Printable View
That's multi Chip ;) not multi-card
And SimFusion have there own achitecture for deploying rendering farms
using multiple cards, any dual card system is not a ATI solution.
don't get fooled by the web babble ;)
And for info the X800 architechture can reportedly by ATI support 256 CPU's
and 1Gb of memory however they only have a 1 board multichip solution any
extension of that would be third party design.
being a fanboy is only gonna leave you settling for second best hardware because your pride will be hurt
but by the time you buy a second 6600 for less than you originally paid for your first 6600, the 6800 will be a lot cheaper as well. i think perkam is right there, you can probabaly sell your used 6600 and add just as much as you would pay for a second cheap 6600 and have enough to buy a 6800gt by that time, or even a newer and faster card!Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeMiester
so i think sli is really not improving the mainstream at all but creating an new "super ultra high" end market segment even above the 6800UE and x800xt-pe cards that already for the ultra high performence segment.
and PMM, they do have multicard designs, its not atis design but their custom pcb, but i dont think they wouldnt help or sell their design knowledge to ati if they asked.
http://xtremesystems.org/forums/atta...chmentid=13886
lmao, that looks rediculous. I think ATI is going to start falling behind again. I can picture them not doing anything to compete, or thinking it's not a big deal. Reminds me of intel.
My post does say that ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Those quad 9700 pros are nice though :drool:
Edit... those quad 9700 pro's are Multi-board in the fact its 2 PCB they
don't require 2 AGP/PCI slots, i'm unsure without finding out the facts
but when they use more than 2 quad's there usings a multiple CPU system
that handles each... could be wrong though so don't quote me on it :)
Only problem with that is getting the data too the cards. With SLI you double the cards and the bandwidth. That's only thing a single card can't do, give you double the bandwidth. One thing I'm really interested in if anyone has benched 3DLabs new Realism cards. The 800 looks like it could seriously kick Geforce 6800 Ultra's ass. Since they also support Direct3D, you can use them in all games too. Why I bring them up is because in their multi GPU design they have one only chip that processes verticies, and all the GPUs just process pixels. All it really does is add more pixel pipes. This makes sense, because you can only send so much data through the AGP, which is going to limit the number of verticies you can process, so if a single vertex processor can saturate that amount, then there is no need for more until you get more bandwidth available (like PCIe).
DudeMiester, they dont both run with pciE 16x, one runs at 12x and the other at 4x ,or they both run at 8x from what ive heard.
agp bandwith is a joke when it comes to data, we dont even need agp2x speed for current games, agpx2 4x and 8x are only faster because they include extra pins and new commands, the bandwidth doesnt matter at all afaik.
the only thing we can max out the bandwidth would be by storing textures in the system memory... and thats kinda useless, i think only halo partially does that as its a bad port from a console to pc.
and PMM, i think they use one agp and one pci 64bit slot... but im not sure.
and their big servers are based on the same system, a dual cpu mobo with a 4way videocard, but they use several of those in a small cluster i think. im not sure, but i think i read that some months back when i found a pic of that card ans spend hours to find more ifnos about it :D
one of this card costs 1.2 million $ i think... something like that :lol:
maybe it was "only" 120.000$, but anyways, it was a huuuge amount of money.
yep bandwidth is overrated. AGP vs. PCI-E. There gonna come out about the same. Altho i'm not sure if we could live with AGP 2x...4x to 8x offered little to no improvment in preformance. Same with PCI-E. I never could understand this, why not make a board with 2 AGP slots. just make them both 4x. Why would that have been no hard?
Cool i'll have one :) ... checks credit card hmmmmm dratQuote:
Originally Posted by saaya
PMM goes off to rob a bank :D
edit... ponders if they consider lending oppainter one ;) to review & test.
jjcom, i once saw an article where a guy compared different cards running at agp1x (forced) agp2x agp4x and agp8x and there was a 0.1% difference betwen agp 8x and 4x and a 5% or less difference between 8x and 1x.
people always confuse agp rates with the agp standards.
there is agp 1.0, agp 2.0 and agp 3.0 each of them offers new functions and commands that slightly speed up the cards and are making up the biggest part of the increasements when going from one agp speed to another.
agp 3.3v signal voltage 1.0 1x/2x
agp 2.5v signal voltage 2.0 2x/4x
agp 1.8v signal voltage 3.0 4x/8x
and i think you can force agp2x or even agp1x on agp 2.0 and agp 3.0 slots by insulating some pins :) lostcircuits also wrote an article about it once iirc, i chatted with michael schuette who now works for ocz about this, and i think you can force and agp 3.0 slot to run 1x speed but with all the enhancements of agp 3.0. and the difference was very very small iirc.
pmm, those cards only work in server boards with an agp pro slot and pci 64bit slots :D
and the drivers only work under opengl and probably only support the flight simulations they are used for and wont let you run doom3 ... :D
ok I didn't know just how little AGP 1x to 8x was going to affect things. cool...then it would be intersting to see what the point of PCI-E 16x was....
First, I dont think it looks ridiculous...
http://xtremesystems.org/forums/atta...chmentid=13886
...I think it looks like Optimus Prime in Green :p:
Thats an excellent point saaya and I can see how you can get confused DudeMeister because even Nvidia acknowledges that its 2x PCIe 8x not really 2x PCIe 16x like they advertise on the dual PCIe boards including Nforce 4. The thing is though that, depending upon setup, you may be able to run one card with 16x and then when you upgrade, it divides the bandwidth to 8x each - which may or may not affect fps in future games.Quote:
DudeMiester, they dont both run with pciE 16x, one runs at 12x and the other at 4x ,or they both run at 8x from what ive heard.
Not quite so:Quote:
one of this card costs 1.2 million $ i think... something like that
Wildcat Realizm 800 640MB PCI-E 2xDVI-I Retail
Which translates roughly into US$2600 - about the cost of a well made Fx-53 rig with an X800 XT :cool:
Thing is though, since Nvidia has assumed that consumers are willing to pay $1000 for two 6800Us, I think an ATI solution (dual gpu, dual vpu, whatever) will be costing the same for, perhaps, one card. Cool thing would be though, that if someone tries to steal it, you could whack him unconscious with it. :p: :p:
i heared both ati and nvidia want to use the main system memory to store textures in it. this can give high end cards a boost of maybe 1-5% and it means that you can sell super cheap low end cards with almost no video memory (wich makes a big part of the costs of those cards) and then let them use the system memory... a bit like an add in "integrated graphics" card that uses the system memory as framebuffer like integrated graphics chipsets.
furthermore pciE lets you run multiple graphics cards, its bandwidth is bi-directional wich means the up and down bandwidth are now the same, i think with agp thats not the case.
and pciE means less room and pins/traces for the same speed, this means less traces/pins on the boards=cheaper to manufacture :)
and pciE slots can now provide up to 60W to videocards through the graphics slot compared to 45W(?) for agp slots wich means cards dont need an extra power plug. this means less traces on videocards=cheaper.
and about that agp 1x vs agp8x, im not 100% about it... hmmm i will look for the article on lostcircuits :D
Uh huh...Saaya: dont you have anything better to do than answer 5sec after a post :)
Ive waited days before getting answer on other forums. Sheesh
For the best though. ANyway, can you say without a doubt that future GPU configurations will be cheaper than today's even if they use system memory to store textures - I certainly wouldnt put any money on that.
here, i was wrong!
its 3.3v 1.5v and 0.8v and not 3.3v 12.5v and 1.8v :D
and you can actually run agp1x with agp 2.0 but not even agp2.0 with an agp3.0 slot/board/card
http://www.lostcircuits.com/video/asus_v9280s/2.shtml
theres a 1% difference between agp 3.0 agp8x and agp4x and another 1-2% between agp 3.0 and agp2.0
i think the "4200" is the 4200 agp 2.0 forced to agp1x speed wich shows an impact of 3-50% in performence!
i cant imagine that its the limit of the bandwidth for data though, i think ut2003 and specviewperf both store textures in the system memory and also use the new instructions in agp3.0 wich explains the big difference between agp2.0 and agp3.0.
in the end he says himselfso i think if we had the bandwidth of agp1x and the instructions of agp8x (=agp3.0) it would work with all current games just fine and would have no big performence impact :)Quote:
In most D3D applications, therefore, AGP2X still suffices
:stick: dude, wth is your problem? i wasnt sure about what i said so i posted again and DID SOME RESEARCH because i dont want to tell anybody some BS and give anybody wrong infos LIKE YOU DID ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
i never said they would be cheaper to buy, they will be cheaper for ati and nvidia=more money for them... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Thats fine but my question is: What effect would running those games that use agp8x instructions have on a agp 2.0 slot ???Quote:
so i think if we had the bandwidth of agp1x and the instructions of agp8x (=agp3.0) it would work with all current games just fine and would have no big performence impact
And if there is a difference, then would there be a difference between running a PCIe card (ATI or Nvidia) at 8x or 16x irrespective of whether or not they are two slots or one?
Perkam
There will most likeley be no performance gain in running pci e over agp. There is currently no bandwidth limitations. So it's not like your going to lsoe performance by running to sli cards at 8x rather than 16x. And in perkams defense saaya I don't think he was trying to insult you, I think he was just joking around, you seemed a little po'd in ur response.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about the ones in the pic posted i.e. the quad 9700 pro card Evans and Sutherland do that our posts talked about ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
My 9700 is pretty cheap ot OC. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by blinky
I dont see what the point of SLI on these cards is when the 9500/9700 series cards play all current games at smooth rates.
we're getting an incredle gap between real performance and benchmark performance.
Thx, but that matter has been resolved.Quote:
And in perkams defense saaya I don't think he was trying to insult you, I think he was just joking around, you seemed a little po'd in ur response.
Oh, couldnt find a link on google for that - go figure.Quote:
I'm pretty sure he was talking about the ones in the pic posted i.e. the quad 9700 pro card Evans and Sutherland do that our posts talked about
Indeed the real gap lies between the performance we need (60 fps in most games) and the performance we want and I guess the difference is not an issue here at xs where, as I learned a few days ago, SPEED IS KING. :p:Quote:
we're getting an incredle gap between real performance and benchmark performance.
Its interesting to see that Nvidia did NOT release gaming benchmarks along with its 3dmark05 scores and I believe that might an issue. I dont think games can utilize SLI completely as of yet (1000 fps instead of 500 in Quake3 , etc) and so right now, SLI may not be worth the cost. And even if Nvidia gets partners for its SLI program (The way its meant to be doubled ?? :) ) I dont think Nvidia will be able to make the advances in market share that it has been losing to ATi over the past few years, in just a short period of time.
Nvidia did release gaming benchmarks did you not see the doom 3 and halo benches? I believe I also saw ones elseware for other games, tho I can't remember where.
doom 3 and halo are, again, TWIMTBP games and do not reflect REAL performance increases in games like hl2, ut2004, and more
In short, Nvidia can introduce patches for Doom 3 and Halo because of its partner relationship with those developers for SLI tweaks but cannnot do the same as easily with other games.
I completely agree with this....and I think ATI cards still the better for real game performance and overall use like 2d application...Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
single card ATI solution to SLI's benchmarks
dual R520 cores on a single PCB, PCIx16 interface, + one dual DD cascade :slobber:
***slaps face*** wakes up from dream :::looks at 2yr old 9700pro and I sigh::::
Drooling Profusely - Getting Photoshop ready for dual core r520 mockup :)Quote:
dual R520 cores on a single PCB
Why dont they just make vid cards like motherboards sell the customer a PCB and have them buy special ram / gpu to plug into slots on the vid card PCB that would be the best and would allow for people with little money and rich people to build the card that suits their needs the best. Purely a theory I have no idea how/if this could ever be done, just think it would be neat
we already select our own aftermarket fans for the vid cards and they cost us enough money over the stock price. Imagine putting seperate ram and GPUs on two SLI boards :)
it would be nice if companies actually made use of the pci-e bandwidth by making a software sli solution
How would that add to the hardware solution ??Quote:
a software sli solution
it doesnt...but the cards that dont use the hardware solution...Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
1. read the article on losticrcuit wich shows just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
2. the bandwidth is unimportant as the article shows, thats why there probably wont be a difference between pciE 8x and 16x.
had the same idear as well a long time ago :DQuote:
Originally Posted by stayfrosty
the problem is that each new generation of videocards includes brand new features and every second generation already has a new type of memory. so the innovation speed is much much higher than for cpus and mainboards... but i still agree, such a solution would be nice and i DO think it would actually work!
at least they should sell cards without memory and you can then pick the memory chips you want and stick them onto the pcb like in a tiny cpu socket :D
old cards actually had the option to upgrade the memory like this! :D
saaya..going back to you saying how sli isn't very practicle for Middle endusers, I think its still a very good option, say I get the 6800 rite now, its half the price of the 6800ultra, in a year, for prob 200 you can get it, and the ultra will still be at 400, pllust.2 6800 will def surpass the 6800ultra..by a lot im sure
See, even if you seel the 6800 it still won?t be enough for the 6800ultra
no, but it will put you $150-200 towards the 6800U which you could add to the $200 you would spend getting the 6800U to make $350-400 which should get you a 6800U..
Later that could be sold for $200-250 and you could get whatevers next for only ~200-300 depending on when you upgrade etc.
Agree with stevil...
SLI is ok.. But its just a bit... You know...
2x6800U@480/1340 should do like 12-13k with a good CPU in 05 ;)
But the question is... Do they OC as good??? And can they work at the same speeds as 1 card??
4x ram work worse than 2x... So who knows???
looking at the price of the 9800pro and the 9600pro...the 9800pro was for a long time at 400..the 9600pro could be bought for 160 at the same time
the 6800 will still be much less than the ultra, plus, just like you said if you did sell it for 150, and kept the 200, im pretty sure the 6800ultra will still be at 400, you'll still be short
$50 isnt too much more. Just skip the movies or whatever a couple times ;)
On the point of running out of card memory and going to main memory over the PCI express bus :-
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...JsX3BhZ2U9NA==
check out the diagram. The 6600GT has 128MB of RAM on board but also has a 128 bit bus. At 1024x768 in 05 it does 65% of the score of the 6800GT but with 4xAA and 8xAF it does 33% of the score.
Now is this because it has run out of memory and going over the PCI-e bus or because the 128bit bandwidth becomes a limitation to the onboard memory. I get a feeling it is the latter, but I am not sure.
Why this is interesting is because of
http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/kl.asp?bn=10488
Gainward are doing a 6600GT with 1.6ns memory rather than 2ns, but MSI are doing 256MB of standard speed ram on the card .. which would be best?
If you are thinking of doing SLi on 6600GT this is even more of an issue because although each gpu only works on say half the screen the whole screen has to fit into each cards memory ( it is not split ) so you do not want to be limited by either the speed or quantity of RAM.
I'd reall like to see the Gainward "Goes Like Hell" :rolleyes: and MSI tested in SLi configuration to see what is most important.
Regards
Andy
overclock the memory of the card and see what % performance increase vs. clock you get.
second overclock the agp bus a couple mhz to see if performance rises.
third bump the fsb by one or two and see what happens..
or just test a 128/128 vs a 128/256 card clock/clock :D
I believe in one of the articles about AGP vs PCIe they ran a test which pushed a massive ammount of textures through the interface, and the PCIe performed 60% better, although it was synthetic it does represent a huge increase in bandwdith.
