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

Half Life 2 Performs better on ATI then Nvidia.

Well, with the recent official benchmarks released, its quite obvious that Ati cards are much more suited to Half Life 2 then Nvidia. Read on for more.

http://gear.ign.com/articles/437/437776p1.html

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2003...ch/index.x?pg=1

wasnt this talked about in the hl2 vs doom3 or some other thread already?

this was discuss heavily last week on all the major hardware forusm/community. werent u paying attention to the post doom3 vs hl2?

quote:

Originally posted by yujie__ this was discuss heavily last week on all the major hardware forusm/community. werent u paying attention to the post doom3 vs hl2?

Ya, but I included actual benchmarks and quote directly from Nvidia just to show some of the other members on the forums whats really going on between Ati and Nvidia.

are u a Nvidiot or a FanATIc?

quote:

Originally posted by yujie__ are u a Nvidiot or a FanATIc?

FanATIc all the way!

all of this info is useless because there are no GOOD OFFICIAL drivers for FX 5900 yet, in a few months drivers will be improved greatly, improving performance, so far on all raw test 5900 FX beats 9800 PRO, so this is just a matter of newer drivers from nVidia optimized for newer games.

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA all of this info is useless because there are no GOOD OFFICIAL drivers for FX 5900 yet, in a few months drivers will be improved greatly, improving performance, so far on all raw test 5900 FX beats 9800 PRO, so this is just a matter of newer drivers from nVidia optimized for newer games.

ati owzn nvidia any day in games and benchmarks. they are getting worst and worst everyday like. they were good when the gf4 was around but went downhill after that.

this to me dont look like good/great drivers to me. they were the one that nvidia recommended for hl2 benchmarks but were pull for lower IQ to boost score by like ~5-10% just to try to catch up to ati radeon 9600/9800.

quote:

Beta WinXP & Win2k Detonator Driver v51.75 Build Date: August 28, 2003 Size: 10.10Mb Release Notes Word has it this driver reduces image quality to increase frames per second Controversial Driver rejected by Valve for use on Half Life 2 Benchmark English Language file present only in this beta release Controversial Driver used in the Aquamark3 previews All nVidia cards are supported in this release

quote:

EIDOS Interactive, the publisher for Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness issued a patch a couple of weeks ago for the game which happened to include a way to use the game as a DX9 benchmark. Since it shows NVIDIA hardware performing slower than ATI, EIDOS has pulled it down. Remember, this is a "Way it's meant to be played" game, which means NVIDIA has paid EIDOS marketing money. Here's a bs statement from EIDOS Europe: "It has come to the attention of Eidos that an unreleased patch for Tomb Raider: AOD has unfortunately been used as the basis for videocard benchmarking. While Eidos and Core appreciate the need for modern benchmarking software that utilizes the advanced shading capabilities of modern graphics hardware, Tomb Raider: AOD Patch 49 was never intended for public release and is not a basis for valid benchmarking comparisons. Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs exceptionally well on NVIDIA hardware." - Paul Baldwin, Eidos

quote:

No, 49 is the patch that we worked on for the benchmarking. If you click the download link its no longer there. This is stupid since the patch actually increased performance for all boards and solved a number of bug fixes - the benchmarking mode is still available in the previous version, so if people use that then the performances will be even worse!

quote:

Beta WinXP & Win2k Detonator Driver v51.75 Build Date: August 28, 2003 Size: 10.10Mb Release Notes Word has it this driver reduces image quality to increase frames per second Controversial Driver rejected by Valve for use on Half Life 2 Benchmark English Language file present only in this beta release Controversial Driver used in the Aquamark3 previews All nVidia cards are supported in this release

AZCA, how do u explain this comment on the FX?

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1866&p=1

quote:

"Shockingly, only 3 out of 8 times was the GeForce FX Go5650 able to surpass the 10 fps barrier. Even at its best, the GeForce FX Go5650 was only able to close the gap between the Mobility Radeon 9600 to 234%. �Slow as a pregnant yak� was a phrase that we often heard in reference to these scores."

hm, can u read english?

this is an article about FX Go5600 (mobile chipset in laptops)

Now, I am talking about FX5900 ULTRA which just came out GPU 450 MHZ and DDR II 1000 Mhz RAM (~500$) in price.

now ATI only has 1 good CHIPSET, which is RADEON 9700 (and other revisions of it 9700 PRO, 9800 (9700 optimized for internal memory saving), all other video cards that they make stink.

