shame on NVIDIA:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
Printable View
shame on NVIDIA:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
I still don't know what technology is behind this hair, but do you think nVidia would mess up with own terms, and call the PhysX for "physical simulations"?Quote:
Originally Posted by neliz
Here's the Siggraph 2008 presentation where the HAIR demo comes from: http://developer.nvidia.com/object/s...2008-hair.html
(the second slide deck.)
Do me a favor, go to that page, click on .. Find on this page .. and type PhysX. How many match doe you get? nVidia would never let PhysX to fall off, if it has been used in that coo :cool:l demo.Quote:
Originally Posted by neliz
@ neliz
Thanks! :up:
If AT's numbers at 1920x1200 are a vindication then what explains the huge discrepancy at 2560x1600?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I think the most impressive part about the Hair demo is that it was done TWO YEARS ago.
Ironically I never even saw that coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcover
I predicted that ATi would be better at the tessellation and nVidia would be better at the computational stuff and the FSAA + AF.
Big surprise to see they are also good at the tessellation especially considering ATi have been meddling with tessellation for years now.
John
I think it is too early to get into the details about performance +/- few FPS. This GF100 looks really good based on early results, (unless nVidia is really bluffing, but i don't think so).
We have to wait for some official test, and several games. otherwise we are going to hang on hairs, LOL.
That has me scratching my head but more regarding AT results than mine. I've never seen a case in FC2 where cards would loose so little in terms of framerates when going form 1920 to 2560 at 4xAA. Even at Very High settings as seen here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
I see what you mean and maybe it has something to do with the particular bench run, some system detail, or poor methodology.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
What I mean is that if you are calling AT's 2560x1600 numbers into question then you shouldn't claim the 1920x1200 numbers as vindication. Either use both the numbers or don't use either - accepting one number and denying the other because of personal expectations is cherry picking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Oh believe me there are games out there that need the power these cards bring. 4 year old oblivion with the better cities mod can bring the geometry performance of todays cards to their knees. Poly performance is in big need of a massive boost, all our performance gains in the last 6 years are pretty much just shader and AA/Anis.
Shattered Horizon needs the power of these new cards.
Arma2 and the latest stalker will.
More Fermi coverage over @ PCPER...
Pretty similar in terms of format and content to Hardwarecanucks but hey.... we like moar coverage, don't we? :D
Hopefully this means Tessellation will be used to the max and be the main differentiation between DX10 and DX11 games. At the moment you can't even tell them apart.
^ moar coverage ??
here you go.. 53+ news articles so far
http://news.google.com/news/more?um=...2-_QHpGbjZ8XdM
MOAAAAARRR!!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
I'll try to steal some time off some other things that I have to do and run some benchmarks tomorrow with a 5870 for starters.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
FWIW your numbers look ok ( and nice work on the fermi coverage dude ) ;)
I don't think those 50-60% over HD5870 is going to be the average and typical result for most games.
All nVidia needs to do it to get 20% ahead of HD5870 with a dissent power composition. Even if they could get much more out of the GF100, they would probably limit the performance of the retail GPU just about 20% over HD5870, I would think.
Two takes here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
1) What you just said
2) GTX 360 = 10-20% better than the 5870, just a tad higher price than the 5870 & GTX 380 close to the 5970 with a bit better ( lower obviously ) price.
+1 ,Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
I agree the same rules applies to HD5970 too:)
EDIT: on this note, nVidia don't need to beat the performance of the HD5970, just matching it with a single GPU would be enough.
But Im not so very sure about the pricing .. i hope you are right. If I'm not mistaking, nVidia has traditionally priced such a "superior" single GPU a good deal over the HD5970.
I believe, the prices would depend more on ATi and how they manage to compete. I hope ATi drops a refresh, or even new GPU at the same time, then we can get really good price on GF100.
Sure I can. IMO, there is something wrong with their 2560 result. Why? Take this into consideration:Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
1680 -> 1920 = 540,000 pixels difference = 7.1 FPS drop
1920 -> 2560 = 1,792,000 pixels difference = 3.4 FPS drop
Their 1920 x 1200 results look good.
lol :up: now 56 news articles :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biker
but benchDowner :) wouldnt fermi be out in retail already ??Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Benchmarks change as do which games benefit certain manufacturers. However, FC2 at Ultra High details remains one of the most demanding games in any category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
On the flip side of that coin, this was a PR event by NVIDIA which means they showed what they wanted to show and no more. I don't think average performance will be close to what was shown but then again, considering drivers can mature and clock speeds will increase, you never know...