If ATI Won a Round, Would Anyone Notice?

Printable View

06-28-2007, 03:24 PM
californian7856

2 Attachment(s)

If ATI Won a Round, Would Anyone Notice?

EDIT:
as many peopel said that single GTX + Core 2 w/e scores 13000 on 3dmark06 .... this article looks bias enough or SLI was not even enable in the 1st place

1st saw this on dailytech
http://www.dailytech.com/If+ATI+Won+...rticle7864.htm

original one's here:
http://www.falcon-nw.com/keltstake/ati_2900xtx.asp

Attachment 61083

btw original review by PC Mag (where that pic came from)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2147064,00.asp

Attachment 61089

edit:
i thought i post another review to balance things out
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
06-28-2007, 03:28 PM
Clairvoyant129

Impossible, I get near 13k with a single 8800GTX on 3DMark06. It's obvious they used some bad drivers.
06-28-2007, 03:33 PM
SaII

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

Impossible, I get near 13k with a single 8800GTX on 3DMark06. It's obvious they used some bad drivers.

maybe they didn't use 9x multi?

after all they are factory OC'd
06-28-2007, 03:33 PM
Dainas

Winning a round implies some actual across the board benchmark closure and not endless debating! And yes I bet people would notice well since that has not happened in ATI's favor since the R3xx days.
06-28-2007, 03:37 PM
yaddam205

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

Impossible, I get near 13k with a single 8800GTX on 3DMark06. It's obvious they used some bad drivers.

Same, this article is just a waste of time.
06-28-2007, 03:38 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Well, R600 CF is very strong although some deny it.
06-28-2007, 03:40 PM
nullface

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Well, R600 CF is very strong although some deny it.

QFT!
06-28-2007, 03:46 PM
Clairvoyant129

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Well, R600 CF is very strong although some deny it.

It's pretty good but doesn't have the performance crown and here at XS, that's all that matters.
06-28-2007, 03:51 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

It's pretty good but doesn't have the performance crown and here at XS, that's all that matters.

Well, I am so glad you are not XS :yepp:
Because what you post is more of instigating an argument more so then anything else. The article is not about what you posted.
06-28-2007, 03:55 PM
DilTech

Guys, those SLi numbers look like single card to me, all the way down the line...

As in, the driver used on the Falcon system with twin GTX's is running a driver that didn't enable SLi properly.
06-28-2007, 04:11 PM
Eastcoasthandle

The article brings a very interesting point about testing only single card performance, no SLI vs CF and most of them under XP. That I find very interesting. It's been a long time since I've seen new video cards benchmarked and find nothing of CF and SLI. Even if it's later on. Can someone link me to a HD 2900 XT CF vs 8800 GTS SLI benchmark review?
06-28-2007, 04:32 PM
DilTech

Guys, giving the warning now, keep it civil. Any blatant flaming WILL be handled immediately.
06-28-2007, 04:34 PM
Zytek_Fan

Well,the Sapphire Radeon HD2900XT is $374.99 and the cheapest 8800GTS is $379.99 so it's quite close.

Noise and power consumption, the 2900XT loses, but I could care less.

All I care about is performance per $...and how much X38 is going to be :up:
06-28-2007, 04:52 PM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Well,the Sapphire Radeon HD2900XT is $374.99 and the cheapest 8800GTS is $379.99 so it's quite close.

Noise and power consumption, the 2900XT loses, but I could care less.

All I care about is performance per $...and how much X38 is going to be :up:

i dont know where u shop as i just spent like 10sec typing 8800gts on newegg, hit click and got the result:up:

cheapest GTS 640 is $339.99... while the most expansive 640 GTS (without waterblock) is $409 on egg (339 to 409):up:

cheapest 2900XT is $349.99 a whole $35 more how ever the 2nd cheapest one is $399.99, and the most expansive 2900XT is $449 ... (374 to 449):up:

hell my 2nd GTS 640 was $339.99 on February:up:
06-28-2007, 05:02 PM
Zytek_Fan

Quote:

Originally Posted by californian7856

i dont know where u shop as i just spent like 10sec typing 8800gts on newegg, hit click and got the result:up:

cheapest GTS 640 is $339.99... while the most expansive 640 GTS (without waterblock) is $409 on egg (339 to 409):up:

cheapest 2900XT is $379.99 a whole $40 more how ever the 2nd cheapest one is $399.99, and the most expansive 2900XT is $449 ... (379 to 449):up:

hell my 2nd GTS 640 was $339.99 on February:up:

I wasn't counting MIRs
06-28-2007, 05:08 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

I wasn't counting MIRs

There's still the leadtek model for $369 before MIR.

Fact is though, this topic has nothing to do with prices of the 512mb hd2900xt and the 640mb gts. The 1gb HD2900xt is aligned against the 768 mb GTX.

Lets keep this on topic guys, shall we? :up:
06-28-2007, 05:11 PM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

There's still the leadtek model for $369 before MIR.

