I highly doubt that will happen again, that was very embarrasing for ati for one, and for another, most likely either it was a joke by ati or whoever did was instantly fired the moment he/she was caught
Printable View
I highly doubt that will happen again, that was very embarrasing for ati for one, and for another, most likely either it was a joke by ati or whoever did was instantly fired the moment he/she was caught
512MB ATI HD 4870(RV770), 1GB GeForce 9800 GX2: Crysis ve 3DMark 2006 Testleri
http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_22869046/tm.htm
Fake :confused:
Fake
Looks Fake because the difference is very Big between both. And HD 4000 series is not that monster I think.
The 4870 GDDR5 should get around 12.5K in 3D 06 at stock, at least according to the specs (and not the fake numbers). As for performance, it should be able to equal the 8800 GT 512MB in the games in which the 3870 lagged behind.
We will also see larger performance gains from overclocking due to the greater number of shaders. Should be interesting, but not mindblowing.
Perkam
It is definately FAKE. Look at the cpu speed, 3 GHz. The 06 score is impossible at that cpu speed, no matter how fast the GPU is.
I am very certain that the 4870 will be better then the 8800 GT.
If Im currently getting 11500 in 3D mark 06, I doubt that the 4870 is only going to be 1000 points better.
Performance of a single 4870 is expected to be just below a 3870 X2, at least thats what a lot of people have been saying so far.
Don't you think you are underestimating it a bit perk? How is it that an architecture with virtually double the amount of features (shades, textures) etc, is supposed to become a mild update of its previous gen counterpart?Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
There is 0 chance that 4870 will be on the level of 8800 GT. It will come out to compete with 9800 GTX and nothing less. I'm quite surprised you expect so little from this card when you used to expect so much from R600 before it came out ;)
Once burnt, twice shy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
If past experience has taught us anything, those that overestimate ATI and underestimate Nvidia know nothing about this industry :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Check out the performance in games for the 3870 vs the 8800 GT 512MB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
It is on par for some games like UT3 and HL2, but for most it lags behind by an average of 30% or so. The 4870 will close that gap, beat the 9800 GTX in 3d 06 (by 1000 or so points), and overclock better than current gen cards. I would not expect more unless we get newer info. As always, I am hoping I am wrong and you are right, that the 4870 will be mindblowing, but go back to my first sentence and you will know why it is good to be cautious.
Perkam
perkam that's highly unlikely and you know that. The worst scenario we've seen for the 4870 is gddr5 memory with 480 shaders and more TMUs. I'd be willing to bet the 480 shaders is correct because that would support the rumors about the 4470 and 4670 with 120 and 240 shaders (meaning clusters of 120). TMU number is beyond me though if we're going to clusters of 120, but it's definitely going to be higher, and there's a lot of talk of 3:1 Alu:TMU with 96:32.
So worst come worst, we'll see at least a 50% gain due to the 50% more shaders and higher clocks, meaning at least a good 10% over the 9800gtx. And that's not accounting for how performance will be without the huge TMU bottleneck and plenty of shaders for AA
Not including the higher clocks and potentially "tweaked" ROPs and TMUs...Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
I definitely can't wait to see tangible results instead of all this speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
According to the specs it ought to give 17-18k together with Quad @3GHz.
i think 21k is a possible result when overclocked or/and using Quad @5GHz
Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
EVERYBODY and their mothers already know that the 8800 GT is a better card then the 3870!!! The 3870 isnt meant to be better, it always was slower then the 8800GT.
And where exactly is your past experience coming from?
ATI 8500 was absolutely equal to, if not faster then the Geforce 3.
ATI 9700 / 9800 owned the entire Geforce 5 range, the geforce 5 being the WORST GPU the industry has ever seen.
X800 / X850 were on par with the 6800's, but they lacked DX9.0c
X1900 - X1950 were again faster then everything from the Geforce 7 range, particularly in DX9.0 intensive games.
ATI were screwed over when they were aquired by AMD, and the only single launch that was messed up and delayed since the dawn of the first Radeon chip was the 2900, however both the 2900 and 3800 are at least capable of keeping up with Nvidias current cards, and the 3800's scale far better when put into crossfire then Nvidia manages with SLI.
ATI, in their entire history of graphics cards, have IMO messed up one single product launch, and that was the 2900. And it wasnt their fault, it was the aquisition by AMD that somehow slowed them down.
Were you even around when the Geforce 5 was out, or aware of how :banana::banana::banana::banana: it was? ATI have never created a graphics card yet that is anywhere near as bad as the geforce 5 was.
The 4800's should be a very strong comeback for ATI, and hopefully they wont mess up any launches again. It is a much bigger improvement over the 3800 then you think, you just seem to be grossly underestimating what the card will be capable of.
They scale far better in crossfire? LAWL. That's why the GX2 loses to the 3870X2 huh? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
CF scales better than SLI. Did you notice the word scales? Scale and outperform are two different words you know ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
1: Intel made the worst GPU of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
2: X1800 was late to market so that's at least 2 late launches.
Another Nvidiot right here that has nothing constructive to add.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
The 9800 is a far more powerful GPU compared to the 3870, comparing those two together is something an Nvidiot would do (omg 9800 > 3870, Nvidia Ruuuuuuullleeeeessss!!!)
If you compare two 3870's to two 9600 GT's in Crossfire / SLI, you will see that the 3870's gain a lot more performance then their Nvidia equivalents.
And yes, I said SCALE not Outperform.
If you put two 3870's in crossfire, you get a much higher %age boost then you would from putting two Nvidia cards in SLI.
Oh yea, I forget about GPU's from companies from anyone other then ATI / Nvidia. I dont really care about them :p
ATI X1800, hmmmm, I dont think it was as late as the 2900 was, but it was quickly replaced by the superior X1900 anyway.
And Nvidia are actually currently late with the 'real' Geforce 9. The current 9800 range is just a cover up for the fact that they couldnt get the actual DX10.1 chip out on time, but they coverd it up o so well by renaming the 8800's :p
still the x1800 was a decent card at launch, it pushed nv to the "HAHA YOU'LL NEVER GET US 7800GTX512" not available in any store :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathReborn
ati had the upper hand from 8500-x1900 (nv GF3-GF7 series), AMD put a stop to this, but things are looking good that they come back on top (they got back in the game with the 3870s)
to point 1: we talk about dedicated graphics cards, and this title belongs to the rage fury maxx :D, but in this times we had no shaders :shrug:
hd4870 looks promising, it may not beat the gt-200, but this time ati is earlier to the market and i believe that the gap between amd and nv is going to get smaller.
Yes, I know the 8800GT is a better card as well, and I already stated the 4870 will a very good attempt to catch up, so I dont get how I was wrong there. Well, if you dont like me calling it past experience you can call it something else. But whatever it is, it gives you the intuition of knowing that if a 320-shader, 256-bit, 16/16 TMU/ROP card (HD 3850/3870) only manages to get twice the 3d06 points compared to a 120-shader, 128-bit, 8/4 TMU/ROP card (HD 3650) on the same architecture, a 160 shader increase with no change to the 256-bit bus and no change to ROPs will not have a performance effect greater than 30% at best (my 12.5k estimate was a 25% increase over the current 3870s stock 10k score).Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
That was my logic. It is embedded in realism, not wishful thinking.
Perkam
We still dont know if the shaders have their own clock domain. If that's true your calculations are wrong. Also, 3870 is bottlenecked by its 16TMUs, you don't know how 32TMUs can change things. My bet is 14k minimum. And a 3870 scoring 10k? With what CPU?
The X1800 were good cards (I had 2 of them) and i'm not gonna argue that but the launch was what went wrong. ATi did get some stick from X1800 purchasers for the release of the X1900's but that soon waned and was replaced by cheers from the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
GF3 was actually faster than the 8500 in OGL & DX7 games but not synthetics but that's not the point. Infact it was almost a whitewash for the GF3 until ATi fixed their drivers. It had better features but lacked the proper software to unleash it.
