ATI Responds to NVIDIA's GeForce 7950GX2

"ATI however, has come forward to say that new GeForce 7950GX2 boards provides almost no improvement over the previous generation, all while costing a hand and leg. In fact, ATI goes to show that in many performance benchmarks -- synthetic and real-world -- NVIDIA's GeForce 7950GX2 actually loses to a single Radeon X1900XTX in the majority of tests."
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2735

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/1...ti_comparo.jpg

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/1...i_comparo2.jpg

Thank god someone finally told nvidia enough already......

if someone doesnt stop them that 8 card post i seen is actually going to come true.....

great post!

The ATI PR department is a joke.

First off the graphs are morphed, there is no baseline.
Secondly its percentages. So while the FPS difference is a killer 5 frames, holy crap, look at the grap they can create...:rolleyes: Each bar set uses a different measure as well because each group sets to 100%, yet each number is different.

Not to mention that in the first graph, the cards aren't even set to like standards. Or the fact that it took ATI forever to get their drivers for X1900XTX to score like they are, yet nVidia just released this product.

Also, its odd how ATI wins in ATI tests, but as the article shows, no one else gets these results.

^^ Stop being biased and actually look at the graph. There are numbers above each bar.

X1900XTX performance has been great from the start. Keep in mind that sites like Anandtech compared the X1900XT to the 7950GX2, and even the XT did decently at resolutions up to 16x12

This graphing style is very popular for comparison purposes, and for good reason. As long as ATI gives numbers, such graphing styles are actually preferred.

I'm just not sure about the 2nd graph... it's 2560 and 4xAA, with the 7950GX2 at default quality. 7950GX2 should be doing better in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

^^ Stop being biased and actually look at the graph. There are numbers above each bar.

X1900XTX performance has been great from the start. Keep in mind that sites like Anandtech compared the X1900XT to the 7950GX2, and even the XT did decently at resolutions up to 16x12

This graphing style is very popular for comparison purposes, and for good reason. As long as ATI gives numbers, such graphing styles are actually preferred.

---

And a product of ATI PR isn't biased?:rolleyes: What are you smoking?
ATI apparently doesn't even know how to load up 3dmark06, didn't seem to be a problem for other sites...

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/...mar06-1280.gif
http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/256/cod2-48-bar.gif

Also, ATI is the only place that releases benchmarks like this. Even [H] with their "best playable settings" turns its nose up to an unbalanced display like this. Its one of the first things you are taught to watch for and avoid in statistics classes, because its so misleading.

EDIT: ATI would have been more believable if they put out honest results, in a proper format; and made it a price/performance argument.

That's X1900XTX 6xAA/16xAF vs 7950GX2 8xAA/16xAF HQ driver settings (to prevent shimmering).

Having both a X1900GT on the desktop and a 7800GTX Go on my laptop, I can attest to these settings being IQ-wise close to identical.

As I also said, the first graph looks about right. 8xAA is just about unplayable on any NVIDIA card, since it's supersampling. NVIDIA cards are also usually tested on Q, not HQ.

I'm not sure about the 2nd graph, as I also said b4.

Your 3dmark06 graph is pointless since it's 1280x1024, not the settings above. Same with the 2nd graph. Settings aren't the same.

Obviously ATI wants what's best for ATI (hence biased) but I see nothing incorrect with the first graph.

dont forget the price gap between these

Don't forget there is ALWAYS damage control after you release a new card for the opposite team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

And a product of ATI PR isn't biased?:rolleyes: What are you smoking?
ATI apparently doesn't even know how to load up 3dmark06, didn't seem to be a problem for other sites...

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/...mar06-1280.gif
http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/256/cod2-48-bar.gif

Also, ATI is the only place that releases benchmarks like this. Even [H] with their "best playable settings" turns its nose up to an unbalanced display like this. Its one of the first things you are taught to watch for and avoid in statistics classes, because its so misleading.

EDIT: ATI would have been more believable if they put out honest results, in a proper format; and made it a price/performance argument.

---

apparently your stats class didn't teach you how to read graphs

ati ran 3dmark & call of duty at different settings

are you sure you're not blind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b0bd0le

apparently your stats class didn't teach you how to read graphs

ati ran 3dmark & call of duty at different settings

are you sure you're not blind?

---

Not only that but he is looking at COD2 numbers at 4xAA. 4xAA with a $700 piece of hardware? A 7600GT could play games at that :rolleyes:

comparing ATI and nvidia at the "same" settings is a farce. nvidia doesn't produce vid quality even close to ati at the "same" settings.

The GX2 is a joke. I only hope the usual idiots are not dumb enough to buy this and encourage nvidia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

I only hope the usual idiots are not dumb enough to buy this and encourage nvidia.

---

Unfortunately they are.. :p:

Yeah, the GX2 is a joke... a complete joke. But, it's very, very fast in SLi :D. It's pretty cool though that an X1900XTX with better image quality can keep right up with it in most of the tests though :).

Nick

LOL...since when did anyone seriously take any performance results from the mouth of the manufacturer? ATI's PR graphs are a joke. Not only in layout, but in settings used to distort the results in selected benches. Those that defend it must be fanboys I guess. I've never understood the need to defend a brand....its odd behavior to me.

Anyways, until someone else on this threads owns, benches, and plays with BOTH cards (X1900XT and GX2) like I have, there simply won't be much credibility to the opinions offered. The GX2 CRUSHES the X1900XT in every single game and bench I've thrown at it. Sorry ATI fanboys, but I've put my X1900XT back in its box to sell.

Here's some graphs from an unbiased site (Tech Report):

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...0-gx2/fear.gif

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...50-gx2/hl2.gif

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...50-gx2/bf2.gif

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...2/oblivion.gif


Not to mention the GX2 is quieter and consumes less power than the X1900XT:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...power-load.gif

Tech Report Conclusion:
"This card takes up no more space, draws no more power, and generates no more heat or noise than a Radeon X1900 XTX, but its performance is in another class altogether."

Its hard to read every independent review and not draw the same conclusion. There isn't a review out there that doesn't have the GX2 out performing the X1900XT with less power consumption, and less noise.

Don't get me wrong, my X1900XT has serious merits. IQ is definitely great. But, the GX2 is simply much better for only $100 more. Where the X1900XT would choke playing Oblivion at high detail settings, the GX2 churns things out buttery smooth.

I only call it as I see it with my own two hands folks.

Jesus christ, my X1800XT consumes more power than a 7900 GTX? LOL.

But look @ those graphs, the X1900XTX is cheaper and has better 'graphical quality' and it keep's up with Dual GTX's (7950GT2) quite nicely :). It is pretty amazing though, the way that the GT2 draws as much power pretty much and runs quieter.

Nick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickS

Jesus christ, my X1800XT consumes more power than a 7900 GTX? LOL.

---

What an asinine review. Yeah, I'm sure the X1800 XT consumes nearly as much power as the two cores on the GX2 :slapass:

refer to my sig pls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

Yeah, I'm sure the X1800 XT consumes nearly as much power as the two cores on the GX2 :slapass:

---

Its a fact. The GX2 is run at reduced power levels, this is why it could never keep up with a pair of 7900GTXs in SLI, or X1900XTs in CF.


EDIT- BTW, although I will allow some spirited debate regarding ATIs "PR Response" I will not let this thread degenerate into a fanboy flamefest. That goes for both sides. Stick to the facts and stow the flames. Thanks.

It's running at 500mhz x2. There's no freaking way no matter what process enhancements it has versus the X1800 XT.

edit:

here you go in a comparison with the much more power hungry X1900 XT
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2769&p=3

I ordered a 7900gx2 and reading this thread is gonna make me jump off a :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing building I swear :( . :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

What an asinine review. Yeah, I'm sure the X1800 XT consumes nearly as much power as the two cores on the GX2 :slapass:

---

wake up and use google.
every review site that tests power usage comes to the same conclusion.
Sadly most sites dont test power consumptiopn but with a little googling you can get alot of info.
Contrary to what alot of people believe the X1800 and X1900 use alot of power.

To many people swallow ATIs PR stuff as the truth and cause ATI nvr includes power usage info in them people (usually fanboys) dont care about it.

bottom of the link:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/628/2

So you're saying that the X1800 XT and X1900 XTX consume close to the same power:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=15

There's a freaking 60 WATT power difference. Tech report (as usual) is amateur hour.