Fact is though, this topic has nothing to do with prices of the 512mb hd2900xt and the 640mb gts. The 1gb HD2900xt is aligned against the 768 mb GTX.

Lets keep this on topic guys, shall we? :up:

that is correct, u can spin this whole "2900XT was never meant to compete with GTX, it was to compete with GTS 640" anyway u want ...

the fact is GTS 640 is cheaper than 2900XT here in US

also if u werent counting MIR .. that sapphire 2900XT is $394.99 last time i checked and the cheapest is MSI $369.99, still 25 bux cheaper
06-28-2007, 05:19 PM
GripS

Can't be right. I score 11,150 with my GTS overclocked and my CPU running @ 3.2ghz. I highly doubt 2xGTX only scored 13,000.
06-28-2007, 05:21 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by GripS

Can't be right. I score 11,150 with my GTS overclocked and my CPU running @ 3.2ghz. I highly doubt 2xGTX only scored 13,000.

Exactly, and that doesn't include the fact that you're running a dual-core, and they're running a quad-core at 3.73 ghz...

A single card should hit ~13k with ease on that system.
06-28-2007, 05:50 PM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

Exactly, and that doesn't include the fact that you're running a dual-core, and they're running a quad-core at 3.73 ghz...

A single card should hit ~13k with ease on that system.

In windows Vista?
Remember is Win Vista maybe 64bits, not Win XP that they are talking ;)

The pourpose of that is show who has the best drivers. Everything is explained on the article. Just read.....

They even say that there is not in question the performance of 8800, but yes the lack of that performance in windows vista in SLI.
Remeber that Falcon Crest is advising buyers to pick HD 2900 XT system simply because it offers more performance with the Operating System that came with it.
06-28-2007, 06:19 PM
ahmad

Actually this makes sense. These tests were done in Vista and everyone knows ATi has much better drivers in Vista. Heck I don't even think SLI works in Vista yet...

Thats just saying if you want good dual card performance in Vista, 2900XT is the choice.
06-28-2007, 07:18 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahmad

Actually this makes sense. These tests were done in Vista and everyone knows ATi has much better drivers in Vista. Heck I don't even think SLI works in Vista yet...

Thats just saying if you want good dual card performance in Vista, 2900XT is the choice.

SLi works in vista, just not with older drivers.

The fact that SLi didn't work in their review tells us they used older G80 drivers. The real question is, why would Falcon Northwest send out a computer with SLi using a driver that doesn't support SLi...
06-28-2007, 07:27 PM
californian7856

yeah i dont think SLI was enable at all lol ....
06-29-2007, 02:46 AM
Iconyu

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

SLi works in vista, just not with older drivers.

The fact that SLi didn't work in their review tells us they used older G80 drivers. The real question is, why would Falcon Northwest send out a computer with SLi using a driver that doesn't support SLi...

OEM try to ship with WHQL drivers only.
06-29-2007, 04:41 AM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

The article brings a very interesting point about testing only single card performance, no SLI vs CF and most of them under XP. That I find very interesting. It's been a long time since I've seen new video cards benchmarked and find nothing of CF and SLI. Even if it's later on. Can someone link me to a HD 2900 XT CF vs 8800 GTS SLI benchmark review?

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...hnitt_3dmark06

dunno if these results are common, but computerbase usually is a pretty credibale source.

*edit* ah well, just noticed the testsystem was running windows xp. maybe not that compareable to the results posted in this thread, as they were achieved on vista.
06-29-2007, 04:44 AM
cozwin

yep these scores are pure bull, first why using diff processor speeds :O :?, and 2nd i get 11k with my 8800gts 320mb might be even higher now and thats with a overclocked e6300
06-29-2007, 05:07 AM
fornowagain

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaZz!

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...hnitt_3dmark06

dunno if these results are common, but computerbase usually is a pretty credibale source.

*edit* ah well, just noticed the testsystem was running windows xp. maybe not that compareable to the results posted in this thread, as they were achieved on vista.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...a_superclock/2

On Vista.
06-29-2007, 07:30 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by fornowagain

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...a_superclock/2

On Vista.

Actaully those were under XP. For example they clearly state a scheduled DX 10 patch for COH. Another example is the Supreme Commander retial game using patch 3220 which is clearly for XP and lower OS. Oblivion is using patch 1.2 which is for XP. And most of the other games benched (at that time) were running at frame rates only found under XP, not Vista...which is a dead give away.
06-29-2007, 07:58 AM
Chewbenator

Well I think one thing is clear. The 2900 seems to be beating the GTS when it comes to dual GPU performance.
06-29-2007, 09:28 AM
n91htmare

NO, the only thing that's clear is that PC Mag does not know didly squat about reviewing computers. PC Mag is the mainstream of reviews like your Best Buy is the mainstream of computer. Everyone goes there to buy a computer but no one there knows anything about computers. Just like that, people go to PC Mag to look at reviews but no one there knows how to even do benching.
06-29-2007, 09:33 AM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Actaully those were under XP. For example they clearly state a scheduled DX 10 patch for COH. Another example is the Supreme Commander retial game using patch 3220 which is clearly not for XP and lower OS. Oblivion is using patch 1.2 which is for XP. And most of the other games benched (at that time) were running at frame rates only found under XP, not Vista...which is a dead give away.

Vista.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...a_superclock/2

Quote:

Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (operating at 2.93GHz -- 11x266MHz); Asus Striker Extreme motherboard (nForce 680i SLI); 2 x 1GB Corsair XMS2-8500C5 (operating in dual channel at DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12-1T timings); Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 200GB SATA hard drive; Enermax Galaxy DXX 1000W PSU; Windows Vista Ultimate x86; Nvidia nForce standalone drivers version 15.00 WHQL.

Another dead give-away is that 158.18 wasn't made for windows XP, XP had 158.19. Take a look at guru3d's driver archive yourself.
06-29-2007, 09:34 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by n91htmare

NO, the only thing that's clear is that PC Mag does not know didly squat about reviewing computers. PC Mag is the mainstream of reviews like your Best Buy is the mainstream of computer. Everyone goes there to buy a computer but no one there knows anything about computers. Just like that, people go to PC Mag to look at reviews but no one there knows how to even do benching.

Actually, Chewbenator is correct when it comes to Vista. Unless there are other r600 vs gts 640 SLI reviews using Vista that we can look at?
06-29-2007, 09:36 AM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by n91htmare

NO, the only thing that's clear is that PC Mag does not know didly squat about reviewing computers. PC Mag is the mainstream of reviews like your Best Buy is the mainstream of computer. Everyone goes there to buy a computer but no one there knows anything about computers. Just like that, people go to PC Mag to look at reviews but no one there knows how to even do benching.

i see the ATI fans still think that 2900XT > anything on the market

and nv fans still think that the test was done without turning on SLI

but make no mistake about it had they use 158.45 the result would have been different
06-29-2007, 10:53 AM
Eastcoasthandle

here is a vista review
As you can see, even in 3 games it's performing better in Vista then GTS 320.
06-29-2007, 12:09 PM
Phlash

:slobber: :eek2:
06-29-2007, 12:18 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlash

:slobber: :eek2:

What's there to drool over? That's essentially CF vs Single card GTX. ;)
06-29-2007, 12:21 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

What's there to drool over? That's essentially CF vs Single card GTX. ;)

Not in the Vista, 3 game review that i posted :shrug:
Also, (unless there is other reviews that suggest otherwise) the GTX SLI benchmark in Vista is pretty much on par what it can do in Vista.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...1i15811000.gif
Source

If the above is any indication the GTX is not scoring any where near the same as it does in XP. Therefore, (again unless there are other reviews using SLI vs R600 in Vista) there is no way to assume nor expect XP performance in Vista via SLI. Using similar gpu/cpu clocks and hardware.
06-29-2007, 12:22 PM
Phlash

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

What's there to drool over? That's essentially CF vs Single card GTX. ;)

Whoops, I just fell for the trap then ;)
06-29-2007, 12:27 PM
nitteo

Those numbers are right for the since the OC was only up to 3.2,thats QX6700+SLI GTX, I have Ultras, but close enough:

REMEMBER THIS IS STOCK CLOCKS ON BOTH CPU+GPUs

Bench 1: 1st Single Ultra A = 11,930

Bench 2: 2nd Single Ultra B = 12,013

Bench 3: Both on SLI = 12,981

Bench 4: XP QUAD OCD to 3600mhz + GPUs OCD = 18,303

Bottom line, the STOCK CPU severely bottlenecks the GPUs. This is just a "sneaky" way of manipulating the data.
06-29-2007, 12:32 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by nitteo

Those numbers are right for the STOCK QX6700+SLI GTX, I have Ultras, but close enough:

REMEMBER THIS IS STOCK CLOCKS ON BOTH CPU+GPUs

Bench 1: 1st Single Ultra A = 11,930

Bench 2: 2nd Single Ultra B = 12,013

Bench 3: Both on SLI = 12,981

In vista above :clap: :up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nitteo

Bottom line, the STOCK CPU severely bottlenecks the GPUs. This is just a "sneaky" way of manipulating the data.

How is it sneaky :confused: We are talking about the difference between Vista vs XP. There is no specific guideline suggesting that you have to be at a certain OC :confused: Also, results do vary from one system to another...:yepp:
06-29-2007, 01:22 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Not in the Vista, 3 game review that i posted :shrug:
Also, (unless there is other reviews that suggest otherwise) the GTX SLI benchmark in Vista is pretty much on par what it can do in Vista.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...1i15811000.gif
Source

If the above is any indication the GTX is not scoring any where near the same as it does in XP. Therefore, (again unless there are other reviews using SLI vs R600 in Vista) there is no way to assume nor expect XP performance in Vista via SLI. Using similar gpu/cpu clocks and hardware.

