spitoon

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2003
248
0
18,680
Couldn't pass this one up

Link to new Nvidia FX5500

<A HREF="http://www.galaxy-hk.com/news_22.asp" target="_new">http://www.galaxy-hk.com/news_22.asp</A>

<A HREF="http://www.gfe.com.hk/images/news/5500performance chart.gif" target="_new">http://www.gfe.com.hk/images/news/5500performance chart.gif</A>

Maybe I'm just skeptical or picky or something...but why is it that the "performance chart" has no real scale on the left, I mean, what are we comparing here???

Yes, I agree 2 is twice as much as 1, but what is it we are comparing???

"Attempts to revive a dying company"

or is it

"Dollars spent per FPS"

maybe

"Degree to which company decieves the public with crazy naming schemes"
 

pauldh

Illustrious
Yes so true. 2 times faster in "Flight Sim" than a 9600se while using 4X/8X. Hmmm, is that 1 fps doubled to 2 fps, maybe 5fps doubled to 10fps at the most. Of course it could be an ancient flight sim too. Look at the ut2003 and it barely squeaks by the 9600se. Not much to brag about.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
 

agcheavin

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2004
255
0
18,780
I don't want to say anything, butdrawing pictures on a blackboard is twice as fast as a 9600SE, calling a 9600 SE a "performance video card " is like calling sleeping with yer sister sex.

Ooh my new Pinto is twice as fast as your Volkswagon, must be a great car.

Certainly nothing for Nvidia to get all worked up over.

Gary

....................
<font color=red>AMD 2700 XP<font color=red>
<font color=red>PC 9600XT<font color=red>
<font color=blue>ASUS A7N8X deluxe<font color=blue>
<font color=blue>1024 meg DC DDR 3200<font color=blue>
....................
 

cleeve

Illustrious
This is marketing at it's crappiest.

Quake, Wolenstein? Nvidia's advantage, obviously, with Opengl. But that's fair enough.

But look at Comanche... a shader heavy game. Notice they turn on AA/AF for this bench? Without AA the 9600SE probably beat the 5500, so they cripple the 9600SE by stressing the weak memory interface. But like paul said, if the 9600SE is getting 11fps, and the 5500 is getting 15fps, what are you proving?
At the settings these cards will actually work at (0AA/0AF) the Radeon is likely faster in this case.

The same with "Flight Simulator"... 4xAA/8xAF? So the 9600SE is getting 8 fps and the 5500 is getting 16. Big deal.

I don't even blame this on Nvidia. This graph is the bastard child of a POS marketing Genius wanker mofo.

Probably a pedophile, too.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
But look at Comanche... a shader heavy game. Notice they turn on AA/AF for this bench? Without AA the 9600SE probably beat the 5500, so they cripple the 9600SE by stressing the weak memory interface
Though this is a poor review/marketing, I can find a logic behind using AA only in Flight Sim and Comanche. AA is very useful in these games. The other games they used are FPS and AA is completely useless in FPS.

BTW, though 16 FPS is not good, but 16 fps is flight sim is not like 16 fps in Call of Duty. Flight Sim doesn't need killer FPS. 25-30 fps is fine for flight sim.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
 

TRENDING THREADS