Thus ends another episode of buy a clue...

why do people care about power consumption anyway? ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

It's running at 500mhz x2. There's no freaking way no matter what process enhancements it has versus the X1800 XT.

edit:

here you go in a comparison with the much more power hungry X1900 XT
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2769&p=3

---

Thanks for the link! Those results you linked are right in line with what was posted by the Tech Report review. I see at Anand's that the GX2 still draws less power than the 1900XT under load. The only difference between Anand's and Tech Report is that the TR used the 1900XTX which accounts for even higher power draw by ATI. Anand's text commentary addresses that as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

So you're saying that the X1800 XT and X1900 XTX consume close to the same power:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=15

There's a freaking 60 WATT power difference.

---

Power usage information is ALWAYS measured relatively. Tester to tester will always show different power measurements. What you are supposed to draw from the graphs are power usage relative to the other cards, not hard and fast wattage measurements. Individual system specs greatly effect the measurements.

Here's an example. Look at the two Anand's reviews linked. Each review has different power usage under load for the X1900XT. (276w vs 319w)

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/7...0609/12205.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...0152/10671.png

Does this make Anand's the "amatuer hour" ?

If you look at the Tech Report, they are showing the difference between the X1800 and the X1900XTX to be 34watts. BUT, the total wattages measured are down compared to Anand. However if you look at the differences between power used by card in percentage. Its about the same.

TR:
X1800XT 230
X1900XTX 264
Difference 34
As % 15%

Anand's:
X1800XT 282
X1900XTX 341
Difference 59
As % 21%

That's easily close enough to draw accurate relative power usage information.

Yes, I too wonder why people care so much about power consumption. Why not continue in the direction Intel was heading before they began with their "Core" line of processors? Heck, why should power consumption matter? :rolleyes:

-k0nsl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xenogias

why do people care about power consumption anyway? ^_^

---

Because

(1) it relates to heat, which relates to need to dissapate, which relates to fan noise, which relates to sanity, or alternatively

(2) it relates to power requirements (which are getting out of control and seem to only be getting worse with the next gen DX10 cards if the rumors are to be believed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xenogias

why do people care about power consumption anyway? ^_^

---

I don't know. I like the idea that a dual GPU solution uses less power than other single GPU solutions. I think its definitely a positive attribute. It means you don't need a mega dollar 1000w PSU to power 2 GPUs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

(1) it relates to heat, which relates to need to dissapate, which relates to fan noise, which relates to sanity, or alternatively

(2) it relates to power requirements (which are getting out of control and seem to only be getting worse with the next gen DX10 cards if the rumors are to be believed).

---

Which gets back to my original point, which is supported by your link to the Anand review. The GX2 consumes less power and is quieter than the 1900XT or 1900XTX...period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdzcpa

LOL...since when did anyone seriously take any performance results from the mouth of the manufacturer? ATI's PR graphs are a joke. Not only in layout, but in settings used to distort the results in selected benches. Those that defend it must be fanboys I guess. I've never understood the need to defend a brand....its odd behavior to me.

---

Finally, someone else with brains.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdzcpa

I don't know. I like the idea that a dual GPU solution uses less power than other single GPU solutions. I think its definitely a positive attribute. It means you don't need a mega dollar 1000w PSU to power 2 GPUs.





Which gets back to my original point, which is supported by your link to the Anand review. The GX2 consumes less power and is quieter than the 1900XT or 1900XTX...period.

---

Wow, you tangled yourself up to reach a conclusion that nobody was discussing. It's great and all that you can reach conclusions that are both off topic (X1900 power consumption) and pulled out of thin air (your "analysis" of X1800 XT power consumption).

What Anand's numbers show is that the GX2 consumes considerably more power than a X1800 XT (about 30 watts more) and consumes less power than a X1900 XT/X. The first is the topic we were discussing (and you somehow decided to make up numbers for) and the second was never a point of discussion because no one has asserted otherwise.

Also, I'm not quite sure how a GPU can be "quieter" than another GPU? :stick:

Finally, a comparison between the X1900XT/X and the GX2 would have to take into account price, noise of coolers (the GX2 doesn't seem to be able to use aftermarket coolers so there's no replacing its cooling with something that's actually quiet like the VF900 for example), and performance at the same visual quality (and I'm not talking about picking the same in game settings, I'm talking about the same image quality). When you do all that then you you've engaged in an accurate analysis of the cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdzcpa

LOL...since when did anyone seriously take any performance results from the mouth of the manufacturer? ATI's PR graphs are a joke. Not only in layout, but in settings used to distort the results in selected benches. Those that defend it must be fanboys I guess. I've never understood the need to defend a brand....its odd behavior to me.

Anyways, until someone else on this threads owns, benches, and plays with BOTH cards (X1900XT and GX2) like I have, there simply won't be much credibility to the opinions offered. The GX2 CRUSHES the X1900XT in every single game and bench I've thrown at it. Sorry ATI fanboys, but I've put my X1900XT back in its box to sell.

Here's some graphs from an unbiased site (Tech Report):

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...0-gx2/fear.gif

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...50-gx2/hl2.gif

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...50-gx2/bf2.gif

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...2/oblivion.gif


Not to mention the GX2 is quieter and consumes less power than the X1900XT:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...power-load.gif

Tech Report Conclusion:
"This card takes up no more space, draws no more power, and generates no more heat or noise than a Radeon X1900 XTX, but its performance is in another class altogether."

Its hard to read every independent review and not draw the same conclusion. There isn't a review out there that doesn't have the GX2 out performing the X1900XT with less power consumption, and less noise.

Don't get me wrong, my X1900XT has serious merits. IQ is definitely great. But, the GX2 is simply much better for only $100 more. Where the X1900XT would choke playing Oblivion at high detail settings, the GX2 churns things out buttery smooth.

I only call it as I see it with my own two hands folks.

---

no one can dispute price/performance ratio of the 7950GX2 as it has alot of things beat if you play the right games. And by that I mean SLI profiles...

you can't assume that it is "the end all be all" video card. this type of setup is going to have it's inherent weaknesses.

interesting how the 7950GX2 draws quite a bit more power @ idle...

taken from your techreport's review

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...power-idle.gif

one would expect an unbiased person not to cherry pick their benchmarks :p:

the more important thing than all this arguing is how this will affect the prices of the GTXs and the XTXs. The question i have is: Does the 7950GX2 reset the scoreboard of the fastest card? This can only be deteremined by the market unfortunately :( Maybe the GTXs and the XTXs will drop to around $399

For christ sake, look at the Doom3 scores..
If ATi is winning there, something is seriously :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

Wow, you tangled yourself up to reach a conclusion that nobody was discussing. It's great and all that you can reach conclusions that are both off topic (X1900 power consumption) and pulled out of thin air (your "analysis" of X1800 XT power consumption).

---

You were the one that was worried about the quality of the Tech Report review because it provided power consumption numbers you didn't agree with. I simply clarified that you have no idea how to interpet power consumption graphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

Also, I'm not quite sure how a GPU can be "quieter" than another GPU? :stick:

---

Your own words explain it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar81

(1) it relates to heat, which relates to need to dissapate, which relates to fan noise, which relates to sanity

---

That's pretty obvious. Do I still need to draw you a picture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b0bd0le

you can't assume that it is "the end all be all" video card. this type of setup is going to have it's inherent weaknesses.

---

Who said the card is the "end all be all" ? Not me. Its just another card in a series of hardware rotations for me. Right now, it has a lot of merit in the price/performance, power consumption, and noise areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b0bd0le

interesting how the 7950GX2 draws quite a bit more power @ idle...

taken from your techreport's review

one would expect an unbiased person not to cherry pick their benchmarks

---

Its not cherry picking, its simply common sense and relevance.

1. Who cares about idle power consumption. If you are going to build a rig with this kind of card, it is likely that you'll be gaming a lot (ie under load).

2. It has two GPUs and 1 GB of ram, its not surprising that it consumes more power at idle....it should!! What IS surprising is that it consumes less power under load than other single GPU solutions. That's the "wow" factor, and that is why it was presented.

3. For PSU requirements its LOAD consumption that matters. Accordingly, its nice to see this kind of performance from a solution that does not require a super expensive 800w or 1kw PSU.