Early Crossfire was a bit haphazard aswell but if you look at where they are now, they have once again got a advantage in API (questionable benefit tyet), process (55nm) & have almost made CF an excellent product (profiling still needs to be opened up more) but they still make the odd little mixup along the way (not enough texturing power in R600/RV6x0).
HD 4xxx is again looking at keeping what works intact (with a little improvement) but fixing what they went wrong with before. While it's not looking like enough to retake the performance crown it might enable them to increase the prices enough to actually make a profit, which lets face it, they could really use.
I still see the Intel 740 as a dire product, after all it is the grandfather of the GMA series...
You dont get it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
If you get 10k stock currently with the 3870, I'm predicting you'll get 12.5 - 13k stock with a 4870.
If you get 11k stock currently with a 3870, I'm predicting you'll get 12.75 - 13.25k stock with a 4870.
If you get 12k stock currently with a 3870, I'm predicting you'll get 13 - 13.5k stock with a 4870.
As I said, 25-30% is realistic. Any more than that is wishful thinking due to the reasons provided in my last post here:
And you can't discount the reasoning there. If the 3650 was 256-bit the score would be around 6.5k, which would make the 3870 score with almost 300% the shaders (and double the TMUs AND triple the ROPS !!) of only 10k completely incompetent, so you can see only 50% more shaders will not have a huge effect. It's called diminishing returns, look it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perkam
I have my reasoning for my estimated score, I would like to see yours.
Perkam
Imo your reasoning is flawed here. There is no way to predict the effect of a faster bus on the 3670. There is no way you can know whether its lack of TMU/ROPs is going to allow it to have anything more than minimal gains from a faster bus. Additionally what the 4870 should bring is improved real world gaming performance as it seems to address what appears to be the biggest bottleneck in the R600 architecture for many gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I got it the first time you exposed it :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I'm talking about something I think you haven't taken into consideration in your numbers: the fact that R600 and derivatives lack in texture power the most. And that 3DMark06 is very shader intensive. You can't use 3DMark06 as a good bench to cover all areas of the new design because the enhancements done will be used mainly in gaming perfomance with AA and AF (where TMUs are most needed). I agree with your 25-30% boost in 06, because that is what 06 utilizes most: shaders. You'll have 50% more shaders, so 25-30% is realistic. You'll also have 100% more TMUs. Combining this to the weak perfomance of 3870 in games specially with AA and AF caused by the only 16TMUs, I expect up to 80% here depending of the game of course. But even if you have more of A, B and C you can't predict how A, B, and C will work together. This is pure speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I see that RV770 has a huge potential for games compared to RV670, but in 3DMark I don't think you'll see more than your 25-30%. My bet is that benchers will be a little disappointed with the chip, but gamers will enjoy it a lot if the price is right.
That is my reasoning based on the current RV770 specs rumours. And all of this is comparing 3870 with 4870, I'm not taking NVIDIAs into consideration :up:
eitherway, 3dmark means nothing unless you're a world record bencher like kinc, kingpin, fugger, shamino, etc, that's why the 8800gt is preferred over the 3870 for single card setups. **hopefully** the TMUs will help unleash some of the cards potential and bring it to a respectable gaming card. I have no doubt that it can beat the 9800gt, the real questions are whether it can put some pressure on the 9900gts and how well can the r700 compete with the 9900gtx
Your point is valid, plus I made a mathematical error, hence my low numbers :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Here are the corrected figures based on 25% increase :)
If you get 10k stock currently with the 3870, I'm predicting you'll get 12.5k stock with a 4870.
If you get 11k stock currently with a 3870, I'm predicting you'll get 13.75k with a 4870.
If you get 12k stock currently with a 3870, I'm predicting you'll get 15k ( :eek: ) stock with a 4870.
Now that looks a lot better, and is something we can agree on :)
Perkam
Sorry, I cant agree on any predictions based on a card that isnt released yet.
And the 4870's do have seperate shader clocks, I read that somewhere on teh interwebs.