Care to explain how the dell, with a significantly slower cpu speed, scored higher in vista in 06 then the Falcon? Allow me to explain it, drivers. You see, PCMagazine doesn't say what drivers are used... Judging by it being that much lower though, I think it's pretty safe to say they're running MUCH older drivers.

To the guy who posted his sli numbers, try it again with the new 162's and see what you get. :up:
06-29-2007, 01:25 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

Care to explain how the dell, with a significantly slower cpu speed, scored consistantly higher in vista then the Falcon? Allow me to explain it, drivers. You see, PCMagazine doesn't say what drivers are used...

To the guy who posted his sli numbers, try it again with the new 162's and see what you get. :up:

There are plenty of variables not known into why the score is different.
-Bios settings
-Type of ram used
-Vista setup
-Motherboard used
-drivers and how they react to that particular PC setup
-the CPU could be THROTTLING
-etc

All can play a factor in why it's true that "results will vary from one PC to another". But let us not get off track here. Someone already posted his results and found them to be similar in Vista as to what's posted in the article making the "driver problem" moot argument. Also note, that drivers for Vista (regardless of what you believe) will not create XP like results. But as you can see, the Nvidia drivers are doing what it's suppose to do in XP. Currently, there are no forceware drivers that allow for XP type performance gains in Vista (again, using similar gpu/cpu, etc testbed). This also lends to the comments of how strong G80 is in XP vs vista. However, I reserve my opinion until we see more G80 reviews in Vista.
06-29-2007, 01:37 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

There are plenty of variables not known into why the score is different.
-Bios settings
-Type of ram used
-Vista setup
-Motherboard used
-drivers and how they react to that particular PC setup
-etc

All can play a factor in why it's true that "results will vary from one PC to another". But let us not get off track here. Someone already posted his results and found them to be similar in Vista as to what's posted in the article making the "driver problem" moot argument. Also note, that drivers for Vista (regardless of what you believe) will not create XP like results. But as you can see, the Nvidia drivers are doing what it's suppose to do in XP. Currently, there are no forceware drivers that allow for XP type performance gains in Vista (again, using similar gpu/cpu, etc testbed). This also lends to the comments of how strong G80 is in XP vs vista. However, I reserve my opinion until we see more G80 reviews in Vista.

162.15 for Vista is apparently pretty strong, and improves sli support in vista.

However, it is a shame that nvidia's vista support isn't as strong as their xp support, but I think that's due to their initial instabilities in vista. They made a statement in march that they're first focusing on stability(thus the influx of drivers in the past few months), then they're moving on to performance. I know 162.15 added ~5 fps in COJ according to users at NVNews. In f.e.a.r. the 162.15's actually brought single card performance up to XP levels according to users on the same board(actually, it out perfomed the 158 series xp drivers in f.e.a.r.)
06-29-2007, 01:49 PM
zerazax

Either way there were some very questionable review tactics in the whole thing
06-29-2007, 01:53 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

162.15 for Vista is apparently pretty strong, and improves sli support in vista.

However, it is a shame that nvidia's vista support isn't as strong as their xp support, but I think that's due to their initial instabilities in vista. They made a statement in march that they're first focusing on stability(thus the influx of drivers in the past few months), then they're moving on to performance. I know 162.15 added ~5 fps in COJ according to users at NVNews. In f.e.a.r. the 162.15's actually brought single card performance up to XP levels according to users on the same board(actually, it out perfomed the 158 series xp drivers in f.e.a.r.)

User opinion can vary from one PC to another. Those FPS increased could have come at the cost of a certain clock speed (cpu/gpu using lns, dry ice, etc), Bios tweaking (PCIe frequency for one example) and ram tweak (lower timings) etc to name a few. So I take that with a grain of salt. However, in this thread, when there is consistency across the board (sort of speak when a user gets similar results found in the article) in this example it's hard to ignore. And as you can clearly see, the G80 (along with it's drivers) do appear to have a perfect fit in performance gains in XP. The same cannot be said in Vista and, I do believe it's not just a driver issue either. But time will tell :)
06-29-2007, 02:01 PM
nemrod

Quote:

Originally Posted by nitteo

REMEMBER THIS IS STOCK CLOCKS ON BOTH CPU+GPUs

Bench 1: 1st Single Ultra A =
Bench 2: 2nd Single Ultra B =
Bench 3: Both on SLI =
Bench 4: XP QUAD OCD to 3600mhz + GPUs OCD =

Bench 5: Vista QUAD OCD to 3600mhz + stock SLI = ?
06-29-2007, 02:02 PM
DilTech

Take a good look at nitteo's results. Peer very closely at the SM2 scores. Notice something? They don't change between single card and sli... Why?

Because with that driver SLi isn't working in sm2. The proof is right there infront of you. Unless, of course, you want to tell me that 3dmark06 bottlenecks the sm2 score at ~4980 on a QX6700.

That's why I asked him to run it again with the 162.15's.
06-29-2007, 02:08 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

Take a good look at nitteo's results. Peer very closely at the SM2 scores. Notice something? They don't change between single card and sli... Why?

Because with that driver SLi isn't working in sm2. The proof is right there infront of you. Unless, of course, you want to tell me that 3dmark06 bottlenecks the sm2 score at ~4980 on a QX6700.

That's why I asked him to run it again with the 162.15's.

And how can you prove that its a driver problem or a video card problem? It can be either or. Because of that you are either looking at a:
-driver problem that still doesn't prove it's capable of XP performance
-video card limitation in Vista
Regardless, as it stands now the article has been proven correct with what's currently available. No need to call foul as it can be said that the G80 has been out well over 7 months now. If it was just released (like 2 months ago) I would understand. But as it stands now that's no excuse. Also note, that his SM 3.0 results improved with his SLI however, it appears to be at the cost of SM 2.0 (hw limitation??). In any case you cannot just look at SM 2.0 only when using Vista. You cannot say that SLI is not enabled when he's getting a nice boost in SM 3.0. In fact it looks to me that his SLI is working in Vista. What's happening is that in Vista his SM 3.0 increases under SLI in Vista but his SM 2.0 decreases.
06-29-2007, 02:11 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

And how can you prove that its a driver problem or a video card problem? It can be either or. Because of that you are either looking at a:
-driver problem that still doesn't prove it's capable of XP performance
-video card limitation in Vista
Regardless, as it stands now the article has been proven correct with what's currently available. No need to call foul as it can be said that the G80 has been out well over 7 months now. If it was just released (like 2 months ago) I would understand. But as it stands now that's no excuse.

Thus, why I again say, lets have him run it again with the 162.15's. Aren't you the least bit curious as to what the outcome will be with the latest drivers? I know I'm generally curious to always see hardware run on the latest available(and always dismissing reviews that don't state the driver versions run).
06-29-2007, 02:18 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

Thus, why I again say, lets have him run it again with the 162.15's. Aren't you the least bit curious as to what the outcome will be with the latest drivers? I know I'm generally curious to always see hardware run on the latest available(and always dismissing reviews that don't state the driver versions run).

Please read
This is why I express the importants of WHQL approved drivers when benchmarking like this.

Quote:

driver has been taken offline at the request of NVIDIA. There are some isssues with these drivers.
06-29-2007, 02:33 PM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Please read
This is why I express the importants of WHQL approved drivers when benchmarking like this.

The issue was with lost planet, the new release of it should be any minute.

Also, if I'm not mistaken(I'm not running sli or vista, so I can't verify myself), but didn't sli not get added properly into the vista driver until 158.42 Could've sworn I remember reading that in the release highlights for 158.42/43. Of course, it might've been 24 as well.

:::edit:::
nvm, that was DX10 SLi support.
06-29-2007, 02:38 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

The issue was with lost planet, the new release of it should be any minute.

Also, if I'm not mistaken(I'm not running sli or vista, so I can't verify myself), but didn't sli not get added properly into the vista driver until 158.42 Could've sworn I remember reading that in the release highlights for 158.42/43. Of course, it might've been 24 as well.

:::edit:::
nvm, that was DX10 SLi support.

Vista not added properly (as you put it) is pretty hard to validate when plenty of people are using SLI in Vista.
06-30-2007, 09:16 PM
xlink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Well,the Sapphire Radeon HD2900XT is $374.99 and the cheapest 8800GTS is $379.99 so it's quite close.

Noise and power consumption, the 2900XT loses, but I could care less.

All I care about is performance per $...and how much X38 is going to be :up:

I bought my 640mb GTS for $310

so not quite...
06-30-2007, 09:26 PM
californian7856

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlink

I bought my 640mb GTS for $310

so not quite...

he said he couldnt care less .. money is no object ... since hes likely to pay more to run his 2900XT thru power bills, also GTS 640 can be have for much less than 2900xt if one just look

ohy yea he said MIR doesnt count, but still 640 GTS is 25 buxx chepaer in newegg's case ...

so i dunno ... maybe he simply likes 2900XT regardless of what .. includes power consumption , price , noise , oh and in XP GTS actually beats 2900xT in many benches ...

yeah i know nv sucks at DX10/Vista , but DX10 is slow for all cards ... i dont think ill play DX10 on my current rig nor do i think anyone else can on theirs ... not even with 2900XT CF .... at 1680x1050 4xAA .... for games like crysis , bioshock in DX10 mode

ill prolly get w/e is fastest (maybe G90 or 2950XTX 1GB) when Crysis launches, but seeing how DX10 dont bring much over DX9 i might as well stick with DX9/XP

maybe when a game is DX10 only thats when we will see what this slide is all about
Attachment 61155
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
06-30-2007, 09:59 PM
gdogg

Hey Hey Hey now guys, regardless of drivers, the 8800GTX in vista in sli has to suck, this is the same way the hd2900xt was treated due to bad drivers, so I don't want to see this treated any different ya hear.

