different. I know you have a problem with consistancy but you should be able to see that different becnhies give different results at least. You think one result from one benchmark can be compared to a totally different benchmark? Seems like you don't know about something called internal validity.
If the cpu isn't a limitation, which it isn't in far cry when you have high res and aa an af. then the test results should be very similiar in any case aslong as the graphics card and drivers sets are the same.
As long as the benchmarks are the same, which they aren't. Seriously you need to resort to that kind of cheating to try and validate your statements, that's pretty cheesy. Don't worry about your arithmetic, I'm sure you had your calculator out and churning numbers to look for something to support your statements, too bad your methods are shot so your math does add up to squat.
Here is another custom demo
It's obvious you just don't know what 'CUSTOM' means. As in not the same as others.
unfortunately the x800 xt is not in this batch
Why unfortunate? Unlike the GF6800 Ultra Extreme Supa-Doopa, the X800XTplatinum IS available, heck I even showed you how it costs less than the regular ULTRA, so what happened to your $100 difference mattering, etc? Now you want to compare to the lesser XT, just because it suits your purposes?
ATi losses all open gl games, ATi looses in Half life 2 beta demo tests
unless AA/AF is on, then it's a toss up.
Pain killer is close on both cards,
Except when you turn on AA/AF, sure they're close, but anything you can call a win anywhere else is definitely a win there.
Yet, UT2K3, is all ATI in the Digit-Life review you posted, and no UT2K4. I KNOW from experience that the UT2K4 numbers are close, however the review you posted the UT2K3 numbers aren't close.
well doesn't leave much for ATi to say they have the performance crown does it?
Except for the previous page where they outperfrom in TombRaider and Unreal-II. In reality it doesn't leave much for EITHER to claim the crown, especially if the Digit-Life review is with just an XT and not an XT Platinum. Really would've helped to se the speeds of the XT, and it's overclock, not just the Ultra's overclock, especially considering the price advanatage.
I have always said the GT is a great performer, but when it comes to the TOP cards, the two are tied, and since you wanted to mention money, then for top slot the XT has to win based on price AND availability.
Currently the the two best buys to me remain the GF6800GT and the X600XT (if you don't include the R9800pro), and the top slots are both wastes of money with the XT being the better deal between the two e-penis money grabbers. Like paul points out the differences are so close it only takes a system upgrade to shift things around.
However back to the subject at hand. You said the drivers alone would offer global improvement, and you were wrong. You offered this up as proof of a MAJOR coup, and you were wrong, and you said I should trust the reviewers or else do the tests myself, and once again you, like Anand's testing methods, were wrong. You talk about how, <i>"ATi does fairly well but not good enough."</i>, when in fact they do pretty well for a game/test/patch/site geared to benifit and showcase nV. If this is what you have as evidence of the MUST have advantage you keep jawing about, this is not it. So far this shows simply that for the foreseable future, there's not much out there to define the two cards. However I DO expect that to change with new games, but even then who knows, if the differences are this mild, then it will have less impact than we thought. I still stand behind the choice of the GT, but just like the FX5900XT, that too could change if the price ranges shift around. You mistakenly (no surprise there) mention nV's 2billion a year profit that they can spend, well neither company wants to burn money, but out of the two, ATI has more profit margin to burn with a previous 12 month profit of $165mil (~90mil diff), on a money losing marketing fight, which wouldn't benifit either company IMO. So shifting the non-platinum XT and pro down price levels once there are actually GF6800s out there to compete against would make things more difficult to call. However until then there is one clear choice IMO, as long as you can find it.
So far you've been more wrong than right, and it's not impressive when the only thing you do get right and try to focus on is your basic math skillz.
- 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
, Ati does better where shaders aren't as in intense (which is pointed out) AKA outdoor levels? nV does better in door levels much better with aa and af too. So add the numbers up and 6800 is now faster.
I still like the GT, but I can't join in and claim a sweep like you because if you buy one of these cards, you want to use AA/AF and High resolutons. And right now ATI is beating NV at those settings. I hope you are right and they do fix it in their drivers. But they better be smart and actually fix it, instead of butchering IQ like last round. To me the X800XTpe is still the power champ right now because when stressing the GPU the most, it is the winner. I don't argue that NV might change this, and if they do, good for them. But bragging about $500 cards that are so scarce, and drivers that aren't available to the public, and disreguarding that they are behind with AA and AF, just doesn't = a big victory in my book. Not yet anyway.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram