PDA

View Full Version : So much for ATI - looks like NVIDIA is back on top



XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:23 AM
See attached. NVIDIA's top end cards tops ATI's.


http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3079811

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:23 AM
See attached. NVIDIA's top end cards tops ATI's.


http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3079811

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:26 AM
Yeah, but how does it fare against Half-Life 2?





Liege-Killer

http://home.austin.rr.com/jasandtrace/images/archie1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:59 AM
You don't have to post stuff like this. Everyone knows Nvidia is the best for games. Everybody know this. Let the ATI users post threads like this. It is a given that Nvidia is #1. There is no need to chest thump.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:03 AM
ATI sucks! Just try and get some proper updated drivers that are not a year old, Nvidia ROCKS!

<center>http://www3.sympatico.ca/palmer.john/He111
<marquee>place text here</marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:05 AM
Here we go again.....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:15 AM
this fanboyism has got to stop.
not just you the poster, but biased review sites as well..

like this one
such is horribly evident in the case of image quality comparison.

quote - "The anti-aliasing side of things is virtually a dead-heat, and NVIDIA may have even raised the bar slightly. The following image is a close-up from the ASUS V9950 Ultra 4X anti-aliasing screenshot, and demonstrates some excellent edge and image smoothing."

according to them NVidia has caught up to an surpassed ati in terms of Anti-aliasing. Something that is clearly not the case, as it is well understood ati has clearly superior anti aliasing.

The reviewer then goes out of his way to pic a segment of the screenshots that do not show the difference between nvidias and atis aa.. and instead mask it, so he can claim Nvidia has superior aa.

if you look at the shots on at the top of the page with aa/ansio on, and look at the lower b17s wings both of them, you can clearly see a HUGE difference in ati's and Nvidias anti-aliasing.

here is what im talking about:

apperently they are saying this

Nvidia

http://www3.sympatico.ca/alewis95/5900.JPG

http://www3.sympatico.ca/alewis95/59001.JPG

is better then this

ATI

http://www3.sympatico.ca/alewis95/9800.JPG

http://www3.sympatico.ca/alewis95/98001.JPG


get real...

When a review site goes out of its way to hide the weaknesses of a card, and flat out knowingly lies, can you really take it seriously?? Anyone can post a horribly biased review to show 1 card beating another.

dont get me wrong the 5900 is a great card, fixed all the 5800s problems and is a good match to the 9800pro. Except where pixel shading and drivers are concerned. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

this fanboys crap has to stop, the strengths and weaknesses of both ati and Nividas cards are well known and documented, we all know what each card can and cant do, trying to fool us by showing biased reviews wont change that. You people need to grow up, all this nvidia vs ati stuff needs to end here and now.

i call for moderators to start locking these treads, and stop waisting everyones time.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:28 AM
I don't know,but looking at the benchmarks the 9800pro still beats or ties the new NVidia card when high res and AA is turned on. So not realy all that impressed.

Its rumured the new ATI 9800XT is out on the shelves and are supposed to be clocked higher. Could be interesting.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:29 AM
I never get into these but here it goes.....


Davinci, you forgot to mention how many frames you lost with the ATI cards....

See you in the fence.....

Asus P4B533 i845E
P4 2.4
Asus GF4 Ti 4200 128MB (45.23)
1 GIG DDR RAM (PC 2100)
SB Audigy
MSFF2
XP Home

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:30 AM
ATI is superior now so any nvidia review that you post is spurious at best. Everyone knows that ati is making superior hardware and drivers-even the nviditos at nvnews.net are selling their fx 5900us.

This only validates the proposition that nvidia bribes review sites (sharkyextremem is notorious for it's biased reviews)-even tom's won't get into it like these amateurs.

ATI is golden these days and anyone that says different has been living in a cage-the 9800xt comes out with HL2 and a 450mhz core in one week (it will smother the nv35) and loki comes out in a month and a half).

Everyone knows not to buy nvidia.

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:42 AM
A few months later you will be saying so much for NVIDIA ATI is back on top.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:45 AM
I have seen so many posts of people with ATI cards having problems with IL2/FB. But I don't bump them. It's a given if you play games, go with the card that was designed for them.

Nvidia has made the best chipset (Nforce)
Nvidia has made the best sound hardware (SoundStorm)
Nvidia has always had the best (not necessarily the fastest..there is a difference) video card.

If you play games, stick with Nvidia. If you have kids and want to edit their home videos, then ATI might be the way to go.

And ATI fanbois quit talking about performance in some quake kiddie game that hasn't even been released yet.

Both of these cards are too expensive anyway. When they come down to $200 and there are more definitive reviews then it will be valid.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:51 AM
Please don't feed the trolls. There are several in here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When my brother and I built and flew the first man-carrying flying machine, we thought that we were introducing into the world an invention which would make further wars impossible..."

Orville Wright, 1917

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:52 AM
If i´d spent 400-500$ on a graphics card, i demand quality, it´s understood that such significant investment should be able to run current games fast with high FSAA and AF settings, while having enough performance reserves to handle upcoming titles, without compromising IQ for speed. That´s why i run a Radeon9700 and no FX card, the recent debacle around the FX´s Dx9 support and NVIDIA´s pitiful excuses on the issue just confirm my decision. However, i seriously hope NVIDIA will recover soon, so the competition is on again, anything else would be unfortunate for the end-user.

============================
The important thing in [tactics] is to suppress the enemys useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai and Philosopher
(More than 60 Victories in Hand-to-Hand combat.)

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:57 AM
The 200$ radeon 9600PRO is sweeping reviews-the $220 5600U run close to the same fps but when aa, af, and dx9 (new games) are enabled it is amazing.

It is winning "the best bang for the buck" award across the web.

You don't have to take RJB's word for it, just search google.

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Message Edited on 09/19/0307:57PM by Rogodin

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:22 AM
Here is a recent post from a person I respect yet always had arguments with since the incipience of the 8500 and the superiority of ATI hardware.

"I definitely might come off as a fanATIc right now, but it's because ATI's earned my respect, and to some extent, my admiration, with what they've done since releasing the r300 series cards.