I am Expecting 4850 to be equal to the 8800 GT, the 4870 to be equal to a 9800 GTX. Just because I said so. Therefore it is true ^^
Single 4850 = 13k+ marks in 3D mark 06
Single 4870 = 17k+ marks in 3D mark 06
Lets just wait a month and see who is right :p
I highly doubt that will be the case. If anything, if the 4870 scores 17k+ in 3dmark (which won't likely happen at stock, but very possible for oc), the 4850 would be around 15~16k as they're the same card with slightly different clocks&/memory
something tells me we have to wait only a week or two weeks...
this might be the quietest release (rumor-wise) for an ATI card in a while...
Oh ok then...Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
13-14k for the 4850,
15-16k for the 4870
;)
Those predictions are with the card in my PC though, I.E overclocked.
You make some goods points... But what about the fact that the Render Back ends(Similar to ROPs) is still just 16 (for both RV670 and RV770)? All that Pixel processing power, So why skimp on rendering the actual pixels? (The last question was not a rhetorical, I'm looking for a good explanation)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
- 480 shader units; 50% increase
- 32 texture mapping units; 100% increase
- 16 render back ends; 0% increase
I think I lost it with the technical side of graphics cards after they got more complicated then memory bandwidth, pixel pipelines, textures per pass, and shaders.
I know nothing else about stuff from after the X1900's lol.
Too complicated now.
With my extremely limited knowledge about GPUs architecture I can't answer to that. But one thing is sure: NVIDIA needs lots of ROPs because AA is done in the ROPs. In RV670 AA is done in the shaders, so they don't need as much. But how many? 16 seems kinda low, and I wonder why they left it like it was before. We have to wait. In R600 and RV670 the 320:16:16 ratio doesn't work well because of the TMUs, will the design be balanced with 480:32:16? Also, the shaders in this architecture are far from being fully loaded when gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefy22
I read on the 4800 spec sheet that they will have 32 ROPs.
Where? All previous information says only 16 ROPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
The ROP:TMU ratio always had been 1:1 in the ATI's high-end .
So? That can easily change. They aren't linked to each other.
Post that spec sheet.
That is where you are wrong, hopefully...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefy22
There is a LARGE increase with the ROPs even while keeping them the same number. They should be tweaking them so that they perform roughly twice as fast while staying at the same clockspeed.
Plus the fact that they, if the independent clocks is indeed false like I think it is, are at a 1050mhz core clock which is a ~35% increase.
This is why I doubt they will be going with separate clock domains, it would hurt the TMU and ROP performance at the expense of a slight increase in shader performance, which isn't the bottleneck in the first place.
If the above is correct we should see a, theoretical, max increase of ~170% for the ROPs.
The same ~170% increase for the TMUs.
A ~103% increase in shader performance.
Plus a 80% increase in memory bandwidth, in regards to the 4ghz GDDR5.
16ROPs is just fine if they do indeed have the 1050mhz clock and are tweaked to double the z performance.
Ei, ei, ei, wait a second.
What? Twice? You better have some proof of that, I'm calling total BS.Quote:
There is a LARGE increase with the ROPs even while keeping them the same number. They should be tweaking them so that they perform roughly twice as fast while staying at the same clockspeed.
I also think the independent clocks are fake. But there won't be a 1050MHz chip, that's for sure.Quote:
Plus the fact that they, if the independent clocks is indeed false like I think it is, are at a 1050mhz core clock which is a ~35% increase.
Wow, you've done the perfect GPU in just 4 lines. Congrats :ROTF:Quote:
If the above is correct we should see a, theoretical, max increase of ~170% for the ROPs.
The same ~170% increase for the TMUs.
A ~103% increase in shader performance.
Plus a 80% increase in memory bandwidth, in regards to the 4ghz GDDR5.
Never gonna happen man, be serious and stop dreaming.