Like I said, I could not care any less which brand name is on the card. The simple fact remains that it bests everything out there in price/performance, power, and noise. And it'll lead the way to quad sli for those that care.

I only posted in this thread to "rebutt" ATI's silly PR crap that all the fanboys seem to eager to swallow. But, same goes for Nvidia too. Their PR crap is usually even worse.

I`m sorry, but where did you read that 7950GX2 consumes less than equal single card SLI setup ? 7950GX2 has alot lesser clocks and decreased Vgpu and Vmem, not to mention minor power savings using single PCB :confused:
If you`re reffering to R580 consumption forgot what I just sad :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

I`m sorry, but where did you read that 7950GX2 consumes less than equal single card SLI setup ? 7950GX2 has alot lesser clocks and decreased Vgpu and Vmem, not to mention minor power savings using single PCB :confused:

---

I'm not sure I understand your question, but here are a few charts from Anand's that Bar81 was kind enough to point out:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/7...0609/12204.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/7...0609/12205.png

The chart includes a 7800gt SLI set up in there.

Is that what you meant?

The first graph is pure, utter, BS!

8xAA on the NVidia card is running SUPERSAMPLING, 6xAA on the ATi card is MULTISAMPLING! It's not being at HQ that hurt nvidia so bad on that graph, it's frankly the fact that they specifically set NVidia over to supersampling, and made no mention on the graph.

Supersampling requires FAR more work than multisampling, like 5-10 times more work, as supersampling is applied to every single pixel, while multisampling is edges only. How many pixels in a scene are edges compared to the amount of pixels in total.

This is PR bull**** once again.

Yeap. Well..considering GX2 has 2x much memory and clocks actually aren`t that much of a difference it`s very good power saver. :D

The thing is for me the GX2 would have greater overall power consumption because most of my computer time is spent browsing the internet or doing 2D graphics (and Rosetta when I'm AFK) which doesn't require the high clocks that give those high power consumption values. I'm sure there are a lot of people in a similar situation as not everybody uses their computer for 24/7 gaming and so we get a net power consumption lower with the XTX.

The other point is that the cheapest GX2 I could find is £406 and requires a compatible mobo. The most expensive XTX I can get fromt the same site (apart from that stupid Sapphire blizzard thing) is £340 and I could get one for £311. Nearly a 25% saving!

I'm not arguing that the GX2 isn't the best card avaiable in certain games right now but For the majority of people the XTX is a better buy overall.

I would also like to point out a little peeve of mine. The GX2 does not have 1024MB of memory (well it does total but thats misleading) it has 512+512. All the textures have to be kept on both sets of memory to serve each core. I just wanted to clear that matter up as I've spoken to some people who thought that was equivalent to an actual 1024MB card.

EDIT: I started typeing this before Cooper's last post so I wasn't refering to him although it does prove my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cobalt

The thing is for me the GX2 would have greater overall power consumption because most of my computer time is spent browsing the internet or doing 2D graphics (and Rosetta when I'm AFK) which doesn't require the high clocks that give those high power consumption values. I'm sure there are a lot of people in a similar situation as not everybody uses their computer for 24/7 gaming and so we get a net power consumption lower with the XTX.

---

Your point is well taken. The GX2 is not for everyone. Its certainly meant for the hardcore gamers.

When it comes to power consumption, though, the fact that it runs 2 GPUs with 512mb available for each core, and is far far far less power hungry than a "true" high end SLI or CF set up makes it a compelling buy. The fact that the GX2 even beats out other single GPU cards in loaded power consumption is amazing and only a bonus.

As for the X1900XT being the better buy, I dunno. The GX2 simply offers far better performance along with the awesome power consumption....not to mention its MUCH quieter as well. In the USA, its worth the $100 premium over the 1900XT IMO.

But, to each thier own and all that. Differences of opinion make things interesting :)

7950GX2 is a stroke of genius (two notebook 7900 chips on desktop pcb's).

ATI always loves to trash nvidia technology right before it adds its own (yes X1950XT is coming :rolleyes: ). You guys should have learned that lesson from the non-crossfire days where SLI was a joke to them.

This is not to say that ATI copies from Nvidia, but its usually late to the game.