This bandwidth is unimportant in games because of the nature of games, however, in professional use such as high definition editing, where large textures and huge ammounts of information are going across the system bus, you really have no choice BUT pcie if you want to be productive
yeah, for example for HDTV at high resolutions... i still dont get what the hdtv hype is all about... tv at a higher resolution... so? im not wathcing tv and i dont think any of the current tv would look better with a higher resolution... so you can see the pimples on peoples faces in talk shows? :p:
and andi, its def the frame buffer limiting! aa and af need a lot of extra frame buffer and a lot of extra frame buffer bandwidth!
I give you, my prototype!
http://dac.liquidm3dia.com/X800dual.jpg
in person, it looks like a Sapphire X800Pro Toxic, but it is really my dual core single chip prototyle!
*insert Dr. Evil laugh here*
*wakes up from dream* whoah, what happened? :stick:
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
HDTV is your friend! I love watching dvd's upscaled to 1080i or 720p. If you think a dvd looks great on your progressive dvd player then you have to check out a pc that can pipe out those resolutions, you'll sell the dvd player :D
I would hope you don't completely agree with that. For one, UT2004 is also a TWIMTBP game... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Massive
Secondly, it is ATi that is now under scrutiny in multiple areas for IQ issues. Also noted is the 1000+ gain for R420 that doesn't appear to noticably benefit more than one benchmark. NV on the other hand hasn't bothered to optimize for 05' and is now faster than ATi on the only available Source-based game (CS: Source). Of the three most graphically demanding games out (D3, CS:S, FarCry 1.2), NV takes two and ties the third. :stick:
Ironic that ATi has become the synthetic queen. And now SLi threatens that, because most of us can grasp that a cascade usually costs more than $450 and an immense overclock might or might not achieve a 170% performance increase (SLi average).
[/provocation]
ATI is faster than nVidia in FarCry (1.2 using 2.0b path).
And let's assume that nVidia is faster at 2 of those 3 games,
ATI is faster in all other games :)
- Nvidia is indeed faster in Doom3 _the game_, but when in comes to the engine itself, results can be very different; infact, D3's engine supports OpenGL2.0 features.
- Crytek said that the next Farcry is going to have full support in 3DC, TrueForm, Hyper-Z and SM2.0B. Also it was simply proven that you can't add SM3.0 support to a game that's already out, not like sm2.0b.
- We must wait for HL2 benchmarks before we can decide who is the king in the Source engine. (And I dont mean HL1:S and DOD:S).
But when it comes to SLI, ATI is simply :bananal:
That depends on the site you view. On settings 99% of the people with these cards use, NV is quicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariachi
I dont even want to start on that bit of logic.Quote:
And let's assume that nVidia is faster at 2 of those 3 games,
ATI is faster in all other games :)
How could the results be different? There is only one game with the DOOM 3 engine. Its called... DOOM 3. NVidia is faster in DOOM 3. Think about this.Quote:
- Nvidia is indeed faster in Doom3 _the game_, but when in comes to the engine itself, results can be very different; infact, D3's engine supports OpenGL2.0 features.
You just made 3/4 of that up. The changelog is Here. At least you got SM2.0B right. Also, developers can add any shader model they please.Quote:
- Crytek said that the next Farcry is going to have full support in 3DC, TrueForm, Hyper-Z and SM2.0B. Also it was simply proven that you can't add SM3.0 support to a game that's already out, not like sm2.0b.
It is a well known fact that ATi paid Valve just over six million dollars for that title. If ATi didn't win, someone would get shot.Quote:
- We must wait for HL2 benchmarks before we can decide who is the king in the Source engine. (And I dont mean HL1:S and DOD:S).