Prior to that, I was gung-ho about nVidia, not because they had sharper, more vibrant images and better image quality, but because with playable settings, they DID have better IQ and features, imo. Here's a list of the cards I've had since I bought my first computer:

1) Matrox Milennium 2MB OEM - in my Gateway computer as my choice when I bought it in 1995- at the time it was known to have the best IQ, and seemed to be paving the way for the future, with some 3D hardware support. I didn't realize how meager that support was when I bought the card, but would know very soon, when the Voodoo1 cards hit the market.
2) Creative Labs 8MB VoodooII - I added this when Unreal (the original) came out, and I wanted to play it in true 3D splendor, which my Matrox wouldn't allow.
3) Creative Labs Graphics Blaster (dunno the exact model name beyond that, since Creative had so many different cards based on different chips out in a short period of time, but this was a TNT1 16MB model). My first introduction to 32 bit color support. Looked great at 32 bits in Quake and QuakeII, but was slow. I kept the V2 in my system with it, because Unreal really ran like nutz on the TNT (Glide was still all the rage unless using OpenGL; ie.- iD based games..)
4) Matrox G400Max - The first card to completely remove the need for any separate dedicated 3DFX cards to run all my games acceptably well. I DID keep the V2 in my system for a while, since I was one of the early G400 adopters, and Matrox still had to get decent OpenGL drivers out, and especially Unreal (THAT game again). Once Matrox got the drivers working well, I removed the V2 for good.
5) Diamond TNT 2 Ultra - I had this card in my system for a month or two, and alternated between it and the G400. I came to two conclusions at the time. The first was that Matrox was unrecognized by the gaming masses for the goodness it really had, and second, there were tons of nVidiots around willing to die claiming their cards were better. In reality, the G400 was on the level with or better than my TNT2U in practically everything I threw at it, so in the end I stuck with the G400 and waited for Matrox to release their 'next big thing' as a follow up..
6) Elsa Geforce2 GTS - This card finally replaced the G400Max. Primarily because Matrox seemed to have gotten lost somewhere. While I couldn't see performance numbers for the GF1 SDR / DDR with enough of an increase over what I was seeing with the Max nor enough extra features actually being utilized in games (TnL was a new nVidia keyword, but the games hadn't nearly hit the market during GF1 period), the GF2's raw power simply knocked the Max down for the count. Yes, the Max looked better in my then (and still now!) favorite title, Unreal Tournament with 32bit color, but I found myself playing at 16bits medium res and details most of the time with it, since online competitive play suffered for lack of framerate. The Elsa fixed this nicely, with higher playable settings. In other words, both cards had nearly equivalent real-world functionality in the games I was playing, with one having an IQ advantage combined with a framerate disadvantage, the other being just the opposite. Unfortunately for the better IQ, the performance wasn't quite good enough!
..
It was about this time that I got my nVidia bias on. Primarily thanks to no other company, even 3DFX (who were going into their 32bit color denial phase), was able to produce a card with enough performance capability to allow me to play with the features turned on that I wanted. Real world playable IQ remained best on the nVidia cards, and drivers became more and more solid as time passed.
7) VisionTek GeForce3 - The original Non-Ti, Non-VisionTek named model. This was a decent step up from the GF2 GTS, though it seemed a slight step down from the GF2 Ultra when I first bought it (I never had the Ultra, so I couldn't say so from experience. It definitely improved all my games over the card it replaced.) Rough start with drivers, but nVidia quickly improved things. A significant performance step forward.
8) VisionTek GeForce4 Ti4600 - Bought it, used it for maybe a day, then returned it to the store ASAP. This card disappointed the heck out of me with 2D AND 3D clarity. For some reason, the one I got was significantly worse in that area than the GF3 it was meant to replace, and since the card it was replacing was already due to be shipped to a buddy, I hunted quickly for a better working GF4..
9) Gainward GeForce4 Powerpack Ti4600 Ultra Golden Sample (long name, and I'm still not sure I got it all right, ) - The first card I got was defective, due to a bad batch of PCBs Gainward had received. Since I'd ordered this card through an online vendor I refuse to name now, and since said vendor refused to refund money until / unless they tested the card and were satisfied themselves that it was faulty (!?! I didn't ask for a refund or a different product, just a replacement of the same brand / model, so this ticked me off greatly), I ended up contacting Gainward USA directly, and was allowed to ship the card to them. A week and a half later (shipping mixup occurred, no reflection on them), I had the replacement, and it worked terrifically, despite barely reaching the 'guaranteed' overclock that the GS were supposed to have. Of all the nV cards I'd owned, I loved this one most. Drivers kept improving, I could run most games with at least 2X AA and 4X aniso, and IQ was outstanding, for the most part. Granted, Matrox and ATI still had better IQ capability, but not playable IQ. The 8500, which came out shortly after I got my GF4 had the potential, but also had tons of problems, and never fully lived up to the promises ATI had made for features either, so I stuck by nVidia, sure that they would maintain their performance and feature crown, while continuing to improve on their IQ (each card I'd had with the exception of the VT GF4 had been a step up from the previous in clarity). My own dumb mistake..
10) ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - The current King of my system's castle. Unfortunately, I held off when it was released until the preview reports started coming in for the GF FX 5800 Ultra, mainly because I was still certain nVidia would pull another rabbit out of their mountain-sized hat. That belief, combined with the initial driver issues the 9700 had (not that these were terrible, since they represented a major step forward for ATI from prior cards, and since they were really about on par with the release state for GF cards in the past- mainly because the GF4 drivers were very mature in all my games at this point, while ATI still had both hardware and software bugs to iron out, including AGP / power issues, etc.).

By the time that the GF FX came out, it was easy to see that ATI was dead serious with the r3x0 series, because the hardware and driver issues were very well nailed down, and they were on their way to the performance optimization side of the equation. It didn't take me much to see that I was in the same situation I had been in with the Matrox G400Max, mainly being, waiting indefinitely for a product that might never come. Previews of the 5800 just reinforced the impression that even if something was coming, it wasn't looking to be up to nVidia's past chain of successes. At that point, I jumped ship.

If you look at the cards I've owned, you'll see I usually put my own happiness and enjoyment ahead of manufacturers, though I won't hesitate to hang with one if they establish a relatively competent history of top-notch products. I figured the 9700Pro would tide me over until the next big thing from someone hit the market, but hadn't really chained my wagon to ATI's horses yet. Then the 5800 crap started really hitting the fan, followed quickly by the 5900. This in and of itself really wouldn't have kept me from keeping nVidia hardware as my number one choice when considering my future purchases, despite ATI's momentary lead. What did it finally was nVidia's lack of total respect for me and any other enthusiast out there as they've cheated, lied, and generally smeared anything that insinuates there's a problem with their cards in order to sell them. If I hadn't bought the 9700 and had been unfortunate enough to pick up one of those nV3x cards, I'd have been extremely pised right now at the boat I was in. I don't routinely find $500 to throw out the window just to replace some piece of hardware I only just bought yesterday, all due to deceitful practices (okay, EXCESSIVELY deceitful practices. I really don't want to imply that all other companies are saints or anything, just that none have gone to the lengths and extremes that nVidia has recently).

What this means is, in the final computation, nVidia's lost my respect, and relegated their future position of consideration to something other than number one. In the meantime, ATI's been hitting all the right buttons, with terrific drivers, relatively honest responses to situations they've been caught in, better hardware, and generally, a stance I can respect backing up hardware that is currently second to none on the market. This puts them where nVidia used to be. I expect this to stay the same for a while, barring of course, the chance that some other company leapfrogs them in some significant way. (Hey, it's happened before- look back at my card history again. Matrox grabbed it from 3DFX for a bit. 3DFX came back, but was leapfrogged by nVidia before I bought from them, and now it's ATI. I won't permanently attach myself to any of them. They're just companies, albeit ones I either respect more or less than others. It's the hardware and what it does for me that'll make the final cut.)

