PDA

View Full Version : X-bit labs declares Nvidia winner in IL-2 FB



XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 04:54 PM
X-bit labs declares Nvidia winner in IL-2 FB using the TheBlackDeath.ntrk track!

Here is the link http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/fx5900-r9800_10.html


As you can see, Nvidia takes the lead in all the benchmarks that have acceptible framerates/settings.


ATI better do something very quick, like releasing their next line of graphics cards before Nvidia releases NV36 (FX5700) and NV38 (FX5950) at the end of the month because right now it doensn't look too good for them.

<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
09-14-2003, 04:54 PM
X-bit labs declares Nvidia winner in IL-2 FB using the TheBlackDeath.ntrk track!

Here is the link http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/fx5900-r9800_10.html


As you can see, Nvidia takes the lead in all the benchmarks that have acceptible framerates/settings.


ATI better do something very quick, like releasing their next line of graphics cards before Nvidia releases NV36 (FX5700) and NV38 (FX5950) at the end of the month because right now it doensn't look too good for them.

<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
09-14-2003, 05:06 PM
This just goes to prove that depending on who's reading them, the same set of statistics can be used to prove just about anything you like.

Anyway, statistically speaking it's a fact that 80% of statics are bull$hit!

S! Simon.
<center>

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://www.downloadcounter.com/cgi-bin/download.pl?username=James_Jones&account=705).

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/USsig.jpg
<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font></center>

Zayets
09-14-2003, 05:06 PM
You tell'em RBJ!

Zayets out

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:27 PM
RBJ, steeling my text.

RBJ Has a hard time surfing the internet and moving one to the next page of this benchmark where ATI is declared the winner.

At the bottom ATI is the big winner at 1600x1200x32
using 4xAA and 8xAF

While I was a big NVidiot, I am form now on starting to belief ATI will be the winner for my new system.

The only very big problem is:

* DirectX 9 = XBox 2 + Source Engine = M$ + ATI + Valve = BIG DOLLARS

* OpenGL = NVidia + nobody or maybe DOOM 3 = ??


Flight Sims Forever!
http://home.wxs.nl/~elzer033/images/dutch-bf109.jpg

Buzz_25th
09-14-2003, 06:41 PM
I've always said the 5900 was faster than the 9800. I use 1600 res 4xfsaa 2x AF. I never use alot of AF as it doesn't look much different at 8X or 2X, Why bother. With my settings. The 5900 blows the 9800 away.

You can put the 5900 at 8Xfsaa and the 9800 at 6X fsaa,andd the 5900 still wins.

Sorry ATI fanboys you lose../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:09 PM
i like Chevy, no wait, i like Ford, no i changed my mind, i like Chevy again...../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:15 PM
It's RBJ! Where have you been?

---------------------------------------
http://www.swafineart.com/images/30.4.02/spitfire.jpg


I'm still a 109 fan but you've gotta love the Spitfire!

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:20 PM
This forum is not Tom's hardware.

In FB, Nvidia is better. (NOT WINNER!)

Why do you fight each other in behalf of big companies? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

=======================================
Athlon XP 2500+@3200+ (200*11)
DDR 512M (FSB 200)
GeForce4ti4200
MCP-T SoundStorm
7200rpm 60G HDD

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:35 PM
At high res, you don't need AA at all, except....

For aircraft wings when you are on their six. I wish they could make AA work only for specific things on screen. With the exception of aircraft and distant airfields, flight sims are pure "Nature" games with environment at great distance. No straight lines. Wozop with anti~aliasing clouds and forests? Its a waste in flight sim. Turn it off and yes Nvadi could be better than ITA.

Soon I will be upgrading to Ti4xxx /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:45 PM
you know what, with all this hussin'and fussin' bout which card is better, I think I'll get a Thrustmaster Cougar instead. Then I'll see what happens next.

I'm a crappy pilot, but one hell of a shot.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:57 PM
im using ATI card but im not a fanboy.
im using 1600X1200X32@100, AA 4X, AF 8X.
and FB can never look so good than that, oh yeah i use excellent settings.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:05 PM
No you can´t. Well of course you can write about US president still being John F Kennedy and that Elvis lives. Nobody stops you. But look at his links and you see that the 9800 PRO is equally fast or faster in just about all IL 2 FB tests.

Thus he´s trying to give that acceptable framerate remarks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But there is nothing new to find there. Both 9800 PRO and 5900 ULTRA performs pretty similar in IL 2 FB in term of speed...