Considering Joe Average has no idea what the hell SLi means, and will most likely end up with a 6200 inside his brand new Dell, I'll have to disagree.Quote:
But when it comes to SLI, ATI is simply :bananal:
What games do you mean by 'all other games?' Nvidia wins anything that is opengl, ATI sucks at opengl. So that takes all quake3 engine based games. I'm not sure about UT2KX, but I don't even consider that a good benchmark as it's very good benchmark, nothings bad with it, but I never liked the engine to begin with, it seems very limited to me. And The fps are so high, scores are often limited by the cpu anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariachi
What does opengl 2.0 have to do with ATI? Maybe I'm missing something and ati has really good opengl 2.0 support and crappy 1.1 support (isn't that what were at now?) but nvidia has always been known to have a huge leads in opengl. And what do you mean by 'the game itself' like.. what? 6800's favor the level design or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariachi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariachi
Quote:
Originally Posted by changelog
Ok, an engine is an engine, there is no diff. in the cs:s than HL2 as far as a benchmark, they use the same engine, they will have very similar results. If you want to see how HL2 runs why not run the benchmark included with cs:s? That is the HL2 benchmark. the 6800's win (6800gt sometimes even did better than the xt as I recall) up untill you turn on AA and AF at 1600x1200 and then the x800's fair better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariachi
Not completely true and im not even gonna provide examples because your statement is WAY too broad: ATI doesnt suck at all opengl games and secondly - lets make sure we're not using the word "suck" when referring to an X800XT/X800Pro :eek:Quote:
Nvidia wins anything that is opengl, ATI sucks at opengl.
Its actually quite true, Doom 3 is the biggest example of Nvidia's marketing and it has flowed huge abounts of cash into John Carmack's one venture. And please please PLEASE lets not forget about the 10s of millions of dollars Nvidia has given developers for TWIMTBP games - seriously, you're criticizing ATI for HL2 Sheesh - you barely see an ATi logo when running CS:Source or HL2Quote:
I dont even want to start on that bit of logic.
Too often gamers and media alike pick choose what information they want to hear and go with it. Doom 3 may run better on Nvidia but on in framerates and FPS isnt everything, John Carmack said himself: "Carmack said in the HardOCP article that there's more to consider than just frame rate. The frame rate difference even today is so minor, it's impossible to tell without diagnostic tools - ie: the end user experience isn't affected. And with ATI you get full-precision enabled all the time - we don't do PP (on R3XX and R4XX) like some of our competitors."Quote:
Nvidia is indeed faster in Doom3 _the game_, but when in comes to the engine itself, results can be very different
That PP by the way is Partial Precision, which Nvidia has used many times to skew its performance vs ATI.
Same thing happened with most games in the X700XT previews and I prefer the trend of higher performance at higher resolutions because, isnt that where we're coming from all this time ??Quote:
the 6800's win (6800gt sometimes even did better than the xt as I recall) up untill you turn on AA and AF at 1600x1200 and then the x800's fair better.
Though yes, I must agree krybtops, Nvidia does a better job of marketing its tweaking its cards for benchies than ATI, but ATI rocks as OCING !!! :D
Perkam
At higher resolutions (1600x1200) the 6800's won, not untill you turn on af and aa did the x800's have a lead is what I'm saying. And yeah the x800's are better at overclocking, but that is mainly because the x800's are really just 97/9800's with more pipes and a higher clock. Same exact architecture. While nvidia has a brand new design, you shoudl be seeing better overclocks with the 6900's hopefully. And I'm wondering if ATI will even beable to have a x900 or if they will have to go to the r520, because I heard that they were close to their yields with the x800xt. But then I heard that the yields were 700 core clock somewhere else, and that the 6800's didn't have much higher yields. So there's really no way to tell. 6800gt I think is a far better choice than the x800 pro tho, bad decision on ati's part to give it onnly 12 pipesQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
ATI has done lots of tweaking their cards for 05 and from what I've heard nvidia hasn't done anything. I've had lots of problems with almost every driver release from ati since the 3.7's and lately it's really begun to piss me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
thats why i have my 20" monitor right next to my bed ;) thats where i watch all the movies :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PnoT
i dont need hdtv... not at all... :P
good movies are good movies, be it with 240x480 res or 1600x1200 res... only the crappy hollywood action smash hits look better with a higher res, but i really dont like that kind of movies that much...
they DO suck in all opengl games dude...Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
yes an x800 doesnt suck, but in some opengl games its more or less as fast as a ti4200...