The reason I bothered posting this really long response is because I'm a bit sick of the constant putdowns of others as fanboys. There do seem to be a few, but the only real indications I have of those are when the hardware they own is so obviously outclassed and yet they still refuse to admit it. If you're one of those types, do yourself a favor, take a step back, look at the situation without the manufacturer's rose-colored-glasses for a moment, and make a decision to benefit YOURSELF. It isn't hurting ME when you call me a fanboy for standing up for the best hardware and manufacturer of the moment, just yourself.

(BTW, I never post on certain more techy sites, mainly because other than how good the hardware looks and performs, I'm a total know-nothing about HOW it does so. Better to keep my mouth shut and read what the others are saying than to chip in in those situations. Thanks go out to the people that dig into the hidden workings of these accelerators at such places and uncover what's really happening for the rest of us. Without them, I fear many more of us would be taken in by happenings such as nVidia's recent actions, or ATI's Quack, etc.. Kudos, and you know who you are. "


rogo



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:28 AM
Quite happy with my 9500pro thank you.

Have had NO problem what so ever.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:35 AM
Dang Rogo, you waste alot of money on video cards.'

I don't think people should take buying tips form you, unless they want to loose alot of money.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:39 AM
ive not had one issue with fb at all and im on a 9700 pro. anyone who calls me a fanboy is foolish considering i have only used nvidia cards up until this point. they weren't bad cards either, but nothing spectacular. the last nvidia card i owned was a ti 4600. when looking for an upgrade it was either ati or nvidia, and even i could see through nvidia's crap. go to any respectable video card forum and post something like nvidia is the BOMB as this and numerous other threads shout out in the fb general forums. i can tell you with 100% certainly, its gonna get frigin hot. look for the sign that says welcome to hell. cause thats where your headed when you praise a company that produces inferior products and then say the competitor blows with out any proof, and what proof there is states vise versa. you fanboys need to get a life, that and learn something about computers other than brand names.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:40 AM
It's good for consumers to have two companies battling for supremacy. It's about choice and compettion, just like Intel and AMD. I just wish there was some alternative to Micro$uck's software.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:44 AM
NVidia has been doing more than cheating in thier drivers lately.

http://www.gsc-game.com/index.php?t=community&s=forums&s_game_type=xr

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:46 AM
You might want to take a look at the drivers they are using for the benchmarking.

The Det 45.23 apparently are having issues rendering Dx8.1 and Dx9 lighting effects in several games and benchmarks, and it is artificially inflating their scores.

link to the Tom's Hardware article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030918/index.html

The page of the review where they list the problems they've discovered with the 45.23 and Beta 51.75 drivers.
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030918/aquamark-08.html

It seems that a large part of the apparent lead nvidia has in the Shary Extreme artical is due to glitches in their drivers preventing shadows and lighting from being rendered properly. Take a look at how much the performance drops when you revert to the Det 44.03 drivers.

On the plus side, it looks to be an honest mistake on the part of the nVidia driver team, and not a delberate alteration: it affects the games as well as the benchmark. Unfortunatly, it means that the lighting in your games if fubared too.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:50 AM
modru2004 wrote:
- the last nvidia card i owned
- was a ti 4600. when looking for an upgrade

I own a GF4Ti4400 and there is still no video card worth buying to upgrade, Nvidia or ATI.

You people blow too much money. I hope you have a high def TV already and other stuff before you blow money on video cards, which are a worse investment than buying a Ferrari.


<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:51 AM
Chadburn wrote:
- It's good for consumers to have two companies
- battling for supremacy. It's about choice and
- compettion, just like Intel and AMD. I just wish
- there was some alternative to Micro$uck's software.
-
-

Agreed. One year ATI screws up - the next nVidia. Just the cycles of development. Been very happy with a GeForce 4400 and a Radeon 9500 Pro over the past year or so, but have finally sunk down the money for a rather speedier Radeon 9800 Pro, largely because - at the moment - ATI have the upper hand technologically and I'm in the mood (and the cash) for a major upgrade. Next year it may well be nVidia's turn. Never understood why folks identify with one company vs. the other!

ShadowHawk__
09-20-2003, 05:00 AM
Just wait for DX9... Oh, and let's not forget about PCI Express now either...

<center>------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>http://www.geocities.com/tk_shadow_hawk/shadowhawk_sig2.txt </center>
<center>-Death From Above</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:00 AM
This celebrity seems to agree with RBJ:

http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612320617

<center>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td>
http://matasoft.com/il2/propane.jpg
</td></tr>
<tr><td align=right>-=905 drones=- air_malik</td></tr></table>
</center></span></blockquote></font></td></tr>
</table></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:15 AM
ATI is top notch at anti-aliasing

well my name was spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:43 AM
I've never understood why this topic is discussed so much. My Nvdia Geforce card has never even burped running IL-2. If you noticed and remember, seems like the ones that starts a thread about cards are using something else other that Nvdia. That should say it all.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:28 AM
RBJ is saying all these nice things about Nvidia because he is probably one of its stockholders./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>S!<center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:09 AM
My Asus Geforce 3 plays FB just fine. I have vertical sync on and get either 33, often 50 and looking up 100fps. I know I can get better performance by buying a better card, but the Geforce 3 has been a true work horse. I'm going to wait before I upgrade, I think the old AGP slot we plug into today is going to be thought of like a serial port is today.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:03 AM
Does it really mater who is best? Both company's make great cards, just leave it at that.

<center> <img src=http://www.uploadit.org/files/150903-VWC%20Logo%20-Online%20Small.jpg> (http://blacksheepwebdesign.net/VirtualWarCinema/index.php?sid=bc6705eb7d8b213f13c61c4309ce0d6b)

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:06 AM
VWC_Berra wrote:
- Does it really mater who is best? Both company's
- make great cards, just leave it at that.


Yes it does matter who is the best (fundamental to a purchasing decision). But many people have different definition of "what the best" means.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:29 AM
RBJ - you don't know what you are talking about.

I had a 128Mb Geforce 4Ti4600 until yesterday when I replaced it with a 256Mb ATI Radeon 9800Pro, something of a change for my as I have been a Nvidia man for a good few years now.

The difference is staggering, I can turn everything up full, inc. resolution, and run it in 4xAA and 16xAnisotropic. In MS FS2004, everything is up as high as it will go, dynamic weather, dense scenery, the works and it's just awesome.

Not only is it faster but the image quality is incredible compared to the Nvidia card, colour are more vibrant, not to mention just how much more detail you see.

Some figures from 3D Mark 2001 for an identical machine, other than the graphics card:

With 9800Pro:
3DMark Score 13802 3D marks
Game 1 Car Chase - Low Detail 188.9 FPS
Game 1 Car Chase - High Detail 59.2 FPS
Game 2 Dragothic - Low Detail 256.2 FPS
Game 2 Dragothic - High Detail 141.3 FPS
Game 3 Lobby - Low Detail 160.3 FPS
Game 3 Lobby - High Detail 67.7 FPS
Game 4 Nature 119.2 FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 2050.3 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 2979.6 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 light) 74.4 MTriangels/s
High Polygon Count (8 lights) 18.7 MTriangels/s
Environment Bump Mapping 189.8 FPS
DOT3 Bump Mapping 237.3 FPS
Vertex Shader 184.6 FPS
Pixel Shader 157.9 FPS
Advanced Pixel Shader 247.2 FPS
Point Sprite 43.7 MSprites/s


With Geforce4:
3DMark Score 12013 3D marks
Game 1 Car Chase - Low Detail 174.9 FPS
Game 1 Car Chase - High Detail 58.1 FPS
Game 2 Dragothic - Low Detail 221.9 FPS
Game 2 Dragothic - High Detail 121.0 FPS
Game 3 Lobby - Low Detail 155.0 FPS
Game 3 Lobby - High Detail 67.5 FPS
Game 4 Nature 78.1 FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 1092.2 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 2340.4 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 light) 58.0 MTriangels/s
High Polygon Count (8 lights) 12.4 MTriangels/s
Environment Bump Mapping 138.9 FPS
DOT3 Bump Mapping 154.2 FPS
Vertex Shader 99.8 FPS
Pixel Shader 123.8 FPS
Advanced Pixel Shader 100.5 FPS
Point Sprite 30.6 MSprites/s

The delta speaks for itself, plus it looks better. Those figures are with the same box too, a new CPU and motherboard is on the way tho - 4Ghz here we come /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

/m

<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

http://www.world-data-systems.com/lomac/icagbaderanim2.gif (http://www.icaghq.com)

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:47 AM
NVIDIA is for people who just want it to work,and don't care to much about quality...........

Zayets
09-20-2003, 10:51 AM
WOW!
If I would have those monye I will go for ATI 9800 Pro/256M. Question is : is it worthed to invest in actual vidcard generation?Or to wait a bit more :
1) wait for price drop
2)new technology

At this time I am tempted to buy an ATI 9800 Pro/256 MB mainly because I see now a fps drop on my Ti4600 when using 8x AF plus 4Xs AA. You guys say ATI is top notch. I will think about it. So far , I can play any game with good performance on my rig. No need for an upgrade. Thanks for fighting here , otherwise I would not know what shall I do /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Zayets out

http://www.arr.go.ro/iar81c.JPG

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:59 AM
Zayets wrote:
- WOW!
- If I would have those monye I will go for ATI 9800
- Pro/256M. Question is : is it worthed to invest in
- actual vidcard generation?Or to wait a bit more :
- 1) wait for price drop
- 2)new technology
-

It sort of depends on if you are planning on buying any Dx9.0 games in the near future. If, for example, you are planning on getting HL2, you might as well wait until the game ships, and gab it in one of the 9800/9600 bundles it's going to be released with.

I understand that the 9800 plain is still a very good card, even if not quite as fast as the 9800 Pro, and is probably going to drop in price with the impending release of the 9800XT part. Then there are the Delta Chrome cards S3 is working on, that should be extremely compeditive with the GeforceFX 5200 and Radeon 9600, both in terms of price and performance, though we will have to wait and see with those.

Thinking about it a bit more, it seems to me, that if you current video card runs eveyrthing you play now, but you are still looking to upgrade, you might want to wait until January before getting a part. Most of the new games and parts look to be released before December, so by January, you should have a good idea of what your revised needs are, and the status of the avalaible components.

You can wait for an eternity waiting for new part or game to come out, or prices to go down, and by the time they do, the next great thing to wait for is on the horizon and being hyped.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:23 PM
This is what you can expect from ATI (pic taken from Fritzzchecksix)

<img src=http://mightyfritzz.freewebspace.com/images/buggytrees.jpg>

That and water changing colors.


vroelofs wrote:
- NVIDIA is for people who just want it to work,and
- don't care to much about quality...........


Quality doesn't matter much when it doesn't work. This is typical in many games when it comes to ATI. They are turning into the "Creative Labs" of video cards. Games are constantly trying to fix ATI bugs. You rarely hear about problems from Nvidia. This is because Nvidia is the leader in the graphics card industry. (and now mobos and sound solutions as well)

Creative labs is more for people who are making music at home, or listen to SACD's. Similarly, ATI is more for people who are into home video editing (all-in-wonder). Buy ATI at your own risk, just don't complain to Oleg when stuff like mountains dissapear.



<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

Message Edited on 09/20/0308:24AM by RayBanJockey

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:48 PM
Yeah RBJ just look how awefull this forest is rendered after a stock installation and no adjustment to the drivers whatsoever, stupid 9500Pro


http://www.uploadit.org/files/200903-RBJyouiswrongasusual.JPG



In other words, its amazing that you haven't caught on that your a joke around here and noone pays attention to you. You even have to create new accounts to praise yourself.

Stop taking things out of context Fritz's problem was something caused by a bad driver installation or a system conflict.

I can easily find dozens of pics showing problems under Nvidia cards and post them out of context. Nvidia or ATI what the F does it matter, if it works and your happy with it thats perfect. As long as both are equally supported by a game I coldn't give a second thought to it.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:57 PM
Funnily, despite the fact that I just bought a Radeon 9800 Pro, I think RBJ's points are perfectly valid. FB does work perfectly well on a GeForce 4400 - smooth, clear and quite fast enough in most situations.

If all you were going to play was FB and you are not that interested in textural quality, a GeForce card is a very good choice for FB. Also runs 'perfect' without visual artifact, even if I find it to be too slow to truly enjoy for gameplay. And, yes, I have seen artifacts on 'perfect' settings with my Radeon 9500.

However, I do like textural quality, and I prefer to run my games with the best graphic card settings (with 'excellent' being my FB quality choice), that will give a reasonable framerate. I prefer the 'look' of my Radeon graphics - that is really why I go for them. But that is a purely subjective, personal choice and I don't see much point making a big deal about it! (Even though I am taking the trouble to post this!)/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:02 PM
My CPU + MOBO + Memory price can't win single 9800's price alone.

Does it make sense? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

And even if I buy 9800 on my current system, I can't play in Perfect mode in satisfying FPS so should go back to excellent,
while I'm playing in excellent with satisfying fps with GF4ti currently. (don't get me wrong, it's 50+ average.)

Dizzy and ironic. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

=======================================
Athlon XP 3200+, FIC AU13 MOBO, DDR 1024M, GeForce4ti4200,
MCP-T SoundStorm, Seagate Barracuda IV 7200rpm 60G HDD,
Yes,I got TrackIR/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif , Two M$ SW Pr2(weird but good HOTAS.Bill,let sticks be made!)

=815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:27 PM
C'mon! You're not going to try and wrap this up before I put my mindless comments in are you? Pretty basic really: I decided to buy an ALineware and chose the 9800 Pro. A friend said "waite fot the 5900 Ultra," so I did. I think either card would have been fine. I do, however, have the feeling the AA is not my 5900's strong suite. I play at 1600x1200x32. AA seems to reqiure me to go all the way down to 1024x768, at which setting AA does not seem to cancel the added "jagginess." 1600x1200 does not seem to put up with AA, at least with "Perfect" settings. I wouldn't have minded seeing both cards in action, but who's got a grand to play that game? For some reason, I have the impression that the ATI has colors more to my liking, and that it's AA interpretation is also more to my liking. I must have seen some screenies on it.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:30 PM
Oh man, can it be so fun living in denial?

www.anandtech.com (http://www.anandtech.com)
www.hardforums.com (http://www.hardforums.com)
www.nvnews.net (http://www.nvnews.net)
www.beyond3d.com (http://www.beyond3d.com)

Post these stuff in real hardware forums and see how many agrees with you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And the NV35 has been on the market for quite some months now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif so it´s not exactly news here...

adlabs6
09-20-2003, 06:08 PM
I honestly cannot see how so many people announce that ATI has such blatantly "superior" image quality! Over and over again I have view the high-res (un-compressed and lossless) screen shots provided by the many benchmarks of the nVidia and ATI products. I never have seen a difference worth mentioning in the vast majority of cases. I have software that allows me to A/B compare the images at actual size, and still the differences that I find are favourable towards one brand or the other depending on driver versions, which change constantly, and are near impossible to pronounce as "superior" in favor of one brand or the other in an absolute way.

I have been a photographer for years, and I'm a skinner here also, so I have an eye for both subtle detail and color. But honestly I cannot consistently see a difference that makes nVidia or ATI "better" at "image quality".

Also, often I've seen that ATI colors are better. What does this mean? Again I've compared the two in screenshot form, and I used to own a Radeon, and didn't see a noticeable color shift with either card. And if there was a near invisible shift in color, how could I proclaim one color shift as "better" than the other?

I am fairly confident in what I've observed, and I sometimes wonder if these tiny differences are clearly visible in game on most monitors, without an A/B graphics card switch while in game.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:13 PM
That's so called 'Placebo effect'. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It's mainly caused by amount of money spent on VGA.


adlabs6 wrote:
-
- Also, often I've seen that ATI colors are better.
- What does this mean? Again I've compared the two in
- screenshot form, and I used to own a Radeon, and
- didn't see a noticeable color shift with either
- card. And if there was a near invisible shift in
- color, how could I proclaim one color shift as
- "better" than the other?
-


=======================================
Athlon XP 3200+, FIC AU13 MOBO, DDR 1024M, GeForce4ti4200,
MCP-T SoundStorm, Seagate Barracuda IV 7200rpm 60G HDD,
Yes,I got TrackIR/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif , Two M$ SW Pr2(weird but good HOTAS.Bill,let sticks be made!)

=815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:27 PM
TooCooL34 wrote:
- My CPU + MOBO + Memory price can't win single 9800's
- price alone.
-
- Does it make sense? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- And even if I buy 9800 on my current system, I can't
- play in Perfect mode in satisfying FPS so should go
- back to excellent,
- while I'm playing in excellent with satisfying fps
- with GF4ti currently. (don't get me wrong, it's 50+
- average.)


are you sure you get aveg 50+ with your current Ti4200??
do you use lower quality setting??
i know you have AMD 3200+ do so i, but i have Ti 4600 on it.

The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light
<CENTER>http://images.flagspot.net/i/id%5eaforo.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:30 PM
for people with less/more than 20/20 vision NVIDIA is the best choice for them unless they wear glasses.

The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light
<CENTER>http://images.flagspot.net/i/id%5eaforo.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:33 PM
adlabs6 wrote:
- I honestly cannot see how so many people announce
- that ATI has such blatantly "superior" image
- quality! Over and over again I have view the
- high-res (un-compressed and lossless) screen shots
- provided by the many benchmarks of the nVidia and
- ATI products. I never have seen a difference worth
- mentioning in the vast majority of cases. I have
- software that allows me to A/B compare the images at
- actual size, and still the differences that I find
- are favourable towards one brand or the other
- depending on driver versions, which change
- constantly, and are near impossible to pronounce as
- "superior" in favor of one brand or the other in an
- absolute way.
-
- I have been a photographer for years, and I'm a
- skinner here also, so I have an eye for both subtle
- detail and color. But honestly I cannot consistently
- see a difference that makes nVidia or ATI "better"
- at "image quality".
-
- Also, often I've seen that ATI colors are better.
- What does this mean? Again I've compared the two in
- screenshot form, and I used to own a Radeon, and
- didn't see a noticeable color shift with either
- card. And if there was a near invisible shift in
- color, how could I proclaim one color shift as
- "better" than the other?
-
- I am fairly confident in what I've observed, and I
- sometimes wonder if these tiny differences are
- clearly visible in game on most monitors, without an
- A/B graphics card switch while in game.
-

Well there is not easy to see the subtle difference in image quality with screenshots since these wether it´s BMP or JPG is compressed images and not many hardware sites shows the IQ difference with 2 mb bitmaps since it would take forever to load that big files even if you are not on a 56 kb modem.

It´s a lot easier to see when actually trying the video cards in your system with the same monitor. But even at screenshots you can see how the nvidia antialiasing for example blurrs the images quite considerable.

But the hardware review sites

But when we are talking 5900 ULTRA and 9800 PRO we are talking about the current flagships for each company and the ones who buy or are interested in this cards want the absolutely best and fastest around. Sure the 5900 ULTRA can render really nice images but it isn´t worth anything if it is 2nd best after the Radeons... If it´s the most expensive card you want it to perform the best.

And about the colours the NV35 needs to be run at half precision to be competitive using 16-bit colours instead of 32-bit whereas the 9700 PRO does 24-bit both internally and output. This shows especially on good Trinitron monitors or other monitors that handles colour well. Most people are able to see the difference.

Not to be neglected is the drivers as well. nVidia is running game specific optimizations for their cards and they are always aimed for creating high fps rather for better image quality.

ATI lets you choose wether running with optimizations or not which nVidia do not.

I found my 9700 PRO being able to run neck to neck with the 5900 ULTRA when maxing out for image quality and my 9700 PRO still looked better.

When it comes to anisotropic they are quite evenly matched even if the Radeons support higher levels of anisotropic filtering and take much less performance hit with it.

But to see the difference you need either to previously have own a 9500 PRO or better or even better be able to test them both.

But you are right there aren´t any major differences, at least not in dx 8 games. The difference will definiatly be bigger in dx 9 games though. Also depends on what games you play. If you play really fast paced games like UT2K3 you don´t have time looking at your surroundings.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:36 PM
Dayak wrote:
- for people with less/more than 20/20 vision NVIDIA
- is the best choice for them unless they wear
- glasses.

You mean for people with stereo3d glasses? That I totally agree with http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:36 PM
It's brand new 4200 8x and overclocked to 4400 and video setting is excellent except object detail = normal. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
resolution = 1152*864 32b.

check your configuration cause I get that average in GreaterGreen server as long as host itself is not lagging.


