What is really going on?

[supergenius74]

OK here is my story, been into computer gaming since the days of dos and went from a 3dfx fan to a nvidia fan simply because I always wanted the best. The last card I bought was 2 years ago, a ti-4600 128meg and till now has been by my side all the way. A very fast card that holds its own to this day. Well I got a new game for christmas, FS2004, I have always been into FS games and always will be. My computer runs newer games with quality settings and even 12x16 res just fine except for this game. Even my FS2002 chugged along at 20FPS at max settings but at least its playable. Well max settings at 600x800 settings brings my poor little ti-4600 down to about 5 fps! ouch and thats with no AA or AF. So now you know what I play and my situation, I think its time to finally start thinking about a new card again. After alot of searching I have come to some strange conclusions. First off all the "hype" thats been floating around all year is exactly that "hype" if you take the 2 best cards available, a 9800 XT and a FX5950 that perform about the same and it really depends on the game, the nvidia card is better in some and the ati is better in some, there is no clear better card and it really comes down to what you play. The other thing is there isn't alot of comparrisons or reviews between these two cards. I know they are fairly new but review sites always get things earlier so there should have been some reviews by now. You can buy both online right now, the cheapest prices from pricewatch show the fx for 408 and the XT for 431 so there isn't much difference there, I'm not sure why best buy has the same XT card for 500 and no 5950's at all, doesn't surpise me though, I hate BB. Anyways, anything less than the absolute best card is never an option. Unfortunately when I play games I want the the best I can get out of the game, Its been this way for me a long time and has cost me dearly. I'm kind of in a pickle now, I can't decide if either card is better for what I play and I can't figure out if I should wait longer for the next set of cards from each company. If I do that then my favorite game will be a year old by then and I will have missed out on alot of good gaming eye candy. It's enough to drive one mad. I don't want to know how well a new XT would run any quake 3 engine game or UT 2003 since my current card will run those fine. I want to know how the 2 best cards will do running fs2002 or 2004 or any newer game that absolutley crushes a fast computer and if I should just wait longer. Thanks for listening to me rant but the whole industry is a bit insane as of late.

[Steven4563]

have u tired overclocking yout TI4600 if not try might help alot

also what drivers are u using

i would go with the 9800XT

[snyper1982]

the whole industry is insane because nv has made it this way with cheating drivers, poor iq, sub-par shader performance, etc. last i heard af was not enabled on nv cards, no matter the settings in game or in the driver pannel, could have change by now, but i absolutely think that this is a no brainer, ati is the one to go with right now.

[Th0r]

Ok i am not going to read that... try using paragraphs next time please... That just hurts my eyes... don't know why...

[supergenius74]

sorry I'm at work and had to type fast. Do Ti-4600's overclock well? I use to overclock my voodoo 3 and geforce 2 and got a minimal performance boost. I guess what I am saying Is i don't want to go spend a bunch of money on a monster heatsink and ramsinks for my ti if i'm only going to get a small 3-5% boost in framerate.
The industry is realy crazy right now, you use to be able to go to a hardware site, read about the latest vid card review and pick the best one for your money and when you got home it performed exactly how they said it would. Now the reviews are very unfair and skewed. Too many people doing the reviews really don't know what they are talking about or compare things unfairly.
In the past 6 months I have only found one review that was even worth reading, its this one from anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1931 . The conclusion was that the ati card has better AA but the NV card has better texture LOD and alpha blending and there is no clear winner between the 2. They also go on to say that there is no good way to measure pixel shader quality yet so there is no way to compare one of the biggest parts of DX9 between the cards.
I am happy to see new games finally starting to look somewhat cinematic or photo realistic, its something I have dreamed of for years and It's great but the industry is a complicated place now and I am having trouble deciding what to do. When a top-of-the-line video card costs nearly 500 bucks its not a decision to take lightly.

[tom10167]

Originally posted by supergenius74

In the past 6 months I have only found one review that was even worth reading, its this one from anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1931 . The conclusion was that the ati card has better AA but the NV card has better texture LOD and alpha blending and there is no clear winner between the 2. They also go on to say that there is no good way to measure pixel shader quality yet so there is no way to compare one of the biggest parts of DX9 between the cards.