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:13 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- I've always said the 5900 was faster than the 9800.
- I use 1600 res 4xfsaa 2x AF. I never use alot of AF
- as it doesn't look much different at 8X or 2X, Why
- bother. With my settings. The 5900 blows the 9800
- away.
-
- You can put the 5900 at 8Xfsaa and the 9800 at 6X
- fsaa,andd the 5900 still wins.

How can a nVidia FX owner these days see themselves as a winner is beyond me really...

Zayets
09-14-2003, 08:18 PM
oeqvist wrote:

- How can a nVidia FX owner these days see themselves
- as a winner is beyond me really...

Because probably this is the truth?

Zayets out

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:19 PM
Remember ATI's driver took much time from Oleg. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Patch dealy was largely due to Driver fault in perfect mode and he eventually gave up. (can't forget THE delay /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif )

Maybe he said, "it's driver's problem, not ours."

=======================================
Athlon XP 2500+@3200+ (200*11)
DDR 512M (FSB 200)
GeForce4ti4200
MCP-T SoundStorm
7200rpm 60G HDD

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:33 PM
How could it be the truth?

Extremely poor PS 2.0 performance means the NV3X series to be pretty useless in dx 9 games like HL 2 etc etc.

Sub par image quality even in dx 8 games

hacked drivers with no way going around nVidias "game specific optimizations"

Low performance with aa and anisotropic compaired to the Radeons

blurry fsaa

less maximum anisotropic levels

not full trilinear filtering

Half precision mode a must for decent performance equals to less colour precision obviously.

The only good thing about nVidia is offical stereo3D support but other than that there isn´t anything to cheer on with the NV3X series...

See what the nVidia people at www.nvnews.net (http://www.nvnews.net) thinks of this...

Overall this is the ONLY forum ever where people still think nVidia is at the number one spot for gaming which really surprises me a lot.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:35 PM
http://www.skenegroup.net/onsekumma/


mouseover pic, check it out. show different between the 9800 and a 5600(with new 50.xx drivers), and look at the framerates, and thats only with a 5600.

EDIT: page takes a while to load...
<center>

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/thepic.jpg



Message Edited on 09/14/03 02:35PM by cd_jakevas

Message Edited on 09/14/0302:35PM by cd_jakevas

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:43 PM
TooCooL34 wrote:
- Remember ATI's driver took much time from Oleg. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- Patch dealy was largely due to Driver fault in
- perfect mode and he eventually gave up. (can't
- forget THE delay /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif )
-
- Maybe he said, "it's driver's problem, not ours."

I don´t know what caused that problem for sure but if you want flawless drivers in dx 9 games don´t get nVidia for sure.

Why you say?

Because they didn´t follow the dx 9 specs to the fully. That is why DOOM 3 and Half Life 2 where delayed. The Valve people took 5 times longer optimize for the NV3X series and run on a specific NV30 path instead of the general ARB 2 path than for the 9X00 and John Carmack had to do the same with DOOM 3 to get some more performance out of the NV3X series.

Hopefully nVidia will follow spec with their NV40 and thus we shouldn´t have these kind of problems with neither the ATI or Nvidia cards in the future.

I guess nvidia wanted to create their own glide and hoped game developers would optimize their games solely for nVidia and their "cinefx".

trying to invent a new Glide doesn´t benefit anyone since what benefits the customers is competition which nVidia just can´t give at the moment.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:52 PM
It's not important if NVidia is or isn't a bit faster than ATI in FB.
Both are up to it.
This has nothing to do with the DirectX9 controversy of late.
If we believe all of what the developers of half life 2 say then NVidia are in big trouble.
But after hearing that and the initial reaction from NVidia maybe it's better to wait and see what happens.
People are speculating a lot.
The only thing for sure is that this is hurting NVidia quite a bit.


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:57 PM
http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/aquamark3/index3.htm

That page shows the difference between the Det 45's and the Det 51. Notice how bad the IQ loss is? Somethings *very* fishy with the Det 50's

Just take a look at how different the ATI and FX frames are in the image you linked to. Considering how they are both supposed to be exaxtly the same frame, that indicates that there are serious discrepencies between the final render products.

Harry Voyager

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:58 PM
mouseover pic, check it out. show different between
- the 9800 and a 5600(with new 50.xx drivers), and
- look at the framerates, and thats only with a 5600.