Dayak wrote:
-
- are you sure you get aveg 50+ with your current
- Ti4200??
- do you use lower quality setting??
- i know you have AMD 3200+ do so i, but i have Ti
- 4600 on it.
-


=======================================
Athlon XP 3200+, FIC AU13 MOBO, DDR 1024M, GeForce4ti4200,
MCP-T SoundStorm, Seagate Barracuda IV 7200rpm 60G HDD,
Yes,I got TrackIR/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif , Two M$ SW Pr2(weird but good HOTAS.Bill,let sticks be made!)

=815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:37 PM
oeqvist wrote:
- Dayak wrote:
-- for people with less/more than 20/20 vision NVIDIA
-- is the best choice for them unless they wear
-- glasses.
-
- You mean for people with stereo3d glasses? That I
- totally agree with /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Dude you teasing them, aren't you??



The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light
<CENTER>http://images.flagspot.net/i/id%5eaforo.gif

ZG77_Nagual
09-20-2003, 06:43 PM
I play perfect online with my 9800pro/128 (you don't need 256 and it runs hotter)
I've tested fb with the following ati cards

7200
7500
8500le
8500/128
9000
9000 pro
9200
9600
9700np
9800pro

No problems anywhere
9200 on up will run perfect
9700 non pro - overclocked and cooled benchmarks with the 9800pro
9800pro handles perfect a little better speed wise.
Amazingling - the 9200 runs just fine on a 1.6 gig centrino laptop at 1152x864x32 - excellent.

Right now ATI cards are better designs. It'll change but right now their cards offer more bang for the buck and better future compatibility. This stays true as long as you look at image quality - not just frame rates with no image enhancements.
Review cited in this thread is for an overclocked card.
Fair comparison would be with an overclocked 9800 pro.
http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg


Message Edited on 09/20/0301:46PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:44 PM
- Dude you teasing them, aren't you??

Sure, but they deserve every bit of it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And nVidia is great with stereo3D glasses that´s no lie. I still miss my old ti-4600 for that matter...

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:44 PM
I've said this before, and i'll say it again. I don't believe those tests. As an example. the 45.23 drivers are supposed to be optimized for better scores. Yet when I use them I get lower scores. Much lower.

44.03....18000
45.23....16800

Why is that? Don't give me that vibriant colors crap either. The 5900 looks way better than my old 9800 did. The 9800 looked washed out, and there was no way to adjust it.

These discussions are getting rediculous. Most of you guys are talking out your arse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:59 PM
Why is that? Don't give me that vibriant colors
- crap either. The 5900 looks way better than my old
- 9800 did. The 9800 looked washed out, and there was
- no way to adjust it.

There is a way to adjust it and you are 1 out of 100 who thinks the 5900 ULTRA got got better colours. Just look at the specs it shows the proof. 24-bit is better then 16-bit.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:16 PM
I know what I see on my monitor. I don't need to have anybody agree with me on what I see.

I remember I mentioned to falcon on my first system which had the 9800 on it, that the colors looked washed out. They said that's the way ATI cards are.

All I know is I say over and over to myself when i'm in a game "beautiful". I never said that when I had the 9800, and i adjusted it until I was blue in the face. Even my blue face looked better than the 9800..;D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:55 PM
lets see if you hold the same position when you try to run a full dx9 game with graphics power like doom 3. maybe your not an fps guy? well i can almost guarantee that there will be a dx9 fs.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:06 PM
Your right. I'm not a FPS guy. Got anything else?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:07 PM
My LAST Nvidia worked for a whole year. That model is no longer available so they sent me an FX 5600. I sold that dog on ebay and moved UP to ATI.

Pecunia in arboribus non crescit!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:08 PM
To bad you didn't try a real nvidia card.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:21 PM
the only thing worse then fanboys, is fanboys that dont know what the hell they are talking about

Oeqvist - "There is a way to adjust it and you are 1 out of 100 who thinks the 5900 ULTRA got got better colours. Just look at the specs it shows the proof. 24-bit is better then 16-bit."

24bit vs 16bit referes to the precision/legth of the pixel shader registers, and not "colour" in the same sense that you are thinking of. Think of it like 32bit vs 64bit computing. 24bit vs 16vit shader registers does not mean 24bit vs 16bit color output.


Roccrawler - "I know what I see on my monitor. I don't need to have anybody agree with me on what I see.

I remember I mentioned to falcon on my first system which had the 9800 on it, that the colors looked washed out. They said that's the way ATI cards are"

funny, every review site has ati and nvidia outputting the same images with ati having a lead in certain situations, yet some how according to you ati produces all washed out images??? how come i dont see this on any screenshots of quality comparisons on review sites?? Again mabey i shouldnt assume things eh? hey.. tell me again how you knew about the 5900s weak pixel shader performace before any one else including the major hardware review sites and games that used ps2.0 were available to benchmark. talk about "talking out our asses" eh?

modru2004 - "lets see if you hold the same position when you try to run a full dx9 game with graphics power like doom 3. maybe your not an fps guy? well i can almost guarantee that there will be a dx9 fs. "

doom3 is not a dx9 game(let a lone a full one), it is mostly based on gf3/dx8 tech. In time there will be a dx9 flight sim, but by then 5900s and 9800s will be a thing of the past.

this ati vs nvidia crap needs to stop for the good of the forum. When the hell did "who made your video card" become a status symbol? why the hell are you guys measureing your selves by the logo on your graphics card??

grow up all of you.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:36 PM
Davinci..

They talk about image quality. Maybe the 9800 is a bit better. Personally unless i'm looking at both of them together. it's not that noticable to me. What is noticable is vibriant colors. I like the colors to jump out at me. Some people will call it cartoony. I don't give a feck. it's what I like.

Talking out my arse? Not me, but maybe an asshat like you is.

These so called experts say the 45.23 drivers are optimized for higher fps. how come I get lower fps?

Unlike you. I don't believe everything I read.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:38 PM
My self esteem is completely dependent on the hardware inside my computer.

----------------------------------------
I don't live here anymore

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:49 PM
Rocrawler wrote:
- Davinci..
-
- They talk about image quality. Maybe the 9800 is a
- bit better. Personally unless i'm looking at both of
- them together. it's not that noticable to me. What
- is noticable is vibriant colors. I like the colors
- to jump out at me. Some people will call it
- cartoony. I don't give a feck. it's what I like.

- Talking out my arse? Not me, but maybe an asshat
- like you is.

why? cuz i back up what i say?? because im not horribly biased??

again.. tell me how you knew about the 5900s weak pixel shaders before any software was available to know?? and how i was just assmuing you didnt....

i havnt been flat out caught talking out my ***(see above statment). I write what i write, and i back it up.

you rank right up there with rbj in terms of bias. And i know its not your fault, these other ati fanboys have been throwing dirt around just as much if not more then anybody.


- These so called experts say the 45.23 drivers are
- optimized for higher fps. how come I get lower fps?

because they have thier cheats disabled..
dont use any 3dmark versions to test fps, i mean really.. you should know better. But hey, what do all these review sites and people that actually know what they are talking about matter anyway right?? you think, therefor it must be.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:08 PM
Bottom line for me is the 5900 colors look better than the 9800 did. No experts telling me different will change that.

Biased? Not hardly. I have a Nvidia. My last card was a 9800. My card before that was a GF4. My next card could be a ATI. I use whatever works best for the games I play at the moment. Right now the 5900 works the best.

It's just a ton of fun busting the chops of ATI fanboys.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:57 PM
I'm done arguing-ATI has become a better company than NVIDia, they are producing better cards with better drivers, with more whql driver updates and a dedicated feedback line.

That's the truth, and an axiom at this moment.

To argue is futile.

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:13 AM
I doubt your done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:16 AM
Davinci.. wrote:
-
- modru2004 - "lets see if you hold the same position
- when you try to run a full dx9 game with graphics
- power like doom 3. maybe your not an fps guy? well i
- can almost guarantee that there will be a dx9 fs. "
-
- doom3 is not a dx9 game(let a lone a full one), it
- is mostly based on gf3/dx8 tech. In time there will
- be a dx9 flight sim, but by then 5900s and 9800s
- will be a thing of the past.


please fully read and comprehend my posts.i used doom3 as an example of a powerhouse engine. want a dx 9 game hl2 is your game. i was merely pointing out how the ti 4400 would be brought to its knees and it wouldn't be able to use any of the new dx9 features. that and might i politely ask for evidence on this gf3, dx8 evidence that doom3 is a dx8 game....

and we can see Rocrawler didn't pass first grade.......
i wasn't asking a question and i don't give a **** if you don't like fps games or if you get off to the spitfire. ever heard of a rhetorical question?



- grow up all of you.
-
-

i can see you have some growing to do yourself.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:34 AM
Rocrawler wrote:
- Davinci..
-
- Unlike you. I don't believe everything I read.
-

Yet you seem to be quite willing to believe a company that would be obligated to replace a bad part, when they tell you, "they all behave that way".

How much did you pay Falcon for the 5800?

I've had to many idiot tech reps tell me stupid things and blatant lies to but a whole lot of credence in their word. My 9700 produces quite good colour, without any washing out to it, and every screenshot I have seen from ATI cards has shown very high colour quality as well.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:48 AM
Arguing is not the same as revealing the truth.

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:55 AM
im pretty sure doom3 = open gl, y would the creators after so long switch to an inferior api that they havnt used.

By the time games are using dx9 thr current high end cards will be budget.

My gf4mx440 dose the job and even ran il2 on1000x800 pretty well on medium settings, i am upgrading to a 2400xp plus nforce 2 ultra mobo with 512 ddr, i dont need sum fancy high end card that costs more than my upgrade, plus i use linux and atis cards linux drivers r shocking, nvidias are excellent. Jus waitin on my replacement mobo as the firsts bios died the first time i saved the settings after changing boot order.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:33 AM
Pretty good insults asshats. My work is done here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:39 AM
I know what I see on my monitor. I don't need to
- have anybody agree with me on what I see.
-
- I remember I mentioned to falcon on my first system
- which had the 9800 on it, that the colors looked
- washed out. They said that's the way ATI cards are.

good use your own mind and don´t thrust Falcon since they obviously don´t know anything about video cards. Colours aren´t washed out on the Radeons. Maybe it was a gamma setting or to high brightness settings on your monitor or your monitor maybe just was a plan CRT or something?. Even nVidiots generally acknowledge that the Radeons handles colour better than their nVidia video cards.

16-bit colours means less colour precision than 24-bit. It´s as easy as that and yes it shows.

-
-
- All I know is I say over and over to myself when
- i'm in a game "beautiful". I never said that when I
- had the 9800, and i adjusted it until I was blue in
- the face. Even my blue face looked better than the
- 9800..;D

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:46 AM
Blah blah blah. Talk until your blue in the face. The proof is in what i'm looking at. I have a Sony F500R. Not a thing wrong with it, and you can't get a better one.

I don't need to believe Falcon. They just confirmed what i'm looking at.

Nice try fanboys.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:54 AM
first of all climb of your high horses http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif This threads are for people who want to know what video card to get and what to not get so they do have a purpose. We do live in the information age aren´t we?

Oeqvist - "There is a way to adjust it and you are 1
- out of 100 who thinks the 5900 ULTRA got got better
- colours. Just look at the specs it shows the proof.
- 24-bit is better then 16-bit."
-
- 24bit vs 16bit referes to the precision/legth of the
- pixel shader registers, and not "colour" in the same
- sense that you are thinking of. Think of it like
- 32bit vs 64bit computing. 24bit vs 16vit shader
- registers does not mean 24bit vs 16bit color output

No I ain´t talking pixel shader registers here. You are talking about totally different thing here.

nVidia has a full precision mode which is actually higher precision than for the Radeons wich means 32 bit internal precision in layman terms and 32 bit output on what you actually see.

Half precision mode is 32 bit internally and 16-bit output as I said earlier. This mode is what every benchmark out there currently are using and is the best mode for the 5900 ULTRA.

Radeons as I said runs 24-bit internally and output which is with todays technology probably the best compromise.

And how these threads can hurt the forum is beyond me. Extremely easy to avoid wouldn´t you think?

And though DOOM 3 isn´t dx 9 doesn´t matter since it uses pixel shaders to very much the same degree as HL 2. Open GL and dx 9 is just different programming languages really. And believe me it was developed for the latest video card technology not Geforce 3. Geforce 3 is probably the low end on what to get playable with DOOM 3.

Thus John Carmack is doing very much the same as the Valve people do. Run the NV30 in a specific path to get the most performance out of it. And guess what? By lowering the colour precision. But Doom 3 is supposed to be optimized for nVidia so it is yet to see how much this affects the image quality on nvidia cards. I do think that the difference in performance in DOOM 3 will be much lower between the Radeons and NV3X than in the Source engine and other dx 9 titles like Halo for example.

Looking on John Carmacks earlier work Quake for example really didn´t make more use on colours than 8 versions of brown http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And DOOM 3 will probably be 8 versions of black perhaps http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:01 AM
Very mature to call us azzhats and try to invalidate our claims by using the ad hominem arguement.

why don't you try selling your 5900u to the nvidiots at nvnews.net

even they won't touch it and are putting them up on ebay /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I don't believe you because of all the others at nvidia websites that are posting their findings and their impressions of the 5900.

you will see a few here http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=5

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:06 AM
Open GL isn´t inferior to dx 9. I think it´s Open GL 1,5 john Carmack uses for the NV35 and it got all the futures of dx 9. There isn´t really any big difference. The difference is that nVidia had some arguments with Microsoft and jumped of dx 9 which we all know how it´s ended with nvidia not following the dx 9 specs.