:rofl: :ROTF: :clap: :welcome:

If you have to ask why? Because teh review said so :P lol
06-30-2007, 10:02 PM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by DilTech

The issue was with lost planet, the new release of it should be any minute.

Also, if I'm not mistaken(I'm not running sli or vista, so I can't verify myself), but didn't sli not get added properly into the vista driver until 158.42 Could've sworn I remember reading that in the release highlights for 158.42/43. Of course, it might've been 24 as well.

:::edit:::
nvm, that was DX10 SLi support.

yeah just searched in guru3d a bit
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1629
158.24 was the 1st vista driver they added SLI support for DX9
06-30-2007, 10:08 PM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdogg

Hey Hey Hey now guys, regardless of drivers, the 8800GTX in vista in sli has to suck, this is the same way the hd2900xt was treated due to bad drivers, so I don't want to see this treated any different ya hear.

:rofl: :ROTF: :clap: :welcome:

If you have to ask why? Because teh review said so :P lol

oh .. i c so drivers/os dont count huh

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

in that case GTS 320 csts $290 pwns 2900XT $400 ...

:rofl: :ROTF: :clap: :welcome:

anyway set the fanboy talk aside. Anadtech said they r doing another of both GTX, GTS and XT with new driver ...
06-30-2007, 10:13 PM
Zytek_Fan

Quote:

Originally Posted by californian7856

oh .. i c so drivers/os dont count huh

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

in that case GTS 320 csts $290 pwns 2900XT $400 ...

:rofl: :ROTF: :clap: :welcome:

anyway set the fanboy talk aside. Anadtech said they r doing another of both GTX, GTS and XT with new driver ...

That was with Cat 7.5

The 2900XT is THE card to buy ;)
06-30-2007, 10:17 PM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

That was with Cat 7.5

The 2900XT is THE card to buy ;)

yeah it only use more power than even GTX (which means ur paying that in electric bills)
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2129295,00.asp

and costs more, in most extreme case $65 more ($310 vs $375)

and louder

and slower with 4xAA

other than all that i agree ..

because its very fast in Call of Juarez DX10 which is a AMD sponsor game btw

and CF in Vista is really fast
07-01-2007, 12:16 AM
AbelJemka

-http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid..._14.html#sect0
I pick my test and say it use less power idle and we spend more time in idle mode than in full mode. Extra bill is like 10$ for a year. And on XS speaking about power compsumption it's like a joke.
- Louder for sure but in summmer i guess all high end cards will become louder.
- Slower with 4xAA but even with that still in GTS performance.
- Call of Juarez is a Nvidia sponsor game.
- CF in XP is equally very fast.
07-01-2007, 12:27 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by californian7856

maybe when a game is DX10 only thats when we will see what this slide is all about
Attachment 61155
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

Not really.

DX10 is either A. Faster with the same content or B. You can do more effects and some that you couldn't do with 9, but its slower.

And they all went B.

So all the efficiency bonus moving to DX10 is eaten (And alot more) by more of everything and new features added to the game.

AMD and nVidia game funding made sure you wouldn´t just see a small boost in content. They had to protect current highend and the next generation. It would be pretty bad for them if someone just did a pure DX10 crossover. So a 8800GTS in DX10 performed like a 8800GTX in DX9. On the other hand, they sacrificed any possibility of DX10 on 8600/2600 series.
07-01-2007, 07:41 AM
Eastcoasthandle

I found this tid bit of news interesting since the HD 2900XT 1 gig is getting a make over for it's memory ICs (using samsung).
Source

Quote:

Samsung ...announced today that its GDDR4 (Graphics Double Data Rate, version 4) high-speed graphics memory chip is being used in both the 1GB ATI Radeon™ HD 2900 XT and the 256MB ATI Radeon™ HD 2600 XT graphics processing cards. The 1GB card has the widest bus in the industry designed for full-performance, high dynamic range (HDR) rendering in PCs...Built with 80 nanometer process technology, the 512Mb GDDR4-based graphics cards provides 140.8GB-per-second performance ? 25 percent faster than 700 MHz GDDR3 graphics memory, the most common graphics device in use today...Samsung’s GDDR4 memory devices are now in mass production at the 512Mb density level. Samsung developed the world first GDDR4 device last year and submitted a paper on a 4Gbps GDDR4

I think we all are interested to see what the performance level of the video card is overclocked using Samsung ICs.

These GDDR 4 (K4U52324QE) is rated roughly at:
.6ns @ 1.600GHz = 3.2Gbps
07-01-2007, 09:17 AM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

-http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid..._14.html#sect0
I pick my test and say it use less power idle and we spend more time in idle mode than in full mode. Extra bill is like 10$ for a year. And on XS speaking about power compsumption it's like a joke.

not really umm i dunno how they did that test .. i can find many that suggest it uses more power during idle

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=30

a card uses more power load can use less power idle?? something wrong with the way they did that test

and no when i dont play games/surf i turn my comp off

louder?? umm b/c its louder then GTS/GTX

Quote:

- Call of Juarez is a Nvidia sponsor game.

its AMD/ATI sponsor, do u even have the game??
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/7964/dsc00127ob2.jpg

wheres the nv title??

as for CF performance in XP .. well u can always find a review that suggest different
07-01-2007, 09:22 AM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Not really.

DX10 is either A. Faster with the same content or B. You can do more effects and some that you couldn't do with 9, but its slower.

And they all went B.

So all the efficiency bonus moving to DX10 is eaten (And alot more) by more of everything and new features added to the game.

AMD and nVidia game funding made sure you wouldn´t just see a small boost in content. They had to protect current highend and the next generation. It would be pretty bad for them if someone just did a pure DX10 crossover. So a 8800GTS in DX10 performed like a 8800GTX in DX9. On the other hand, they sacrificed any possibility of DX10 on 8600/2600 series.

yeah when nv released Lost Planet , COH and AMD's COJ DX10 .. i realized that DX10 is slow as hell ...

i doubt future driver will improve it .. not gonna make 20fps average to 40fps .. thats just impossible

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2147398,00.asp
look at that! that is pure crap ...

so that means with a $550 GTX u cant even play games at >1280x1024 with 4xAA on and still get >40fps constantly

well ill enjoy Crysis in XP DX9 . or i'll prolly get a new card that can play it on DX10 1680x1050 2xAA
07-01-2007, 10:01 AM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by californian7856

not really umm i dunno how they did that test .. i can find many that suggest it uses more power during idle

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=30

a card uses more power load can use less power idle?? something wrong with the way they did that test

and no when i dont play games/surf i turn my comp off

louder?? umm b/c its louder then GTS/GTX

its AMD/ATI sponsor, do u even have the game??
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/7964/dsc00127ob2.jpg

wheres the nv title??

as for CF performance in XP .. well u can always find a review that suggest different

U can find a review, a blog or whatever that suggest all you want.
And i have the game and it begins with a nice Nvidia TWIMTBP.
07-01-2007, 10:07 AM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

U can find a review, a blog or whatever that suggest all you want.
And i have the game and it begins with a nice Nvidia TWIMTBP.

yeah and no screenshot

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/7964/dsc00127ob2.jpg

see its AMD/ATI sponsor

do u know how to view a picture?? move the cursor to where the link is and use left mouse button to click

and yeah cuz u only waan hear whats best for 2900XT so u pick that specific review that suggest it uses less power idle ... and u try to spin it by saying comp idle more blablabal .. well i turn my comp off when i dont play 3dgames

but ALL review suggest it uses more power than GTX during full load

also to get more accurate reading i think they should have the 8pin PCI-E plug in ... as that will increase its power consumption even more
07-01-2007, 10:29 AM
AbelJemka

Quote:

yeah and no screenshot

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/7964/dsc00127ob2.jpg

see its AMD/ATI sponsor

do u know how to view a picture?? move the cursor to where the link is and use left mouse button to click

Logo still on CoJ official website.
http://www.coj-game.com/
Seems Nvidia not happy with CoJ benchmark so they pulled the game off their list in US but not in France.
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_tw...gameslist.html
http://fr.nzone.com/object/nzone_twi...eslist_fr.html
U know how to click?
http://www.hiboox.com/lang-fr/image....g=htefpwn5.jpg

Quote:

and yeah cuz u only waan hear whats best for 2900XT so u pick that specific review that suggest it uses less power idle ... and u try to spin it by saying comp idle more blablabal .. well i turn my comp off when i dont play 3dgames

but ALL review suggest it uses more power than GTX during full load

Yours Anandtech link also whow it use less power idle:up: And i never turn my comp off and really don't about power comsuption too.
And yes it use more power than GTX but i never say it doesn't.

Quote:

also to get more accurate reading i think they should have the 8pin PCI-E plug in ... as that will increase its power consumption even more

Stupid statement. Coz u plug 8 pin PCI-E it will use power it don't need :rofl: .
07-01-2007, 10:36 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Logo still on CoJ official website.
http://www.coj-game.com/
Seems Nvidia not happy with CoJ benchmark so they pulled the game off their list in US but not in France.
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_tw...gameslist.html
http://fr.nzone.com/object/nzone_twi...eslist_fr.html
U know how to click?
http://www.hiboox.com/lang-fr/image....g=htefpwn5.jpg

Yours Anandtech link also whow it use less power idle:up: And i never turn my comp off and really don't about power comsuption too.
And yes it use more power than GTX but i never say it doesn't.

Stupid statement. Coz u plug 8 pin PCI-E it will use power it don't need :rofl: .

:clap:
That's some good research. This leaves no doubt :up:
07-01-2007, 10:57 AM
XS2K

Just a thought maybe COJ DX9 version is being sponsored by Nvidia with their TWIMTBP program and the DX10 version by ATI/AMD....
07-01-2007, 10:58 AM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

-http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid..._14.html#sect0
I pick my test and say it use less power idle and we spend more time in idle mode than in full mode. Extra bill is like 10$ for a year. And on XS speaking about power compsumption it's like a joke.
- Louder for sure but in summmer i guess all high end cards will become louder.