Answered.

[CrashOveride]

I would get 9800, Nvidia's cards have been struggling in DX9 games and then there is that whole cheating bit...

[Overclocker550]

if your getting 20fps in that game, you should disable aa/af and run 800x600 with low details. If your fps is still low, what cpu do you have? you may want a decent cpu dude........

[micamica1217]

as quoted by supergenius74
""In the past 6 months I have only found one review that was even worth reading, its this one from anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1931 . The conclusion was that the ati card has better AA but the NV card has better texture LOD and alpha blending and there is no clear winner between the 2. They also go on to say that there is no good way to measure pixel shader quality yet so there is no way to compare one of the biggest parts of DX9 between the cards. ""

sorry I can't agree with you
that was one of the worst vidcard reviews I've seen all year.....

go to beyond3d.com's forums, and you'll see everyone who agrees with me.
plus you might learn a thing or two, but be forwarned....
they talk a language most don't know.
(after all, they are the big boys in this community)

linky (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9414)

mica

[supergenius74]

cool, finally got someone to reply who knows something. Ok well maybe that review isn't the best, but It's the best I could find so far, compared to some of the reviews out there that are blatantly biased and completely un-informative. I think the link you posted shows just how messed up things are right now. That is why my title says "whats really going on" maybe Nvidia is up to some crazy tricks or maybe both companies, it wouldn't be the first time a major corporation used dirty marketing tricks to sell products. Anyway, it looks like everyone has an opinion and some are facts and some are just because they like one card over another. I can't really decide right now so I will wait longer I think. Maybe a 9800XT is the best card but its also the most expensive and for that much money I want everything to be perfect. Maybe thats wishful thinking but it shouldn't be. On my flight sim forums there are alot of reports of problems and game crashes with the new ATI cards, It would be silly for me me to spend over 400 bucks for something that has errors in the games I play the most. I do alot of things that your average gamer doesn't, I am an engineer and use AutoCad every day, and my flight sim and race sim performance is actually more important than a FPS like Halo or UT because In those It's about inter-action more than eye-candy. Either way, before I shell out 400 bucks of my hard earned cash, I will be making sure that I have the best I can get.

[nikeair]

Personally I would wait until the new chipsets come out in about march or so...not worth it to buy "the best" when a brand new chipset comes out in a couple of months...

[Evnas]

If i remember right, the FX cards have had lots of problems with the newest Microsoft Flight Sim games for a long time, not being able to render things right or something like that. Not totaly sure, and too tired to look into it right now, heh

[PreservedSwine]

Spending that kind of money ($400), I don't see how the FX5950 could be an option. With it's catsrated DX9 performance, it's a good card for DX8, but not in a year or so when even more DX9 titles apear. If you are a fan of nVidia, go for the FX5900TX/SE, at less than $200, it's a great value...and won't break the bank.

However, if it's truly the best card you want, regardless of price, no question the R9800XT is THE best card, currently anyway...

[Mike360000]

Originally posted by Evnas
If i remember right, the FX cards have had lots of problems with the newest Microsoft Flight Sim games for a long time, not being able to render things right or something like that. Not totaly sure, and too tired to look into it right now, heh

Not for me.
I run MS Combat Flight Sim3 with my 5900 just fine.
Runs MS Combat Flight Sim fine also, although I don't play this game very much anymore. Ran Mig Alley fine also, but it is an old game and I uninstalled it last week.
(Am just getting ready to load and try Secret Weapons over Normandy.)

Actually I would say the Ati cards has more problems with MS Flight Sims. There were posts on it at one time in MS Flight Sim forums. PLUS I have seen this first hand with a friends 9800 who is trying to run MSCFSim3. Personally I'll still stand by my beliefs that Ati's drivers is a far cry from being equal to nvidia's. Those nvidia optimizations is just one small reason.(more on this below.)

Actually concerning the 5900/5950s overall, as it stands at this moment they are practically just as fast as the 9800s and just as many times faster, except in DX9. Even there as of right now there isn't a big difference in *most* DX9 games. It's just most people are saying it will be the next batch of DX9 games thet will be slowing down the fx cards. I've been hearing this same thing for the last 4 or 5 months and I'm still waiting.