That is irrelevant, thats like saying a good game is a good game at any resolution. Fancy playing Doom3 at 640x480 ??? :D :DQuote:
good movies are good movies, be it with 240x480 res or 1600x1200 res... only the crappy hollywood action smash hits look better with a higher res, but i really dont like that kind of movies that much...
Driver, drivers, drivers...If the prime principle in real estate is location, location, location, then indeed, the most important thing in graphics development are drivers. But thats basically where the problem lies, Im sure if Nvidia had ATI hardware technology with its Forceware drivers, it would be a whole different story.Quote:
they DO suck in all opengl games dude...
yes an x800 doesnt suck, but in some opengl games its more or less as fast as a ti4200...
Dont tell me that the X800 pro sucks and has the same perf as a ti4200 (he should be showing up soon after this) because they are generations apart and, as you may know, many able to OC to XT !!! :D :D :D
Just because you don't want it to, dosn't mean that it dosn't because in fact it does. I havn't seen any benches showing this, but I know that saaya looks at benches and comes here and tells us what he sees, while you come here and say 'no it dosn't because x800 pro's can be oc'd to x800 xt's'.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Yes, I know that and I respect it but I dont hold it against anybody that he does.Quote:
I know that saaya looks at benches and comes here and tells us what he sees
You have no idea how much steam I can burn on that baseless generalization of my posts. I'm probably one of the only ppl who have had that much trouble trying to prove myself right off the bat after joining XS. But I cant stop what other ppl think of my posts. And frankly, if you dont like them or want to believe them, then I cant help it.Quote:
while you come here and say 'no it dosn't because x800 pro's can be oc'd to x800 xt's
Just dont expect me to go out and buy a Geforce 4 4200/4600 etc if I have the option of getting an X800 PRO. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Thats not what were saying at all. An x800 kicks a 4200's ass. But everyone knows that ati 'sucks' at opengl. In some benches (according to saaya, I havn't seen any, but I havn't looked, and I trust him) the 4200 performs just as good or better than an x800. He stated that and to counter what he said you reply basically saying, 'no, your wrong, a x800 is so much better than a 4200 and it can be overclocked to a xt'. You completely avoid the point. We are not trying to say x800's are bad, they are very good cards. I personally don't see a reason to get a x800 pro over a gt unless it can be modded into an xt though do to the lack of the 4 pipelines but they are all very good cards. However in every opengl game I've seen, any nvidia card woops the competing ati card. Can you prove me otherwise?
Well, a good game is a good game reguardless of resolution or many other factors.. thats what makes it a "good game" !!!!Quote:
thats like saying a good game is a good game at any resolution
A GF4 Ti will not even remotely come close to an X800 Pro in Windows OGL benches. Neither will an FX5950.
The one and only instance I can think of where a GF4 can beat an X800 card with OGL is in Linux, and not many people here use that for a Gaming OS.
X800 Pro is a fine card. So is an X800XT. Theyre untouchable for synthetic benchmarks, and while sure you dont 'play' them, its fun as hell to compete. I mean XS wouldn't exist if that werent true.
Its just that in real games, the picture is closer.
Blind trust can be a dangerous thing. :D :DQuote:
(according to saaya, I havn't seen any, but I havn't looked, and I trust him)
As for the Gf4 Ti, when did thread start becoming more about ATI's opengl performance and less about Nvidia's SLI :confused:
Perkam
yeah, ur right. Thats why I stated that, so I wouldn't sound foolish if I was proved wrong. But I know that somewhere there is something he looked at to make him think that, and ur just saying he is wrong, without proof as to why, and no offense but based on your other claims, you often don't have anything to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
But.. yeah sorry for getting on you. Welcome to xtremesystems. I guess I'm new as well tho, so... I hope I'm welcome as well lol.