But both ATI and nVidia has been in the Open GL group so the NV35 should be a better Open GL card than dx 9. It still suffers from inferior shaders but it´s quite certain that the NV3X series will work better in Open GL mode.

adlabs6
09-21-2003, 03:00 AM
oeqvist wrote:
- But both ATI and nVidia has been in the Open GL
- group so the NV35 should be a better Open GL card
- than dx 9. It still suffers from inferior shaders
- but it´s quite certain that the NV3X series will
- work better in Open GL mode.

I wondered about this a couple days back. Reading seems tell me that nVidia appears to have built a Dx9 hardware that is not following Dx9 specifications exactly, thus the poor Dx9 benchmarkings we've all seen.

If this is true, will future games using new shaders that are running under OpenGL suffer from the Dx9 mode hardware shortcomings of the NV35?

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:14 AM
Rogo,

I told you you wern't done. I also told you all the games that I play the 5900 does better than the 9800. Everybody isn't waiting for HL2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:14 AM
the gurus at beyond3d are speculating about the exact same thing and a tentative conclusion is that the pixel shader speed will not be any faster un opengl with the fx cards.

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:17 AM
Instead of blowing hot air in threads like this. Why didn't you help this guy. His thread was on the first page all day. Another satisfied ATI user../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yyprh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:17 AM
I wondered about this a couple days back. Reading
- seems tell me that nVidia appears to have built a
- Dx9 hardware that is not following Dx9
- specifications exactly, thus the poor Dx9
- benchmarkings we've all seen.
-
- If this is true, will future games using new shaders
- that are running under OpenGL suffer from the Dx9
- mode hardware shortcomings of the NV35

Yes since it´s the pixel shader hardware on the NV35 that is the problem. Both Open GL and directx 9 makes use of pixel shaders to the same extent. Open GL runs fragment programmes to activate these. The NV40 will probably have at least 8 pipelines and probably 12 instead of the 4x2 it currently uses. Radeons use 8 currently and can do more in a single pass which is why it´s dx 9 performance isn´t much worse than it´s dx 8 performance even though the extra special effects in Half Life 2 for example...

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:22 AM
I was done spouting the truth.

I'm now spouting my opinon.


That's great but my view differ, I borrowed my brother's 5900non U evga and gave it a go on a fresh OS install on a spare HD and it wasn't any better than my 9800nonpro.

His 5900U cost him $350 and my 9800nonpro cost me $249.

I have disliked digital virbrance since it came out, the 50s are fubard and I had to move back to the 44s for image quality and general stability, DVD playback is supbar even with powerdvd, I've never liked the display options under nvidia, 2d is less crisp and blurrier, 4xAA 8xAF plays much smoother and looks much better on the 9800 in these games:

ghost recon (it, ds)
black and white
rallisport challenge
raven shield
splinter cell
ground control
max payne
NWN
morrowind (tribunal)
IL-2 FB
UT2003 (the not being able to force trilinear looked terrible and fps were crap even with the cheat when compared to the 9800)
MOHAA
HOmeworld 2 demo
Call of Duty Demo

I am thoroughly unimpressed with the fx 5900U, just like i was with the geforce 4 ti series-not worth the money nor the headache.

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/120903-rogo2.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 05:14 AM
i dont know about other people but in my country the 5900U is cheaper than the 9800pro.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 05:40 AM
In what country is that? Are you sure it isn´t the 5800 ULTRA /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:05 AM
http://www.warbucket.com/comics/214.gif


<center> <img src=http://www.uploadit.org/files/150903-VWC%20Logo%20-Online%20Small.jpg> (http://blacksheepwebdesign.net/VirtualWarCinema/index.php?sid=bc6705eb7d8b213f13c61c4309ce0d6b)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:03 PM
Does it really matter how many FPS you have after a point? Your eyes can only see so many frames per second. I dont know exactly how many FPS, but I believe anything after 30fps doesn't really matter. Can any of you even tell after that?

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:25 PM
Well it depends on the game. And it isn´t hard to make a 5900 ULTRA or 9800 PRO go down to below 30... Just cram the detail settings all the way to the top and apply lot of anisotropic and antialiasing.

The problems with benchmarking is that the people that do this tests don´t know how to run these cards thus they ran with 4x aa and at max 8x anisotropic most of the time and at low detail settings thus you get those high numbers.

That and they still test with old game engines like Quake 3 Arena and stuff which is just about to getting obsolete by this time.

In slow moving games like IL 2 FB and most flight sims you are often fine with 30 fps or even below. For fast games like f1 2002 or other you need higher fps for smooth gameplay since this is very important for your driving as well as speed sensation. There is a big difference between 30 fps and 50 fps in that type of games.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:04 PM
getting 60 FPS with my GF4 ti4800. still pimpin. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:32 PM
Sorry but my Nvidea card cured my impotence!!

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:31 AM
oeqvist wrote:
- In what country is that? Are you sure it isn´t the
- 5800 ULTRA

NZ, all of the 5900 types are cheaper than the ATI 9800 type here, maybee you dont know thw right places to look.


http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:43 AM
If anyone noticed when they did the tests on the ATI cards they did it with Fast Writes enabled.


I thought ATI card don't do well with Fast Writes enabled.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:45 AM
Samoflan wrote:
- Does it really matter how many FPS you have after a
- point? Your eyes can only see so many frames per
- second. I dont know exactly how many FPS, but I
- believe anything after 30fps doesn't really matter.
- Can any of you even tell after that?


Yes, you can't tell just by flying straight but if you roll the plane and look at how the scenery (ex. airfields)rotates on the screen you can tell.



<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

ZG77_Nagual
09-22-2003, 02:02 AM
I agree with RBJ (horror!!) I like to keep my avg frames around 70.

Also - when pricing vid cards - in the ati line there really is no reason to get the 256 meg model.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:11 AM
RayBanJockey wrote:

- You people blow too much money. I hope you have a
- high def TV already and other stuff before you blow
- money on video cards, which are a worse investment
- than buying a Ferrari.


The right classic Ferrari can actually be a good investment .. not a practical car but a good investment.

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:34 AM
WTE_Galway wrote:
-
- RayBanJockey wrote:
-
-- You people blow too much money. I hope you have a
-- high def TV already and other stuff before you blow
-- money on video cards, which are a worse investment
-- than buying a Ferrari.
-
-
- The right classic Ferrari can actually be a good
- investment .. not a practical car but a good
- investment.


Sure, if you don't ever plan on driving it or getting insurance.


<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:08 AM
Nvidia is almost as good as peaches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<center>
No Guts No Glory
<center>
http://www.jpmagazine.com/jpmag/eventcoverage/p95932_image_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:14 AM
Nvidia and ATI are both lousy - 3dfx Voodoo2 rules...

and I have the screenshots to prove it
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/shot.jpg

</center>



Message Edited on 09/22/0303:16AM by Diesel1953

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:25 AM
New Zeeland is the only country where the 5900 ULTRA is cheaper then that I am sure of. In US, Europe and just about everywhere 5900 ULTRA is more expensive.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:25 AM
i got a pretty hot Diamond Stealth ET4000 Vesa card if anyone wants one .. gotta full meg of ram which is twice what was standard at the time it came out as well

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>