.

yeah its louder than anything, uses more power

Quote:

- Slower with 4xAA but even with that still in GTS performance.

wrong GTS pwns 2900XT when 4xAA is on
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=19
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=20

when 4xAA is off it pwns ur 2900XT in STALKER, SupCom
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=22
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=24

Quote:

- CF in XP is equally very fast

equally very fast lol learn some english
equally very fast haha
wrong again
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=25

Quote:

- Call of Juarez is a Nvidia sponsor game.

complete bs , learn to read
http://ati.amd.com/products/Radeonhd2900/index.html
07-01-2007, 11:09 AM
Eastcoasthandle

I think this should settle it:

Quote:

"NVIDIA has a long standing relationship with Techland and their publisher Ubisoft. In fact, the original European version of Call Of Juarez that was launched in September 2006 is part of the "The Way Its Meant To Be Played" program. As a result of the support Techland and Ubisoft receives for being part of the "The Way Its Meant To Be Played" program, NVIDIA discovered that the early build of the game that was distributed to the press has an application bug that violates DirectX 10 specifications by mishandling MSAA buffers, which causes DirectX 10 compliant hardware to crash. Our DevTech team has worked with Techland to fix that and other bugs in the Call of Juarez code...

Source

Although the article was talking about something else the direct quote from Nvidia is irrefutable. Yes, I now that quote involves European version of the game. However, the current version available didn't simply change to GITG. And, Techland's involvement in COJ didn't change. But make note (if you continue to read the source link), that Techland indicates that the newest benchmark is distribute by (not developed by) AMD. However, that's just the benchmark, not the entire game. Also, it didn't change the relationship between Nvidia and Techland at the time the game was developed.
07-01-2007, 11:13 AM
californian7856

http://ati.amd.com/products/Radeonhd2900/index.html

i think this should settle. learn to read.

what website is that.. oh thats right its AMD
07-01-2007, 11:15 AM
[XC] Lead Head

Californian, You have no right to tell Abel he speaks bad English, he speaks better English then you do, and he is from France. Heres some gold from one of your previous posts.

"do u know how to view a picture?? move the cursor to where the link is, and use the left mouse button to click.

and yeah cuz u only waan hear whats best for 2900XT, so u pick that specific review that suggests it uses less power on idle ... and u try to spin it by saying comp idle more blablabal .. well i turn my comp off when i dont play 3dgames."

I bolded misspelled words, and italicized missing words that should be there. At least he uses proper grammar, capitalizing words and ending sentences with periods, unlike you. You just look like a fool with his quote in your sig and that mess of a sentence below it.

Also, you should find some OTHER reviews, besides AnandTech, which has shown a slight Intel/nvidia bias as of lately. Also, just because CoJ is on AMD's site, does not mean they sponsor it. At the time, it was one of the only functional publicly available DX10 games.
07-01-2007, 11:19 AM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Californian, You have no right to tell Abel he speaks bad English, he speaks better English then you do, and he is from France. Heres some gold from one of your previous posts.

"do u know how to view a picture?? move the cursor to where the link is, and use theleft mouse button to click.

and yeah cuz u only waan hear whats best for 2900XT, so u pick that specific review that suggests it uses less power on idle ... and u try to spin it by saying comp idle more blablabal .. well i turn my comp off when i dont play 3dgames.

I bolded misspelled words, and italicized missing words that should be there. At least he uses proper grammar, capitalizing words and ending sentences with periods, unlike you. You just look like a fool with his quote in your sig and that mess of a sentence below it.

Also, you should find some OTHER reviews, besides AnandTech, which has shown a slight Intel/nvidia bias as of lately.

yeah its call abbreviation ..

u = you
cuz = cause

why is idle misspelled?? and more?? those were right

and "w" is not misspelled... why did u bold that??

also "3d" means 3 dimension?? duh.. why is that one bold??

was that so hard to understand??

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/7964/dsc00127ob2.jpg
as for AMD sponsor .. can u tell me why AMD ATI logo is on the box of that game
07-01-2007, 11:23 AM
[XC] Lead Head

Quote:

Originally Posted by californian7856

yeah its call abbreviation ..

u = you
cuz = cause

was that so hard to understand??

Nope, and sorry to tell you "cause", isn't a word either. You make fun of Abel for his English, which is a hell of a lot better then yours.
07-01-2007, 11:24 AM
DilTech

Wow, I'm gone for ONE day and this thread turns into flames... Thread closed.
07-01-2007, 11:24 AM
californian7856

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Nope, and sorry to tell you "cause", isn't a word either. You make fun of Abel for his English, which is a hell of a lot better then yours.

lol cause isnt a word ... i want w/e ur smoking.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:09 AM.

XtremeSystems