However, in light of all this, the 7950GX2 still has the nvidia iq, so ATI is still the winner for image quality in games, even with one X1900XTX.

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

7950GX2 is a stroke of genius (two notebook 7900 chips on desktop pcb's).

ATI always loves to trash nvidia technology right before it adds its own (yes X1950XT is coming :rolleyes: ). You guys should have learned that lesson from the non-crossfire days where SLI was a joke to them.

This is not to say that ATI copies from Nvidia, but its usually late to the game.

However, in light of all this, the 7950GX2 still has the nvidia iq, so ATI is still the winner for image quality in games, even with one X1900XTX.

Perkam

---

well said Perk, well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdzcpa

well said Perk, well said.

---

Thx. Truth be told I can't say a bad thing about the gx2...i've added it in the "what to buy" guide building in the highest end rig in the whole guide :D

Perkam

Too bad drivers for Quad SLI will be available only at the end of summer
But that leaves lots of time for XS members to make their own

Sorry mdzcpa but NV's image quality is not up to par with ATI's. I ditched my 7800gt sli setup because of that. IQ was less than my old X800pro. So until NV gets a hint and produces better IQ they will do better than they should in benchmarks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plywood99

Sorry mdzcpa but NV's image quality is not up to par with ATI's.

---

Don't apologize to me, its not my name on the card. ATI does have an IQ advantage.

Now, whether or not that's of any real consequence is up to the individual making the decision. I do know that most folks, even on this very enthusiast driven forum, would not be able to tell the difference during actual game play. That's the cold hard truth about the IQ difference. So, whether IQ is more important than buttery smooth frame rates (or not) is up to each person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdzcpa

So, whether IQ is more important than buttery smooth frame rates (or not) is up to each person.

---

Lol, baiting the argument a little aren't we...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plywood99

Lol, baiting the argument a little aren't we...;)

---

You think? I don't think so. There is no doubt the GX2 can push more FPS than the X1900XTX. Just about every review has the GX2 outpowering the 1900XT and XTX at every turn.

However, that's not to say that those who are more IQ driven might indeed select the ATI card over the Nvidia offering.

No bait intended. Its a real choice that needs to be made when you have games like Oblivion bringing all the single gpu cards to their knees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdzcpa

You think? I don't think so. There is no doubt the GX2 can push more FPS than the X1900XTX. Just about every review has the GX2 outpowering the 1900XT and XTX at every turn.

However, that's not to say that those who are more IQ driven might indeed select the ATI card over the Nvidia offering.

No bait intended. Its a real choice that needs to be made when you have games like Oblivion bringing all the single gpu cards to their knees.

---

I think I agree with this statement, for what it looks like I honestly find very little IQ diffrence between top end cards from diff mfg's, though true that ATI till holds it down better then Nvidia. The problem (for me) is that I like playing everything at top resolutions/settings and maintain high fps, like they say, FPS is life.

IQ isn't as much of an issue with nV cards as it used to be although I much prefer the AA that ATi cards give you. I don't know about anyone else but the nV AA just looks blurry to me. I'm not even sure if there is any real difference but that was my impression. Also I like the "high impact" lighting style that you tend to get with the X1k cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

The first graph is pure, utter, BS!

8xAA on the NVidia card is running SUPERSAMPLING, 6xAA on the ATi card is MULTISAMPLING! It's not being at HQ that hurt nvidia so bad on that graph, it's frankly the fact that they specifically set NVidia over to supersampling, and made no mention on the graph.

Supersampling requires FAR more work than multisampling, like 5-10 times more work, as supersampling is applied to every single pixel, while multisampling is edges only. How many pixels in a scene are edges compared to the amount of pixels in total.

This is PR bull**** once again.

---

That's correct, which is why the results do look correct.

8xS AA on NVIDIA hw is 4xMSAA + 2xSSAA, hence the huge performance drop.

Plus, there's the HQ vs regular quality.

---

Obviously the SLI'ed 7950 card is more powerful in most situations, but it is amusing to see that the X1900XTX actually beats 2 of NVIDIA's high end cards in at least some situations.

--

As an aside, I still can't fix the texture shimmering on my 7800GTX Go, even with HQ enabled and 4xAA/8xAF. Anyone know of a fix?