You're right they aren't...and for good reason. If you go down to that level you're pushing the envelope for crappy image quality. And consider this, Mix Mode for Nvidia means that they go from 12FP, 16FP, and 32FP. They bounce around to give the best performance. And ATI renders everything at 24bit FIXED...they support 24bit at all times which is a fantastic move if you think about it. You give yourself a bottom you will not go below...not only that, but ATI can operate in full 32bit precision as well.
So what does mixed mode mean? It means bouncing quality settings in order to attain higher FPS. This is something that Nvidia promised they wouldn't do when they came out with their pseudo apologetic reply to the 3dmark Scandal. And here they are...letting it happen again.
I took a look at ATI's site and found no mention of support for 16bit FP. Good thing too since it is evident they can't go beneath 24bit FP. It isn't possible for ATI to go beneath this either as it is integrated into the architecture or supported by their drivers.
Now here's the kicker: According to the DX 9 spec, a card must use at least 24-Bit FP precision per channel to be considered "DX 9 compliant." So what the hell is the point benchmarking a game with mixmode and saying it is a DX9 benchmark? I've had it with sites and individuals not doing their research before they slap a piece of hardware and pop a demo in and call it a valid performance indicator. This post from Anand is pure crap because the nvidia card uses mixed mode...purely sacrificing quality for quantity IE Frames per second. CRAP! that's what that 'benchmark' session was. You can't say Nvidia succeeded there when it isn't on a level playing field and they barely edge out the 9800XT.
----------
<b>I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman! </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>
<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq¬found=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A> 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram