Printable View
I'll agree with that for the most part, except for your last comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Periander6
See this article:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3151&p=10
Quote:
Scaling looks pretty good from the Radeon HD 3850, however it's still not as good as what NVIDIA is able to achieve with the 8800 GT. NVIDIA consistently achieves about 11% better scaling from one to two GPUs than AMD.
Its comparing the 3850 to the 8800GT a little like comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be to use two 3870s, which from what I've seen just on this forum, the 3870 in crossfire out performs the 8800GT in SLI. Have to be impressed with these scores.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...166334&page=11
I could be wrong. I was relying on the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
http://www.expreview.com/review/2007...2778d7055.html
which is more extensive than the Anand testing and seems to show the CFed 3870s more competitive against the SLI GTs than the single card comparison. Drivers and i780 could certainly change that though.
That was going by scaling percentage, NOT performance percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilDoc
Technically, dual 3850's should "scale" more from single to double than 3870's as generally percentage increase for lower end cards is almost always higher.
Also, have we still not learned that 3dmark scores don't always translate into gaming performance? :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
Certainly, just look at the graphs in this thread and from what I can see the 3870 also performs in games better in crossfire than the GT does in SLI. But the sarcasm was fun regardless.
AA8x is faster on 3870. =>Quote:
Originally Posted by Periander6
AA8xAF16x
3870>8800GT ;)
The Anand comparison is worthless, with Catalyst 7.10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSamurai
p5e=maximus formula , it even says so under the "p5e" sticker on the pcb
Now that doesn't make any sense. The 8800U somehow becomes 20fps faster when going from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050? And there is no way that the GTS320 will be beating the GT512 in any benchmark. I have to question that review, those results don't look right at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by L7R
Attachment 67855
That motherboard.org review uses ATI's...Quote:
7.14 BETA drivers
i don't see a word about the IQ settings they used,
and
1600x1200 is not 1680x1050.
Btw according to motherboard.org:LOL! :ROTF:Quote:
The human eye cannot distinguish a noticeable difference between an 8800GT and the ATI 3870,
Poor info, poor writing. :(
More intresting performance comparisons...
Computerbase - updated article
If there was any flaw in 2900 AA or AF performance it's been magically (and completely) repaired. And 3800 improves that a little. ;)
Driver version or source thanks? :) Only if it's the latest beta I won't directly write "biased" all over it. I don't think it's possibly to fix it by drivers though but that would be nice. Too bad for ATI though if they've had to sell 2900XT this cheap only since they hadn't gotten out a decent driver in time...
Radeon 2600XT CF... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
It's now clear for me why reviews always omit 1680x1050 for 1600x1200. :rolleyes:
wait.... whats the difference between 1600x1200 vs 1680x1050?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
1600x1200 is 4:3, usually a CRT 21" monitor. I have it on both my T965 and T765 (a 19").
1680x1050 is 16:10 widescreen flatpanel.
All the charts are flawed in their design when you use a percentage from the original value.Quote:
Originally Posted by L7R
Try look at the real numbers instead. The AA issue is still there.
That 2600XT score is weird so im not sure i trust that review, but if true i got lucky that i picked the hd3870. Why would the 8800 series have such trouble displaying content at 1680x1050 though?
Well almost all 20'-22' TFT monitors have a native resolution of 1680x1050. Thats currently a rapidly growing market and i really think reviewers really need to give it more attention. On the other hand 1920 and above resolutions are quite rare still and flat panel monitors that can display them cost $600+ so they are not going to become mainstream anytime soon.
Umm.. i think 1920 x 1200 is the rapidly growing market. 24" widescreen is becoming affordable. IIyama 24" Wide ProLite B2403WS-B1, Zwart, DVI-D/HDMI/D-sub, 2000:1, 3ms € 413,00 but €399,- already in shops in my town. If i were to switch to a flatpanel right now it would be that one.
So? I wasn't directly comparing the two - I was giving an example from possibly a more legitimate source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
And it doesn't explain how motherboard.org managed to gain 20fps when going from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050, or how the GTS320 manages to beat the GT512.
Hey i finally got my 3870.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/mkk25/
Anyone want any tests done?
My Envision E9XX (something.... :p: ) is a 19in and runs 1600x1200 beautifully.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild