compared with Intel integrated graphicsQuote:
Originally Posted by postumus
Printable View
compared with Intel integrated graphicsQuote:
Originally Posted by postumus
Are you guys sure it was 600*800? The FPS numbers seem a bit low for that...
That's what it says yes. And hey, just because you guys don't doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. Ok maybe it does. Yeah, it does.
I couldn't personally care less about the little fights between the two companies and how immoral the things they do are. I'm a consumer and I want performance, not a free ticket to a boxing match between AMD and nVidia.
Not forgetting things are we, cache difference perhaps ?
Also If nvidia really does perform better with quads , why didnt review add an AMD system or two?
Dubious review esp after the hyped 180. seris from Nvidia.
Cache diference does not result in 20+% difference mate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gener_AL (UK)
Let me get this straight.
Your saying that nvidia drivers are better optomize for cache then??
:rofl:
tell that to allendale :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Wow! Now AMD just needs to work on driver stability.
I haven't played around with ATI since I got this 8800GTS but do you really have to download specific drivers for certain games?
Not in that sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Though, they have been pushing out "Beta hotfixes" for newer games in-between their monthly driver cycle.
This news is kinda bittersweet. AMD hasn't been looking towards the future, while nvidia has.:down: However, if this is true, then there could be some significant performance increases. :up:
Okay so just so I get this. Say driver 9.02 came out Jan 1, Game: Shoot a Fanboy came on Jan 15th. So since ATI doesn't have this game in it's 9.02 they will release a hotfix.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelCain
But! say you didn't download the 9.02 driver but download drivers 9.03 that come out say Feb 1st, then buy Shoot a Fanboy after Feb 1st you wont need the hotfix. That hotfix will be included in the new 9.02 driver correct?
that would be a nice game to play :)
Yep, the hotfix is added to the next catalyst version.
lets not overlook the differences between the proccessors
thats all i was suggesting.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by brandinb
May i point you here to read a little more http://www.nordichardware.com/Review...&skrivelse=514
Yep, pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Though, the problem with ATI's driver release schedule is that it incures some MAJOR shortfalls.
Namely the small amount of improvement, since by releasing it monthly, there is little time to actually try to work out issues, beef up performance.
Secondly, the issue that they often break fixes applied a few months prior.
Anyhow, back on topic :p::
@Gener_AL (UK), this wouldn't be a very sound stratagy, as then each time a new uarch became king, they would need to dig deep into the driver to change it to perform well on the new uarch.
ATI/nvidia are much better off trying to keep cache and specific uarch out of the equation.
Thats not what i was sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by ColonelCain
All i was merely pointing out that the dual has 1/2 the cache of the quad.
the link i posted above points out a 20% increase.
OK, before I post this I want to say that this has nothing to do with either nVidia or ATI except that they both use drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Yes and No is the answer. I have found that certain drivers tend to perform better with certain games, and they don't always get better with later releases....sometimes they get worse. That goes for both ATI and nVidia. I don't know whether it's the fixes, or just the driver code is more efficient for certain titles. This is even more glaring with flight simulators. Flight simulators tend to be very finicky about things like that.
I have used ATI and nVidia both through the years, and tend to keep multiple drivers on storage for drivers switches when I change titles. I like to get max performance. It doesn't take that long and for PC stuff I do alot of setup before flying/gaming anyway. I tend to shut down all background stuff, clean up the HDD, bump up the Video clocks, and basically just put the machine into a "gaming mode" where it's setup to game.
I have not found one driver yet that will do it all.
Why is this? With bragging right with the fastest card on the planet ect ect wouldn't performance sort of be a priority?Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelCain
I'm pretty sure that ATI does this for WHQL cert. purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Yeah, you would think that performance would be a top priority. That, and overall compatibility.
IMO, ATI really needs to change up their release schedule. WHQL certification really isn't worth the sacrifices made on a montly release schedule.
what's wrong with monthly updates ?
There isn't enough time to make substantial positive progress in improving the driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
EDIT:
This basically sums up my stance on monthly releases: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3463&p=6
I know this is a bit off topic, but what this so called review completely neglects to mention or pay attention to is minimum frames per second.
With aa, and everything maxed on crysis with a 9800gx2 on an e7300 at 4ghz, my min fps was hitting 4-5.
With a q9450 my min fps didnt dip below 20 fps, and this was an apples to apples test.
What I'm dying to see is a benchmark that compares the overclocked E8500 vs the Q9650. I bet you the 8500 easily wins due to the speed difference.
too bad they didnt just opt to do true quads for 775 :( then I bet the Q9650 would do some damageQuote:
Originally Posted by askimo
Quote:
Originally Posted by fragmasterMax
:ROTF: Whoa! 4-5 slideshow FPS. I bet that was fun. heh
20, now that's getting better definitely. :up:
What did they average? Do you remember?