We'll see... I think this is going to be a great series of cards for AMD. But I think they're going to hit the market over-hyped and quite possibly not live up to the mounting expectations. -Case in Point -> http://www.guru3d.com/news/ati-radeo...hmark-results/Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
Quote:
There is a LARGE increase with the ROPs even while keeping them the same number. They should be tweaking them so that they perform roughly twice as fast while staying at the same clockspeed.
performing twice as fast while maintaining the same number of RBEs ≠ 170% increase in performance... Nor do I expect to see independent clocks, but I could be wrong.Quote:
If the above is correct we should see a, theoretical, max increase of ~170% for the ROPs.
I think that amd should multiply the core speed by at least 2 to get the shader clocks as g80 (especially g92) proved that extremely high clocked shaders will be more useful for today's games than massive numbers of them. Besides if you have the TMUs and ROPs running at those clocks how could it hurt performance?
is this true?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
What was the bottleneck & solution?
The problem was 16 TMU's. They've doubled them as the solution.
x1800xt
321 million transistors on 90nm
Pixel fill rate 10000 Mpixels/s
Texel fill rate 10000 Mpixels/s
625/1500
x1900xtx
384 million transistors on 90nm
Pixel fill rate 10400 Mpixels/s
Texel fill rate 10400 Mpixels/s
650/1550
x1950
384 million transistors on 90nm
Pixel fill rate 10400 Mpixels/s
Texel fill rate 10400 Mpixels/s
650/2000
HD2900
700 million transistors on 80nm
Pixel fill rate 11900 Mpixels/s
Texel fill rate 11900 Mpixels/s
742/1650
3870
666 million transistors on 55nm
Pixel fill rate 12400 Mpixels/s
Texel fill rate 12400 Mpixels/s
775/2250
(let me know if any of the above needs to be changed)
4870
___ million Transistors on __nm
Pixel fill rate ___________________
Texel fill rate ____________________
___/____
Who's willing to fill in the blankets?
~850m on 55nm, ~250mm2Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
16.8GPixel/s
33.6GTexel/s
1050/4000mhz
And for those of you that don't understand what I am saying about the ROPs, go back and read the thread. They will be tweaking the ROPs to perform more efficient.
1050 is Theo's wishful thinking ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
You can't trust him on evaluating ATI performance, the guy is blinded by his love for them ;)
//Andreas
Just some speculation, but who knows it's true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Really??? Cause he wasn't the first one to be reporting +1000mhz core speeds...Quote:
Originally Posted by NH|Delph1
I know I did it months ago, when the chips was in an early stage, and since then the projected final frequency have been rounded down several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
If you have lab chips runnings at 1050MHz, do you really find it feasible that the retail product will do the same?
It's quite feasible we will see partner products with GPU frequencies in the 1GHz range, but the reference card? I doubt it.
I would be very glad if ATI did manage to do it though, but it seems like risking a bit much.
R770 is using the same manufacturing process as RV670, it's even more complex than RV670, the fact that we're seeing higher frequencies coming should be enough to please most people really.
Bsides, 4850 looks like the only card available at launch anyway...
//Andreas
Yes Im sure the 4850 will be the only card at launch because GDDR5 isnt ready just yet.
So we will see the GDDR3 4850 first, followed up by the GDDR5 models a month later.
And by the way, the core frequency of the 4870 is definately going to be 1337 Mhz. You read that right, now spread the info :p
Whats this? If this is right, theyll be undercutting the 9800gtx AND 9800gx2 with those specs.
Release the damn thing already!!
If 800 SP paired with 32 TMU is true, then those 9800GX2 benches may be possible, but I doubt it.
How recent was that pic posted anyways?
mmm seem pretty unbelievable scores there
How many times now?...
With all the BS hooplah going around, I find it hard to believe those scores, but at the same time, I want to...
Didnt toms say itd be 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs.
We need final specs before we can start estimating scores, as my attempts to do so were in vain as well as news of 32 ROPs starting springing up.
Though I somehow doubt ATI is SO spooked that they believe they need to go 480/32/32. That would limit the R6xx and R7xx-type architecture`s longevity to one year after Rv770 launch at most i.e. RV870 would be 640/32/32 and then they would have to release something ENTIRELY new, and I doubt Fusion is going to answer that.