Beyond 3D is a good site for information and I don't trust hardly anything from Tom's Hardware. However Beyond 3D has never been favorable towards nvidia products to any extent.

As for pic quality concerning the 5900/5950s, you won't notice any real differences. Sure anyone can find a fluke and on any v card. Overall optimizations of nvidia v cards has been fairly well accepted now. Nothing wrong with it as cpus and other computer hardware has been being optimized for a long time now. Funny how people use this against nvidia, just concerning v cards, so they can hype their own likes. Actually in time to come I can see all v card companies heartily embracing this. nvidia is just a little too far ahead right now, concerning what people expect or are used to.

Personally I have absolutely NO complaints with my eVGA 5900nu. I'd buy it all over again with no reservations. But if the schedule holds out and new v cards are released in March, it may be worth considering waiting. I would bet these next v cards will have a much greater % of performance improvements than past newly introduced v cards.

Cheers,
Mike

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by Evnas
If i remember right, the FX cards have had lots of problems with the newest Microsoft Flight Sim games for a long time, not being able to render things right or something like that. Not totaly sure, and too tired to look into it right now, heh

well Mike360000,

I can't speak about weater or not ati has problems with the MS combat sims...as I nor my friend who has a 5900u, don't have this game(s).

anyway, here are some pics from MS flight sim 2004.....
both are rendered with 4XAA and 8XAF

ATI (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA2NjcxMTE2NnU4YUJGek5WVzdfN18xM l9sLmpwZw==)

nvidia (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA2NjcxMTE2NnU4YUJGek5WVzdfN184X 2wuanBn)

now I've tested this sim with both my friend's 5900u and my 9700pro, and we get the results as shown here.
with this new DX9.0 game you can clearly see the poor bump mapping on the water and the almost lack of AF on the nVidia FX cards.
even the AA can't match the ATI card.

now I just got LOMAC, so I may do some testing with this as well.

now as for beyond3d been a little biased toward ATI...
are you crazy?
the people at beyond3d are game developers, driver engeners and hard core programers.
are you saying that THEY would tell us lies or misslead us???
are you saying that they don't point out flaws from ATI?
sorry mike, but you are starting to sound like some FAN BOY.

mica

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by supergenius74
cool, finally got someone to reply who knows something. Ok well maybe that review isn't the best, but It's the best I could find so far, compared to some of the reviews out there that are blatantly biased and completely un-informative. I think the link you posted shows just how messed up things are right now. That is why my title says "whats really going on" maybe Nvidia is up to some crazy tricks or maybe both companies, it wouldn't be the first time a major corporation used dirty marketing tricks to sell products. Anyway, it looks like everyone has an opinion and some are facts and some are just because they like one card over another. I can't really decide right now so I will wait longer I think. Maybe a 9800XT is the best card but its also the most expensive and for that much money I want everything to be perfect. Maybe thats wishful thinking but it shouldn't be. On my flight sim forums there are alot of reports of problems and game crashes with the new ATI cards, It would be silly for me me to spend over 400 bucks for something that has errors in the games I play the most. I do alot of things that your average gamer doesn't, I am an engineer and use AutoCad every day, and my flight sim and race sim performance is actually more important than a FPS like Halo or UT because In those It's about inter-action more than eye-candy. Either way, before I shell out 400 bucks of my hard earned cash, I will be making sure that I have the best I can get.

almost 90% of any game crashes with an ATI card is because they didn't turn off "fast writes" and/or that "gpu recover" something....
sorry, I'm still using the cat3.7's, yet I'll be trying the cat3.10's soon.
the 3.7's don't have the "gpu recover" setting(or what ever it's called:p )

you seem to know your stuff...I would not worrie about going ATI.
I've had nothing but good things with my AIW 9700pro, and this is my first ATI card.

mica

[supergenius74]

well I'm not a game programmer but I am a computer administrator at my company so I do know a few things, plus I have been computer gaming since my old 8086 and I have owned alot of video cards since I bough my first Voodoo 1 in 96. I'm gonna wait, I've tweaked my current card a bit to find a happy medium for fs2004 and I will just try to be patient till the next generation of cards comes out. If things continue the way they are going I will probabaly go with an ATI. I found a test of fs2004 on hardocp.com and in their test even the 9800XT is brought to its knees @ 1200x1600 with 4xAA and 8xAF, 17FPS! Thanks for all the replies, thats what I love about these forums, you get real people and real information.