I am on a 56 kb connection so this is dead slow for me... What is it you want to show? But here is a discussion about Aquamark and the 50.xx drivers. I tried to low the images for 5 minutes but I had to give up... Have seen other comparisons though between pre 50xx drivers and 50.xx drivers on a 5900 ULTRA and these new drivers are definiatly more hacked than ever...

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17971

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:04 PM
Look, cheapest streetprice for a GeforceFX 5900 Ultra is about 400$, for the Radeon9800 Pro it´s about 350$. Taking the link to the (rather unrepresentative) benchmark sample you posted, the FX5900 ultra (256mb) did achieve 46fps at 1280 x 960, the Radeon9800 Pro (128mb) 44fps at standard settings (NO AF/FSAA). So just for the fun of it, Nvidia makes you pay 8.7 $/fps, ATI 7.9 $/fps at really negligible results of a mere 2 fps difference in this resolution, that is if you take the blackdeath track as the ultimate meassure for gaming performance. Note that the pricehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.giferformance relation gets progressively worse for FX cards the higher the resolution, and the more eyecandy enabled (Anisotropic Filtering, Full Screen Antialiasing).

No biggy some might say, i pay more and get a shiny Nvidia logo, but considering the recently exposed problems with Dx9 performance and therefore with upcoming applications that will build on Dx9, it´s really a no brainer which card to get, especially if image quality utilising FSAA and AF settings at high resolutions are important buying aspects.

Nvidia just fails to deliver in these regards, and instead of blaming anyone but themselves for the performance deficits under Dx9, they should get their act together asap, because they are loosing credibility fast.


============================
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.)


Message Edited on 09/14/0308:05PM by Oak_Groove

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:07 PM
Actually I have heard that FX series have better FSAA/AF quality than ATI.. and judging from the picks by HardOCP it is true..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:09 PM
It seems NVidia have got one thing wrong.
32bit seems too slow, 16bit not enough for the new crop of games we'll be seeing soon.
24bit looks like the best compromise.

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:11 PM
- Actually I have heard that FX series have better
- FSAA/AF quality than ATI.. and judging from the
- picks by HardOCP it is true..

link?

I´ve seen a GFX in action on a Raven Shield LAN, and image quality was blurry as compared to a R300 chip.

============================
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
09-14-2003, 09:18 PM
Christos_swc wrote:
- It's not important if NVidia is or isn't a bit
- faster than ATI in FB.
- Both are up to it.
- This has nothing to do with the DirectX9 controversy
- of late.
- If we believe all of what the developers of half
- life 2 say then NVidia are in big trouble.
- But after hearing that and the initial reaction from
- NVidia maybe it's better to wait and see what
- happens.
- People are speculating a lot.
- The only thing for sure is that this is hurting
- NVidia quite a bit.

But I don´t think the majority of the people out here buys a 400$ video card only to play IL 2 FB or maybe LOMAC for the next 4 years... DX 9 games is coming this year and will dominate in 2004 and thus you want a good video card with good dx 9 performance wouldn´t you?

And even in dx 8 games few arguments that an 9800 PRO is both faster and look better than the 5900 ULTRA in the settings you would expect you want to run these expensive video cards in. 1600x1200 with 4x aa and 16x anisotropic.

But you are right even a ti-4600 can run IL 2 FB and even a Geforce 3 will be enough to run HL 2. But these high end video cards are for image quality and that is why people get so upset about nVidias cheating drivers and poor dx 9 performance. I am sure you can get really good framerates with HL 2 and 5900 ULTRA in dx 8 mode but you loose in image quality.

And don´t tell me you guys are falling for nVidias PR team again! What do you expect they would reply.

Yes we know the NV35 has very poor PS 2.0 performance and this is because we didn´t follow dx 9 specs and instead was opting for developers using over "cinefx" instead? We wouldn´t advice anyone buying this card for the upcoming dx 9 games?

Remember what they where saying of 3DMARK 2003. That it wasn´t valid and that wouldn´t be part of it but then they go and optimize the crap of their drivers for it. And then they join 3DMark 2003 all the sudden?

And why didn´t they complain about the early doom alpha benchmarks that was favourable for the 5900 ULTRA? That was much more inmature than HL 2 which will probably be released within 1-2 months but that they didn´t complain about...

nVidias PR team are only doing damage control at the moment. Of course they know about their inferior hardware but of course they can´t confess it. After all they want people to buy the NV38 which just will be an overclocked version of the NV35.