Perkam
isn't the r800 supposed to be fusion?
But I agree, if the card is supposed to debut in late may, we should at least have some legit info on it beyond that its 55nm and is supposed to bring around 50% over the rv670
I want these benchies to be true, but somehow I doubt. But maybe it has got 800 SP and the GDDR5 ups the performance a lot?Quote:
Originally Posted by awhir
And think of how the HD4870X2 would perform compared to this, would easily be 30k+ probably 35-40 in 3dm 06 :D
News article title: FAKE Radeon HD4870...Quote:
Originally Posted by Caubecari
Definitely fake! According to the 3dmark2006 calculator the score should be 15017...
Please stop reposting fakes... it only spreads it around and around
seriously, enough with the fakes, and besides, you can obviously tell that image is fake because there's no way the rv770 would go down from 170mm*2 to 153*2 and gain 50% more shaders with the same manufacturing process
I dont know why everyone is so hyped for this release I had two 3870 in crossfire and its the worst gpu experience ive ever had Ati drivers are garbage what is suppose to change with this release? If your not a hardcore gamer I think these cards will be great but if your a gamer i think Nvidia is a better option unless you like to wait for months for driver releases.
That's because Crossfire sucks, not because ATI sucks ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by malik22
But I agree, if you want fps, get a NV card.
thanks for the constructive arguement in favour of nvidia in this ati thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by malik22
The "4870" used in the 3DMark 2006 GPU Identification is the font from CPU-Z, not 3dMark's font, as proven by the fact that the idiot that made the fake could have picked up the "4", the "8", the "7", and the "0" from the numbers 2 cm below, which use the correct 3dMark Font.
Perkam
http://www.guru3d.com/news/ati-radeo...hmark-results/
I think is fake, but guru3d post them so...
Super Fake-ness.
Posted and disproven before.
Perkam
do i just imagine this or does every new videocard release is accompanied by more and more fakes?
This reminds of when R600 was about to be released and they made the same thing, 21k points on 3Dmarks06 is just too high is like 3 RV670 doing tri-Crossfire to get those results. It is hard to think a card that will cost $300 to $400 good as this. If this is true, Nvidia is out of business. lol 99,9% is fake.
Metroid.
Looking at the GT200's rumour from the other subject, the score is not impossible . Sources claimed that GT200 will have a GX2 variant .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trox
Read the words that Guru also posted.
At this point I dont really care if they are real or fake. But they are more likely fake, and I will prefer to wait untill I see a proper review.Quote:
We have absolutely no idea how valid these results are...... Let me state that anyone can make this stuff up and re-produce some nice charts.
Oh, and its may now, so where are they? o.O
Quite simple. Its early may, sources said LATE may.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
That's an easy one also. If you remember the r600 was supposed to be a monsterous card along with k10 spanking conroe. Because of these rumors (especially amd's up to 40% increase over conroe claim) and the secracy ever since amd's acquisition of ati, people felt the need to make estimates (and fakes) to fill up the hype. That, and people are greedy for their own site traffic thus would post up fake results to get more views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
So in short, because there won't be any legit results until the big price wars end, people will continue adding fakes for some of the various reasons I named above.
I'm not trying to flame anyone, but gosh don't people ever pay attention? You'd think that people would have at least read the thread but the same fakes have been posted at least 3 times in some cases and the same questions brought up over and over again.
I like both companys dont get me wrong I game alot and ati drivers arent very good for DX10 games and older titles that I play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown
:ROTF:Quote:
You'd think that people would have at least read the thread but the same fakes have been posted at least 3 times in some cases and the same questions brought up over and over again.
still waiting for a whiff of something real...:rofl: a 20 page thread with nothing real yet lol - what's to read?
yeh come on someone has some real info somewhere
its not about nothing real being released, its that people don't read the threadQuote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
My ATI drivers are fine for all the DX10 games and old games that I play. Stop spreading BS about ATI drivers thanks. They are just as good as, if not better then Nvidias drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by malik22
And before some Nvidiot quotes me again and types 'lol nub, 9800 GX2 pwns 3870 X2'
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVERS, NOT PERFORMANCE.