[Sentential]

Im using FS2004 without any hiccups and all eyecandy on. FPS are well over 15. Im very happy with my 9800

[Mike360000]

Actually the nvidia scene is more accurate.
Only problem I see with it compared to Ati is the nvidia's FSAA is a tad less than Ati's. The fade blending looking far forward(ansio) is actually more realistic with the nvidia v card. As for the closeup ground view I see hardly any difference.

The arguement can be made that nvidia is rendering the total scene more realistically, but then again, realistically, it can be argued that Ati is rendering more clearly than is realistic at those distances. Either way both arguements are controlled mainly through driver settings, the way the drivers implements this rendering.

Yes Ati has had big problems with MS Combat Sims. MS has released several patches for their Comabt Sims and some of the patches do help nvidia. However Ati v cards were more prone to crashes than was nvidia's, which made the problem more important. I can't comment on MS regular Flight Sims such as 2004.

I've been going to Beyond3D since about 1999, so I am quiet familiar with them. Dave B was a BIG 3Dfx zoombie untill the demise of 3Dfx. It is a good website though, and I stated so in my first psot, so quit grabbing for straws.

One of the very best places on the net for Flight Sims is here: http://www.frugalsworld.com/

I just installed Secret Weapons Over Normandy and didn't have the first problem. Everything is maxxed in the game, although I am running at 1024x768 and I haven't took a fps reading yet. The game is butter smooth however.

Cheers,
Mike


Originally posted by micamica1217


well Mike360000,

I can't speak about weater or not ati has problems with the MS combat sims...as I nor my friend who has a 5900u, don't have this game(s).

anyway, here are some pics from MS flight sim 2004.....
both are rendered with 4XAA and 8XAF

ATI (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA2NjcxMTE2NnU4YUJGek5WVzdfN18xM l9sLmpwZw==)

nvidia (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA2NjcxMTE2NnU4YUJGek5WVzdfN184X 2wuanBn)

now I've tested this sim with both my friend's 5900u and my 9700pro, and we get the results as shown here.
with this new DX9.0 game you can clearly see the poor bump mapping on the water and the almost lack of AF on the nVidia FX cards.
even the AA can't match the ATI card.

now I just got LOMAC, so I may do some testing with this as well.

now as for beyond3d been a little biased toward ATI...
are you crazy?
the people at beyond3d are game developers, driver engeners and hard core programers.
are you saying that THEY would tell us lies or misslead us???
are you saying that they don't point out flaws from ATI?
sorry mike, but you are starting to sound like some FAN BOY.

mica

[Mike360000]

Will add anyone running MSFSim 2k4 would be best served with 256 MB of onboard v card mem. This becomes more important and critical as one goes beyond 1024x768 resolution. When you do the figuring the 128 MB memory won't cut it when running FSAA over 1024x768 res.

Currently in MSCF Sim3 I get about 30-37fps in 1024x768 with everything on high in the game. Driver options is set to best quality with FSAA set to 2xQuintex and ansio set to app pref.

I would agree that it so close to new v card releases that if possible, wait. However we are not even sure if the next gen v cards will be released in March or even April. Nothing has been confirmed yet.

Cheers,
Mike

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by supergenius74
I found a test of fs2004 on hardocp.com and in their test even the 9800XT is brought to its knees @ 1200x1600 with 4xAA and 8xAF, 17FPS! Thanks for all the replies, thats what I love about these forums, you get real people and real information.

yes that's true, yet with the 5900u the same test only got 12fps...
I would say that the 5950 would get about 16fps

btw, the pics I've posted were from 1024x768...I play at 800x600 with 4XAA and 8XAF....I get about 32fps--I think.
this game works great with a fast CPU, as well as a good vid card.

mica

[Mike360000]

Originally posted by micamica1217


yes that's true, yet with the 5900u the same test only got 12fps...
I would say that the 5950 would get about 16fps

mica

I'm impressed!
Let's see, the 9800XT gets all of 17 fps and then 5900 Ultra is belittled because it gets 12 fps..... and supposedly by guesstimates the 5950 gets 16 fps! Accordingly the fx 5950 is trashed for being too slow and unplayable. Well gosh golly gee whiz, I don't think the 9800XT is the first bit more playable with its' frame rates than is the 5900U or 5950! So much for Ati being "THAT" much faster.