Hunter82
09-14-2003, 10:05 PM
Well written...no basis in fact but still well written /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


TooCooL34 wrote:
- Remember ATI's driver took much time from Oleg. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- Patch dealy was largely due to Driver fault in
- perfect mode and he eventually gave up. (can't
- forget THE delay /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif )
-
- Maybe he said, "it's driver's problem, not ours."


=======================================
Ubisoft IL2/Lock On Moderator
ATI Catalyst Driver Beta Tester
Hunter82 wrote:"I did not have technical relations with that question"
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com/) </center>
=======================================

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 03:00 AM
Dutch60 wrote:
- RBJ Has a hard time surfing the internet and moving
- one to the next page of this benchmark where ATI is
- declared the winner.

Yes I do have a hard time....finding where ATI is declared the winner? Form the conclusion I read it said Nvidia was the winner.

- At the bottom ATI is the big winner at 1600x1200x32
- using 4xAA and 8xAF

So ATI looses most of the benchmarks, but because they can do 19 fps at some insane settings they are the "big" winner?

You need to get a clue, buddy. Nobody (except for geeky full realists and trackIR users) is going to play a video game at less than 20fps. 30fps and 1280x960 is the minimum a discerning gamer would expect to run on a supercomputer such as the testers.

When you start talking about benchmarks where there is no AA but 8xAF, or anytime the fps is below 30 you can just throw those away because nobody in their right mind would play in those conditions.

Straight up, no gimmicks, Nvidia is the winner, and even with AA Nvidia once again comes out on top. Only with freaky settings or framrates that are too low to be playable does ATI "win".

ATI fanboys are getting more desperate every day, posting their doomsday predictions about games that havent come out yet, or touting their performance in benchmarks where the FPS is below 20!!!

<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 09/14/0310:12PM by RayBanJockey

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 03:40 AM
Vipez- wrote:
- Actually I have heard that FX series have better
- FSAA/AF quality than ATI.. and judging from the
- picks by HardOCP it is true..

Actually...the tests at HardOCP showed little to no difference in the end result image quality. The differences were so minor the reviewer had little preference from one to another.

Using UT2003 and some special graphics mode he was able to determine that both ATI and nVidia use completely different methods. I think the test showed the level of anistropic filtering and there was substantial differences...but not in the end result image quality.

I'll try and dig up the link later but I'm a regular reader of HardOCP and I distinctly remember in that test that they found almost no discernable difference whatsoever.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 03:49 AM
Dutch beat you by 5 hours ...same post...you are slacking,
your post is already a duplicate of the original:

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

you need to be more up to date.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/Loco-S.gif

[B]Burning Avgas at alarming rates since 1990. [B]
<G>Visit http://www.aopa.org<G>
I love the Me 109 but... "Ich bin ein Würgerwhiner"!! too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:24 AM
i read a lot of graphics card test RBJ .....

ATI are higher 99% of the time

ATI is better at AA

BOTH cards will play FB FANTASTICALLY

adlabs6
09-15-2003, 05:42 AM
I find it humorous that someone can claim a 'winner' based on articles like these. The charts only show that you can get a very playable (meaning OVER 30fps) result with any of the cards tested running FB. I've never seen the point of enabling every possible setting in the game and graphics driver either, knowing that your going to be dragging along in the sub 25fps zone. Even my lowly XP2000+ and Ti4200 can manage 15fps running the Blackdeath track on "Perfect", but I can't find a reason to play that way.

These benchmark numbers always seem "theoretical" to me anyway, since playing FB online will likely have an impact on the framerate, dropping it even lower into the teens. And even offline, your still going to see pauses and slowdowns from time to time. It's all just a giant compromise really.

<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
09-15-2003, 05:51 AM
well, i would say their benchmark is valid.
i have tried it and tested it.
if you do good in blackdeath you will do better in regular or online.
you can see my result in blackdeath @mudmover. and i upgraded my CPU now. but still can see my old result.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:56 AM
VW-IceFire wrote:
-
- Vipez- wrote:
-- Actually I have heard that FX series have better
-- FSAA/AF quality than ATI.. and judging from the
-- picks by HardOCP it is true..

Well judging from the screenshots at www.hardocp.com (http://www.hardocp.com) nVidia fsaa more blurs the image than remove jaggies and the same did I notice when I had an 5900 ULTRA to play with.

But if you like blurred images? For me fsaa is about removing jaggies and nothing else.
-