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