Sorry, Nvidiots like to troll a lot nowadays and feel all superior with yet another model of the recycled and reused 8800 chip.
:clap: for you all that have Nvidia cards and notice higher scores in benchamarks :clap: You win a :clap: Well done, and enjoy your Nvidia card with some :clap:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
kekek yeah or the phenom with 3870x2 crossfired hitting 30k on 3dm06..
sishh
the best score in 3Dmark06 was done with 3870x2 CF :welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by cstkl1
no dude i meant this scores.. are a sick jokeQuote:
Originally Posted by madcho
remember that stupid benchmark that inquirer etc all talked about before the phenom was launched
that with 387x2 crossfired it scored 30k on 3dmark06..
similar stories spinning around with hd4870.
Correction as this is going too far off, R600 = HD 2900 XT.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstkl1
R600
AMD's 3GHz K10 to break 30,000 3DMark06Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo Valich
Metroid.
In Vista nvidia's drivers caused bsods quite often. Never had a bsod with the ati drivers (had an 8800GT and now a 3850), but I have a problem almost as annoying. In Virtual Pool 3 it has a wierd bug which causes the surface of the table to be transparent in most (but not all) angles. It's annoying as I play VP3 quite often, but so far it's the only bug of this sort I've found. And to think that the 9800Pro with the drivers that were out 2-3 years ago I didn't have this problem... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
But then again maybe it's just the Vista version of the drivers that have this problem. Haven't tryed on XP yet.
Star Wars Jedi Academy didn't work with Cats 8.2 and before with 3800 cards, but HD2x00 was fine. Weird problem huh? Just submit a ticket to them, when I did it in less than a week they told me the issue was fixed in the 8.3 and voila, with 8.3 and 8.4 JKA is working perfectly.
If you guys have an issue with the drivers, report it to them, I'm sure if it's easily fixable they'll do it like they did with mine :up: They will never fix the Crossfire thing though.
But wasn't that one proven to be a fake?Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
rofl maybe he actually thinks it's real :shocked::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
It was not a fake because he never showed us anything concrete to back up his claims, it was not proven to be a fake because he never gave us anything to prove that he was wrong. He just made it up and published without any real material to show, like many of his articles anyway. I call this lies and that is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Metroid.
Theinquirer ...
some times very good ... some times so bad ...
when have they ever been very good? I think you're thinking of fudzilla, fuad has been a lot more consistant than Charlie and is generally correct (or at least closer than charlie)
Indeed. The Inquirer does tend to need to be taken with...Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
http://www.buyrocksalt.com/Products/...-salt-pile.jpg
...a pinch of salt.
hey that be the picture I posted up last time:p:
That's the picture that is guaranteed to be posted by someone in every single thread that mentions theINQ or Fudzilla.
That attitude won't get you far on this forum I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Excuse me but doesn't 8800/9800 series trounce Radeons in just about every game, whereas Radeons score comparably higher results in benchies?Quote:
:clap: for you all that have Nvidia cards and notice higher scores in benchamarks :clap: You win a :clap: Well done, and enjoy your Nvidia card with some :clap:
not quite true, radeons score better in every 3dmarkxx, but not vantage, they get spanked in vantage, most likely that is in no small part due to nvidia (especially since vantage was supposed to offer dx10.1).
But it is also true that so far with the exception of the 9600gt (which is quite an impressive mid range and proves optimization is more important than raw power), so far every nvidia chip since g80's launch has been simply either a g80 derivitive (although g86 was tweaked a bit) or the exact same chip **g98 went from 8xxx series to 9xxx series with absolutely no change**. As for the 9800gx2, that's about to be EOL anyways so I wouldn't quite count that, and even if you do its just sli g92 chips, so nothing really new anyways.
So I reckon you were both a bit right and wrong