Cheers,
Mike

PS 1 sad comment on Secret Weapons Over Normandy. There is NO cockpit or cockpit view in the game. Otherwise it seems to be a pretty decent game, although the controls are much less advanced, much less control options for the planes.

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by Mike360000


I'm impressed!
Let's see, the 9800XT gets all of 17 fps and then 5900 Ultra is belittled because it gets 12 fps..... and supposedly by by guess the 5950 gets 16 fps! Accordingly the fx 5950 is trashed for being too slow and unplayable. Well gosh golly gee whiz, I don't think the 9800XT is the first bit more playable with its' frame rates than is the 5900U or 5950! So much for Ati being "THAT" much faster.

Cheers,
Mike


that was not my point or intention....:bang head

mica

[Mike360000]

Originally posted by micamica1217


that was not my point or intention....:bang head

mica

Sorry Mica, I didn't particularly mean to address just you, and I didn't clearify that. (my bad...)

What I am saying is, as it stands right now, most everyone has gotten on this fad, or hype train about Ati. Ati can do NO wrong and nvidia can do no right. Just about every object and area of attack has been leveled against nvidia; from, their drivers are not as good as Ati's, their hardware is not as good, they are cheating, their pic IQ isn't as good, they are not as fast, their DX9 does not work, OR will not work correct and as fast at some unspecificed later date that never gets here.

And then there is the nvidia is cheating, and nvidia is optimizing their drivers(optimizing I actually believe is a good thing, especially as time goes by.) All the while we get posters coming into threads like this 1 and saying, laying forth those claims above, in no uncertain terms. Nothing to back up what they say, just make the claims and go. Snyper1982 makes a prefect example of this.

Yet I see very very few people who has bought a fx 5900 series substaniate those claims to the degree above. Sure I agree that nvidia has done things less than perfect, even cheated, but so has Ati done the same things. And yes I believe Ati has the better hardware and have thought so for a long time. BUT I think their drivers are a long way from being nvidia's equal, and the best hardware in the world can't be complete and be the best without very very good drivers.

From what I've read and from my own experiences just about every last owner of the 5900 series has been satisfied with them, including the Pic IQ and speed. OTOH I have collected quiet a number of posts here, just from oc.com's own video forum of people dis-satisfied with the top end Radeon v cards. With most of them actually switching over to the 5900 series. I have yet to read a post from any of these people who regretted switching over to nvidia.

So my point was, not just to you, but rather that people use lame or short sited excuses like the example of 12, 16 and 17 fps as a demonstration to Ati's superior speed and how much faster it is with the latest DX9 capable games. OTOH I could have included your own pics that you posted links to to demonstrate how really little, how very little the differences are betweeen the Pic IQ of the 2 v cards. In short, most of the nvidia bashing is completely unfounded and is due more to hype and being in the "In Crowd" more than anything else. Afterall nobody wants to be different, or even dares to be different.... without being labelled and branded and even, heaven forbid, flamed.

Cheers,
Mike

[snyper1982]

before you start pointing fingers at me, read what i wrote. not one thing i said was unfounded. i never made any speed comparisons of any sort, i simply pointed out the facts, if you are unwiling to accept that then fine, i couldnt care less. you cannot say that i am making it up, the only one that is debateable is the poor iq, which to me, it is compared to my 9700.

if i was to buy a top of the line card, it damn sure wouldnt be one that i would have any doubt about its performance or iq, which as of right now, i do have my doubts about the nv performance in shader heavy games, which are the games that are going to be coming out in the next 5-6 months. i have plenty of resources to back up my claims, but i didnt know this was going to turn into a debate, if i did, i wouldnt have bothered posting in the first place.


i have no problem whatsoever with optimizations for games, i like them, makes my games that much more enjoyable. but when they start cutting out IQ simply to make their numbers look better, that is taking it to far in my eyes. and i dont care if other people switch to nv and are happy, that is fine, i am happy right now with my ati card. how many people have came from nv to ati? have you been keeping tabs on that as well? if i were going to bet, i would say many more people have left nv for ati, than vice versa.

and have you ever seen me flame anyone for buying an nv card? i say its their money, if they are happy, thats all that matters. but i will suggest the card i think is better when someone asks. whether you think i am doing it because im part of the "in crowd" or not. right now i think the 9800 is superior to anything nv has to offer.

i have never said the nv hardware is bad, i just think that the ati hardware is better, and that it would be better way to spend your money on the ati.

[Mike360000]

Well we're all entitled to our opinions.
While I don't agree with you, I do support your being to believe what you want. I'll add one thing though, that you seem to overlook. ALL optimizations is a balancing act between speed and performance verses Pic IQ. You can only trade one for the other.
I think the pics posted by mica shows how bad nvidia's Pic IQ is, according to your understanding. To me it is non-existent. And it is to many other people also.

BTW I'm still waiting for that 5-6 months you refer to. Just as the same thing was being said 7-8 months ago. Might as well drop that excuse as it has run out of gas... (It only works for so long. The Secret Weapons Over Normandy is another NEW DX9 game released this past month, and there certainly is no slowdown with it for me!) By the time your 5-6 months turns into another year or two we will be on the next generation of v cards past nv40 and rv420. So of course in another 6 months to a year ALL of today's v cards will be running those latest games slower, including today's latest Radeons!

Cheers,
Mike

[Evnas]

Originally posted by Mike360000
ALL optimizations is a balancing act between speed and performance verses Pic IQ. You can only trade one for the other.


Not entirely true. Up until the FX cards, nVidia never made IQ cuts like this, and they managed to get awesome performance from their driver updates

ATi also has maintained a very high image quality while managing also, very good performance gains

Lowering image quality for performance is only the most simplest way to gain performance, and often is the least done.

[eXtraktor]

http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Last_2003/

12 video cards compared... Now move along ppl

[Mike360000]

Number of problems there ole chap.

4AA takes a much bigger hit on the fx models than Ati.
AF also takes a bigger hit on the fx than Ati.
There is only 1 resolution mode and 1 set of driver settings used, which only gives 1 set of results. Remember all v cards responds differently to different settings, giving different results in performance. You will see those high scores by Ati erased as you turn down the resolution or turn down the AA or AF. Actually the settings given and the scores shown is probably the best ones that could be had to show Ati's best speeds compared to nvidia's.

They used about the worst brand 5950 that could be had. Creative does not make strong running v cards. Look at their 9600 in the same review and you can see it brings up the bottom.

I have serious reservations about the 128 MB 9800 Pro tested. No 128 MB v card is going to preform that well at that resolution with the AA and AF stated. My friends 9800 I mentioned earlier will not even keep up with my 5900 at 1280x1024 in the games we both play.

I also know for a fact that the 5700 listed gives MUCH better performace than what is listed. And my observances is based on home gaming system that actually has other things on the system and actually has some other things running. And that is with more than 1 5700 that I have personally noticed this.

Worth noting the number of brands tested from nvidia also. Some models were not listed such as the 5900 nu and 5900U. As was the 5600.

It is very simple to check several other reviews and compare them to what was listed against nordic.

Cheers,
Mike

[micamica1217]

Mike360000,

the last thing I 'm going to do is help start a Nvidia vs ATI flame war....as this is not my point or reason for this reply.

I'll make this nice and simple, and even be prepared to get in deep ***** for what I'm about to say.



I can't believe how you can sit here and say all the things you just wrote....flat out knowing that they are false.

first you said this a number of times:
""their DX9 does not work, OR will not work correct and as fast at some unspecificed later date that never gets here. ""

well I can't agree with you again.
the games are already here.
it started with the latest Tomb Raider game.
poor frame rates with only a small amount of 2.0 shaders.
it was so bad that nVidia helped remove the last patch to that game because it had a benchmark in it.
(and your here long enough to know this)
there are plenty others that nvidia has the same poor performance with, for the same reasons....
one of witch is halo....
nVidia at the start, had to remove images(lights), in order to help keep up with the ATI cards.
now with the 53.03 drivers, you get a 40% increase in frame rate, yet you also get poorer IQ (as in maybe you're now playing with 12bit shaders or worse).
no need to wait 5 or six months, the games are here...NOW.
and the games are only using a little bit of PS and VS 2.0...!!!

let's also talk about the pics I posted.....
even though you may set the AA to 4X and the AF to 8X...
nVidia only gives you 2XAF, and 2XAA.:eek:
why would nVidia do this???
to help it keep up or beat ATI in frame rates.
sorry if you can't see the IQ differances, but the rest of us are not blind as a bat.

yes, every IHV has cheated....yet not to the extent that nVidia has done over the past year or so.
hell, they are still cheating in 3dmark03 and aquamark...right now.
and they will continue to do so.....so sad.
while ATI is not.
now why does nVidia have to cheat in the two top benchmarks???

then you also talk about ATI's drivers.....
why? did you test them? try them in any way?
and you know I'm talking about "LATELY".
I've tested drivers from both nVidia and ATI.....over the last four months or maybe longer.
plus this is my first ATI card....having only nVidia since the GF DDR.
so I know about drivers from both.

I've also tested a 5900u as well as my AIW9700pro in many games, benchmarks and so on.
it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about, nor am I some ATI fanboy.

so, you realy think that lot's of peeps are going from ATI to nVidia??
well all I have to say is...
big deal.
for every one person who has gone to nVidia, about 10 has gone to ATI.....I wonder why?

while you are intitled to your opinions, you seem to ignore the facts.


mica

[eXtraktor]

Quote

"I have serious reservations about the 128 MB 9800 Pro tested. No 128 MB v card is going to preform that well at that resolution with the AA and AF stated. My friends 9800 I mentioned earlier will not even keep up with my 5900 at 1280x1024 in the games we both play."

I find this very hard to believe... very, very hard to believe.

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by eXtraktor
Quote

"I have serious reservations about the 128 MB 9800 Pro tested. No 128 MB v card is going to preform that well at that resolution with the AA and AF stated. My friends 9800 I mentioned earlier will not even keep up with my 5900 at 1280x1024 in the games we both play."

I find this very hard to believe... very, very hard to believe.

I missed that quote....

I too find it hard to believe, yet it could be true if the system was far slower then his.

btw, the results from that site are fairly consistant with quite a few others...HOCP and beyond3d are just two that seem to get about the same results.

for what reason mike feals like knocking down every bit of "truth" you may point out to him, I don't know.
this isn't the first time he can't call it like everyone else sees it.

mica

[larva]

Originally posted by micamica1217
there are plenty others that nvidia has the same poor performance with, for the same reasons....
one of witch is halo....

The most technically adept and unbiased testing site in my opinion is Xbitlabs. Here is their Halo testing, done with the Nvidia 52.16 driver, I might add:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2003_24.html

I really don't like where this thread has gone. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to bellitle that of others because it is different from your own. ATI's have inarguable strengths in shader performance. But Nvidia's have their strengths as well. All is not lost for users of either.

I suggest folks go back and edit some of the pointed, personal remarks about people in this thread, and discuss video cards exclusively. If I have to make the edits myself it won't please me in the slightest.

[eXtraktor]

Anyway... Back to my quote, my card is 128mb and i lose 10fps in the Quake3 timedemo with 6x AA and 16x AF ATi is very good at keeping the framerate up while AA and AF are enabled, this has been proven in countless reviews. Granted Quake3 is old and outdated but i can play any game with very high settings and get very high framerates, thats why i chose an ATi card over a nVidia one. Image quality alone should be a good enough reason to buy an ATi card over nVidia, every game my brother plays on my other PC (nVidia Geforce4 Ti4200) looks really bad compared to my 9700Pro (as pointed out, this is my opinion...) Anyway, have fun fellas