TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- Half Life 2 Performs better on ATI then Nvidia.
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

All of us are trying to explain it to you but you are a thick headed moron that won't even listen but yourself. We explained in the past posts that Nvidia Cheated On The 3d Mark Tests!!.. Why do you think we are giving you the aquamark tests.. The aquamark tests prevents Nvidia or Ati from cheating!!! It is the most accurate benchmark program to date.. Maybe you should try it and see for yourself and give us the low down if it is truly the One.

DJ Lac, u a dumb fuck.

nVidia cheated in 3dmark 2001se, that's why 3dmark 03 was made + nVidia removed the cheat in their drivers.

9600 Pro is compared to 9500 pro, moron, and the latter beats it.

it is useless talking to a dumb fuck like u, later.

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA DJ Lac, u a dumb fuck. nVidia cheated in 3dmark 2001se, that's why 3dmark 03 was made + nVidia removed the cheat in their drivers. 9600 Pro is compared to 9500 pro, moron, and the latter beats it. it is useless talking to a dumb fuck like u, later.

Lol I really got to you this time.. You really got mad ahaha.. If its so useless to talk to me why even bother replying back to all our posts.. Ya know you had an option to keep it to yourself. Now your temper is off and your calling people names. Its ok to admit it sucks. No harm in that. I know you have a card cuz you wouldn't be defending it. If you don't then you shouldn't have replied in the first place. I was an nvidia fanatic like you, but I realized that these radeons just blew nvidia's cards away. Everyone knew it from the time 8500 pro came out. Nvidia is struggling am sorry to say. FYI: if I was a "dumb fuck" I would be talking like you. Sorry to say that, but its true.

Oh ya don't take it to small detail when I said 9600 comparing to 5600 when you said 9500. Cuz the 5600 was there also.

I am not an nVidia fanatic and never was.

I am neutral and in 0 of my posts said anything bad about RADEON series. I simply pointed out to you that FX is not as bad as u think.

All of your statements are normative and nothing more.

As per what I possess, I am an owner of 2 9700 PRO cards and 1 GeForce 4 MX, but I also had a chance to work with FX 5900 and I played some games on FX and my 9700 pro and all normative statements about FX are false, it's a great card in reality.

9700 pro heats up very much and very hot, where as FX is cool, but fans are much louder than in 9xxx series of ATI.

Working with 3D STUDIO MAX, Rendering and real time DirectX 9.0B viewing in 3D angle spins much faster on FX.

ATI is only looking at games market, try doing some 3D graphics on it, you will see how poor their drivers are.

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA I am not an nVidia fanatic and never was. I am neutral and in 0 of my posts said anything bad about RADEON series. I simply pointed out to you that FX is not as bad as u think. All of your statements are normative and nothing more. As per what I possess, I am an owner of 2 9700 PRO cards and 1 GeForce 4 MX, but I also had a chance to work with FX 5900 and I played some games on FX and my 9700 pro and all normative statements about FX are false, it's a great card in reality. 9700 pro heats up very much and very hot, where as FX is cool, but fans are much louder than in 9xxx series of ATI. Working with 3D STUDIO MAX, Rendering and real time DirectX 9.0B viewing in 3D angle spins much faster on FX. ATI is only looking at games market, try doing some 3D graphics on it, you will see how poor their drivers are.

Alright well.. All I gotta say Radeons are never meant for Rendering and that doesn't compare how it performs on a game. There is a difference between rendering and the calculations that load up in a Huge world map. If you want to do rendering why don't you buy a FIRE card. Never compare Applications with Games because they are totally different. It's like saying I'm comparing Photoshop to Unreal tournament. If thats why you think the FX is better your in a whole other ball game cuz we are talking two seperate topics here.

I read an article a couple of days back and iam looking for the link. It states that Eidos released a patch for Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness which boosted performance in the cards. Most notably the 5900ultra and the Radeon 9800. However, the patch also had a benchmarking prog. which benchmarked both cards and the 9800 beat the 5900 ultra. Nvidia promptly told Eidos to remove the patch from their website. So whats the point of this whole rant, Tomb Raider:Angel of darkness has a "the way it's meant to be played" Nvidia logo and still failed to the Ati radeon in the benchmark.

quote:

Originally posted by TheDemon I read an article a couple of days back and iam looking for the link. It states that Eidos released a patch for Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness which boosted performance in the cards. Most notably the 5900ultra and the Radeon 9800. However, the patch also had a benchmarking prog. which benchmarked both cards and the 9800 beat the 5900 ultra. Nvidia promptly told Eidos to remove the patch from their website. So whats the point of this whole rant, Tomb Raider:Angel of darkness has a "the way it's meant to be played" Nvidia logo and still failed to the Ati radeon in the benchmark.

here's the link. just scroll down a bit.
http://www.tech-report.com/news_arc...iew.x/2003/9/16

ROFLLLL!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by TheDemon here's the link. just scroll down a bit. http://www.tech-report.com/news_arc...iew.x/2003/9/16

LOLOLOLOLOL

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.