And yeah, not sure how we got off on the topic of the ti 4200. Somehow related... somewhere.. back there.... :confused:
your right Perkam lets get back to the topic and not endless fighting over something has NOTHING to do with the topic
psh i leave the gaming to the gamers, benching and online poker for me :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hallowed
Hmmm....usually Saaya's the one with the welcome wagon. I guess here goes:Quote:
I hope I'm welcome as well lol.
WELCOME TO XS !!! :D :D :D (Where if you dont know what 2-2-2-5 and TCCD stands for, YOU"RE KICKED OUT WITHIN 24 HOURS !!! ) - No just kidding :D ...and yes you're welcome :banana:
Anyway, getting back to SLI... Is there any reason to believe that SLI will run better on the 775 platform because of Intel's DDR2 support or will there be no difference ??
I dont think there will be a diff I mean current agp cards are the same so no reason for PCI-e to be different
For gaming I would buy an X800XT PE at present if I had loads of money because I tend to play Far Cry. However I will play RTCW2 or SOF4 if these come out and so maybe then I would like a nice nvidia. I dont think nvidia or Ati suck at present you just have to get the card which suits which games you are more likely to play. At present my 6800nu is OK.
Anyhow getting back to the point on whether SLI will run better on 775 or AMD chipsets. To be honest perkham I think the question might be more along the lines of which cpu will be able to keep up and therefore the new FX55 looks to be a lot better than the Intel ones. The Intel Prescott with 2MB L2 cache and 1066 MHz FSB looks like it might be good, but people are saying Q2 2005 now .... Father Christmas will not wait that long to deliver !
Another of my worries on SLi is that the 6600GT will not have enough memory bandwidth or amount of memory to work well in an SLi configuration. I bet all of nvidia's press review samples are the 6800 series. Perhaps rather than 80% improvement for 6800 there is only a 40% improvement for 6600GT and that at lower resolutions. I get the feeling that 2 6600GT's in SLI mode bought by someone to be faster than a single 6800 will be more like wishful thinking, especially in higher resolutions and AA/AF.
But I maybe wrong.
Regards
Andy
yet thats what you expect from people as your not posting any facts or links to back up your claims... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Mariachi said that doom3 may run good on ati cards, but other opengl games may not (iirc) thats where the driver quality discussion started and i said that atis opengl driver quality sux.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
i mixed up the linux opengl results ive seen with another article i read. yet my point stays the same, ati drivers still have bad opengl support. ati even admits it themselves and promised they would spend more time on making a good opengl driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
more like "where you get kicked out within 24 hours if you dont know anything but instead of asking keep posting BS and telling people tccd runs at 280mhz 2-2-2 with enough vdimm" ;)
interesting question... but i dont see a reason why it should run faster on an intel plattform just because it uses other system memory...Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
One 6600GT is similar (but not quite there) to a 6800. non-GT non-Ultra. SO a dual 6600GT would be faster than a 6800. Not Ultra and GT I'm not sure there. I would guess that a dual 6600GT would out preform a single 6800GT. But I could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakelwe
I suspect that a SLI pair of 6600GTs may outperform a 6800GT in some benchies but for any hi res benchies or games when AA is enabled the 128mb per card will become a limiting factor since I'm pretty sure both cards would need to have all textures for the scene loaded.
10k broken now!
nVidia SLI
http://overklokking.no/pressemelding...i_3dmark05.jpg
http://img97.exs.cx/img97/7817/Clipboard06.th.jpg
SLI ....
oh my god...that's not for me....
why.....???/
coz that's crazy thing about money....!!!!
The capabilities of
Check the date bro. Forum ettiquette: Don't bump a a half year old thread without even a trace of purpose.
:moon: :p:
Endo keeps doing it. :rolleyes: