Recent content by imported_FlyinBrian

those differences are because of the demos used, FS used their custom demo.. and i am sure anand used theirs.. either way the cards are very close in terms of performance, my goal was to get the truth and make sure the benchmarks were indeed accurate kudos to Derek for fixing his mistake.

I told you already, 1600X1200 does a good job clearing up the jaggies as it is, on top of all that those screens may not have been taken with AA enabled on either card.

LOL no i probably couldnt

I was right, Derek has updated his review with the proper graphcs now... AA was no enabled, so for the guy screaming its OBVIOUS there is your proof.

how can it be obvious at a 1600x1200 resolution ? at that setting with or without AA everything will be crisp and clean... would i like Derek to respond, and double check, sure... just for accuracy sake.

I also have a pre order for x800xt i am not going to cancel it right now, i still got a few weeks before it ships so im just keeping it on pre order until i see a more definate reason to order the ultra 6800 instead...

As long as i get it by the 20th of july, i have a lan party to go to heh....

bottom line is i want the fastest card i can get, i careless who makes it... i have the x800xt pre ordered but if the performance gains are ligit and can be expected in up coming games i have no problem pre ordering the 6800U instead.

any way Derek can double check, i am sure if i am right that it was purely accidental.

thanks for the link, but that doesnt address the issue, lots of sites are having different results than whats listed here , remember AA has to be enabled using the app on nvidia cards where ati had to use the control panel, you can read about it on the link i provided in my first post, i am not...

Basically Antialiasing wasnt properly enabled on the nvidia boards, thus the huge gains. For anyone interested you can readhere