Now FX just came out, their drivers are horrible and they will be rewritten totally to be optimized for games, ATI's RADEON 9700 series have been out for almost 2 years, their 1st drivers catalyst 2.0 were shit, it took them almost 2 years to get to version 3.7 , good drivers.

so this is a matter of drivers, not hardware.

even john carmack ageree the fx sucks for future games. games will have to lower quality than the radeons in order for it to be better playable.

got from http://english.bonusweb.cz/interviews/carmackgfx.html

Hi John,

No doubt you heard about GeForce FX fiasco in Half-Life 2. In your opinion, are these results representative for future DX9 games (including Doom III) or is it just a special case of HL2 code preferring ATI features, as NVIDIA suggests?

Unfortunately, it will probably be representative of most DX9 games. Doom has a custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the GF-FX, but when you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is a lot slower. The precision doesn't really matter to Doom, but that won't be a reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as a minimum spec.

John Carmack

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA all of this info is useless because there are no GOOD OFFICIAL drivers for FX 5900 yet, in a few months drivers will be improved greatly, improving performance, so far on all raw test 5900 FX beats 9800 PRO, so this is just a matter of newer drivers from nVidia optimized for newer games.

Dude, the Ati Radeon 9700 pro has beaten the 5900 ultra in benchmarks. and in a few months its too late, HL2 is coming out soon Buy then ATI will have already released better drivers that will outperform NVIDIA.

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA now ATI only has 1 good CHIPSET, which is RADEON 9700 (and other revisions of it 9700 PRO, 9800 (9700 optimized for internal memory saving), all other video cards that they make stink. Now FX just came out, their drivers are horrible and they will be rewritten totally to be optimized for games, ATI's RADEON 9700 series have been out for almost 2 years, their 1st drivers catalyst 2.0 were shit, it took them almost 2 years to get to version 3.7 , good drivers. so this is a matter of drivers, not hardware.

Actually its both hardware and software.

quote:

Originally posted by TheDemon Actually its both hardware and software.

thats what i said. they cheated with bad hardware and still cant beat the 9x00 on lots of benchmarks. denial is not a river in egypt. he must be a nvidiot or have something against ati.

ya they did

ya know am guessing azca bought a 5900 for a lot of money, and now we give this information, and he won't believe it rofl. NVIDIOT NVIDIOT NVDIOT!!!!

Re: ya they did

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Lac ya know am guessing azca bought a 5900 for a lot of money, and now we give this information, and he won't believe it rofl. NVIDIOT NVIDIOT NVDIOT!!!!

lamer.

u should change u name to LAMER Lac

Re: Re: ya they did

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA lamer. u should change u name to LAMER Lac

LoL getting aggressive are we. Guess I did push your buttons. Its people like you that has something up their asses all the time and take everything seriously. While we provide facts to tell people what is really good. I bet you play cs and get pissed when somebody kills you like 10 times in a row and you call them a cheater... Or maybe someone who is insecure that they will lose at something so they will deny everything when you know its really true. Hrmm.. so tell me.. if I called you a NOOB are you going to get pissed off even more? Is that why you called me a LAMER cuz I called you an "nvidiot". Your quite a piece of work.. We start giving factual information from reliable sources and you jump to conclusion that it sucks or you shouldn't buy it. For all I care I haven't seen proof from you, on reasons why it sucks. You always were a blabber mouth that has not provided actual information, but your swindiling aggression. If you don't want to get flamed (and I mean from other people) I suggest you provide us reliable facts why the 9500/pro is way better then the 9600 or why the 5900 is better then the 9700/9800.. If you can give us that then we won't have to be standing on this pile of shit.

Oh by the way.. Lamer was my name in CS So guess you did a follow up research.

Re: Re: Re: ya they did

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Lac LoL getting aggressive are we. Guess I did push your buttons. Its people like you that has something up their asses all the time and take everything seriously. While we provide facts to tell people what is really good. I bet you play cs and get pissed when somebody kills you like 10 times in a row and you call them a cheater... Or maybe someone who is insecure that they will lose at something so they will deny everything when you know its really true. Hrmm.. so tell me.. if I called you a NOOB are you going to get pissed off even more? Is that why you called me a LAMER cuz I called you an "nvidiot". Your quite a piece of work.. We start giving factual information from reliable sources and you jump to conclusion that it sucks or you shouldn't buy it. For all I care I haven't seen proof from you, on reasons why it sucks. You always were a blabber mouth that has not provided actual information, but your swindiling aggression. If you don't want to get flamed (and I mean from other people) I suggest you provide us reliable facts why the 9500/pro is way better then the 9600 or why the 5900 is better then the 9700/9800.. If you can give us that then we won't have to be standing on this pile of shit. Oh by the way.. Lamer was my name in CS So guess you did a follow up research.

agree all keep saying 5900ultra ownz the 9800pro but u never provide any proof to your post. u will keep on getting flame if u cant provide any reliable date other than your mouth saying nvidia this ati sucks that all hail nvidia the king, long live nvidia. i want nvidia's babies, blah blah....priceless

Re: Re: ya they did

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA lamer. u should change u name to LAMER Lac

Dude, get over it. Ati cards are better than Nvidia no matter what sort of drivers Nvidia is using. Its no to say Nvidia sucks, but the fact of the matter is that Ati (as it currently stands and will for a long time) can make cards that run on lower clock freqeuncies that out perform Nvidia's. And even if the newest drivers for the fx5900 ultra come, it will marginally be faster than the 9600. thats's pathetic, that a $250 dollar card can out perform a $600 card. Every one knows that since 9700pro came out, Ati has beaten ALL of Nvidia's cards no matter what, and that card is 6months old.

heres some proof of the recent 5600 ultra vs the 9600. notice the 9600 only has 128mb of ram.
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/...0u/index.x?pg=5
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/...u/index.x?pg=13

Not to mention the 9600 beating the 5900:)

quote:

Originally posted by TheDemon heres some proof of the recent 5600 ultra vs the 9600. notice the 9600 only has 128mb of ram. http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/...0u/index.x?pg=5 http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/...u/index.x?pg=13

Not to mention 9600 beating the 5900 Ultra

9600 Pro cheap card, see 9500 PRO smoke it. ATI is tricking its customers.

look @ the benchmark graphs, ignore the text.

5900 ULTRA beats 9800 PRO in every test

best FX drivers: 44.65

Image quality test

Image quality test #2

pricewise, 5900FX is cheaper than 9800Pro

Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA http://ixbt.com/video2/r9600pro.shtml look @ the benchmark graphs, ignore the text.

So what does this have to do with the 9600 beating the 5900? All I see his giberish with 9600 pro comparing with the 5600.. And I'm guessing they tweaked it using a program... Cuz the picture says a lot. Maybe you should look on official sources that have a universal language. To me... you speaking in english and giving us a russian site. Tells a lot that your hiding something. Keep it coming.. I want to see more sources because we gave you like more then 10 sources and you understood that. And even though its correct scores that comparison was used on a 3dmark 2001 benchmark.. This is 2003.. and plus back then nvidia had their cheat drivers going to bypass certain things on the 3dmark to make it look better. Your proof is false.. I suggest you get with the times and show us whats now instead of the past which has been proven wrong by a lot of people.

quote:

Originally posted by AZCA 5900 ULTRA beats 9800 PRO in every test best FX drivers: 44.65 Image quality test Image quality test #2 pricewise, 5900FX is cheaper than 9800Pro Good luck.

You must be the stupidest person I ever met.. You cannot compare old benchmarks to the new one.. Man you really need to get out of that rock your living in. Aquamark is now the official benchmark because nvidia cheated on the 3d mark tests!!! DO SOME NOW RESEARCH!! NOT PAST RESEARCH!!

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