new XGI review...

assAzns

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2003
6
0
18,510
howcome the geforce 5900 ultra leads the 9800's in a lot of the benchmarks, whereas back a few reviews, the 9800 clearly leaded most benchmarks?!
 

rain_king_uk

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2002
229
0
18,680
New drivers?

Not pointing any fingers, but I am seeing a wild variation in how the nVidia cards benchmark from site to site now, even with the same drivers. I don't know quite what to believe.

To be on the safe side I'm sticking with ATi for the moment though.
 

assAzns

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2003
6
0
18,510
well for me, i rely heavily on reviews such as these to make my hardware decisions and the price of a top end video card is not something to toy with....basically, i just want the best performance for my money (the geforce 5900 ultra remarkably cheaper than a radeon 9800 pro)

i guess ill have to read up on other reviews...
 
Take a look at the benchmarks again. They aren't that different of late. New drivers have changed things from a long while back, but that's well known, or at least should be to anyone who cares.

nV leads in one of the UT2K3 benchmarks Antalus, the others (inferno and magma) ATI leads most of the time except under very low resolution where the FX5900's higher speed core helps a bit. In the other review there was only Inferno and Magma, and the rest was AA/AF, which isn't involved in this review, and where the ATI's spanked in UT2K3.

Aquamark 3 once again the new drivers have helped alot. There isn't any noticeable issues, so this benchmark has greatly been influence by the new Forceware.

Halo, marginal wins, where the Higher the res. then the nV cards pull ahead.

Q3? Q3 is a dead benchmark, and has always favoured the higher clocked cores. Nothihng new there.

Wolfentstein, this is a custom demo. It doesn't match many of the other results out there on the web. I'm not sure if THG has kept the same demo pathway or if they revamp it every once in a while. But that has stayed the same the last few reviews.

X2 is a demo that has always shined on the nV hardware, it relies on VS2.0 not Pixel Shaders for it's DX9 'title' name.

This review was missing a few of the other benchmarks used of late, you'd think you'd want to add Flight Sim 2004 as it crunches cards hard even without AA/AF (which doesn't work well on the nV's anyways), but surprisingly that and a few other non complimentary benchmarks were omitted. That may be a constraint of time, but like I've said before some like Q3 really aren't what people are plonking their money down for, so remove it or replace it. I realize it's good to have OpenGL tests, but Q3 is virtually useless nowadays. The card are surpassing 120FPS at 16x12, there's gonna be no diff. in the end, and without AA/AF who cares. Just one run could've confirmed that it wouldn't do bad.

Anywhoo, the FXs have changed their position from a few months ago with the aid of the Forceware drivers, but for the last few reviews, the picture has been the same (since they use the newer drivers too).

The difference isn't really apparent unles you pick different titles. The titles picked offer usually less than 2% diff. between the cards, which doesn't tell us very much.

(the geforce 5900 ultra remarkably cheaper than a radeon 9800 pro)
You don't only have to read up on other reviews, you need to do a better job of shopping.

Seriously, this surprising you, and that statement, tell me you haven't read enough to justify this big expense you speak of, or as you say, 'not something to toy with'.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 

gothitbycar

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2002
513
0
18,980
<A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1374397,00.asp" target="_new"> ForceWare </A>

Check that out, Extremetech did an article about the new ForceWare drivers from Nvidia, they perform like the "cheating" 45.23's but they don't have any noticable image differences as they did before. Nvidia is trying to turn its self around now and hopefully for the better.

-----------------------
Add witty comment here.
 

Borsti

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2002
49
0
18,530
The numbers did not change from the last reviews. The difference is that there are no FSAA/Aniso numbers included (because it´s not working yet in the XGI driver)

Lars
 

Britdude

Distinguished
Nov 1, 2003
71
0
18,630
come on guys were talking about a diff of 1-5 fps and at 70+ fps, so i don't think there is any diff between a 9800 pro and a 5900 ultra, well notable difference's.
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
Ahhh yes. That would do it.
Thank you.


<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>