Anand's 9800XT vs NV38 "Review"

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Instigator

But rewind a little bit; quite a few of these accusations being thrown at NVIDIA were the same ones thrown at ATI. I seem to remember the launch of the Radeon 9700 Pro being tainted with one accusation in particular ? that ATI only made sure their drivers worked on popular benchmarking titles, with the rest of the top 20 games out there hardly working on the new R300. As new as what we?re hearing these days about NVIDIA may seem, let us not be victim to the near sightedness of the graphics industry ? this has all happened before with ATI and even good ol? 3dfx.

Burn!! For all of those ATI fanboys who acted like ATI doesn't do the same thing.

AquaMark3 Bench

Halo Bench

So much for your DX9 bashing. Oh and before you say it scored well because of reduced image quality:

We will be taking a much closer look at image quality very soon, but until then, it looks like ATI and NVIDIA have equal footing in the Aquamark3 arena and we are left to find more useful information about their differences elsewhere.

Aaah, nothing better than seeing the ATI fanboys walking around with their tails between their legs.

Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle...

 

[spam]

Hi Evan,

I don't really see how using beta drivers for a review is somehow wrong because they're not available to the public. Last I checked, HL2 wasn't available to the public yet, does that mean we shouldn't use it in a review?"...

-It is wrong as has been said, when no published drivers are used to establish a base line of performance.

-It is wrong because you are making a category mistake, you are comparing apples to oranges. A beta game is not comparable to beta drivers in the context of this hardware review. Drivers are used universally in all tests. HL2 is one test among many. If you had used a published driver in addition to the beta's all would be fine. It would give a more balanced review of the hardware.

-You disagreed with the possiblity that it would be withdrawn or never published. You have disputed the history of withdrawn beta drivers but as the above link in this thread shows, it is tactic that has been used in the past. What do you think of the withdrawal of the Laura Croft AOD benchmark?-Why did Nvidia pressure its business partner to withdraw it? Why was LC AOD benchmark not used?

-HL2 was included in the bundle. The reason you would test it is that it would be a critical factor in whether the public would purchase the card or not.

-finally your argument contradicts itself . If you use Beta drivers then it is alright to test with a beta game!!!!- but you did not do that so you invalidate you own argument. Stating it in it's negative corollory If it is not right to test with Beta games then it is not right to test with Beta drivers.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

point is simple... all this time I have been referring to implied hl2 iq in the nv38 review and from anand's blog... which is why I can't see where we went back to the hl2 scores from before...

OK, and like I said before...

"I don't really see how using beta drivers for a review is somehow wrong because they're not available to the public. Last I checked, HL2 wasn't available to the public yet, does that mean we shouldn't use it in a review?"...

And of course, this had nothing to do with the HL2 blog scores you brought up.

evan you are oversimplifying things and missing the point...

quite a few people ran the hl2 benches a few weeks ago.. valve allowed them to do so... the video cards used publicly available drivers...

spam posts the points as I see em and I will just use his post as a reference... posting figures for the sake of posting figures can be misleading and certainly it is odd to see no baseline to compare... heck there aren't even the figures you keep bringing up for us to compare against to see whats going on in terms of performance increases and what not...

sitting here and listening to some reviewer state "I don't see an IQ difference" is like sitting and listening to kyle bennett say there is no difference between bilinear and trilinear filtering.. why not let the consumers make their own minds up...

since you have said we will be getting more information in the next round of tests... I am sure a lot of us will be eagerly looking forward to the gaps in THIS review being filled...

cheers...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: spam


-It is wrong as has been said, when no published drivers are used to establish a base line of performance.

Again, arguable, but OK. Also, should we really use publicly available drivers on a card that isn't publicly available (NV38)? Remember, Det 50 will be shipping with NV38.

-It is wrong because you are making a category mistake, you are comparing apples to oranges. A beta game is not comparable to beta drivers in the context of this hardware review. Drivers are used universally in all tests. HL2 is one test among many. If you had used a published driver in addition to the beta's all would be fine. It would give a more balanced review of the hardware.

Yes, it would. Problem is, many people may not be using 45.23 drivers with NV38. AFAIK, 52.14 is very close to the final WHQL driver that will ship with NV38.

-You disagreed with the possiblity that it would be withdrawn or never published. You have disputed the history of withdrawn beta drivers but as the above link in this thread shows, it is tactic that has been used in the past. What do you think of the withdrawal of the Laura Croft AOD benchmark?-Why did Nvidia pressure its business partner to withdraw it? Why was LC AOD benchmark not used?

Not sure what you're referring to here.

-HL2 was included in the bundle. The reason you would test it is that it would be a critical factor in whether the public would purchase the card or not.

Same can be said about the 52 series drivers. Fact is, it's more important to look at many different games than it is many different driver sets. You should really wait for the verdict on these new drivers before condemning them. If they turn out to be poor like the 51 series, then you have a point.

-finally your argument contradicts itself . If you use Beta drivers then it is alright to test with a beta game!!!!- but you did not do that so you invalidate you own argument. Stating it in it's negative corollory If it is not right to test with Beta games then it is not right to test with Beta drivers.

I don't see how I said that anywhere. In fact, I'm now not quite sure if what you said makes any sense.

Sazar, I think I answered some of your points above. Though, it's clear I'm not going to change your opinion on this situation. We've already mentioned on several occasions that the HL2 blog numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. What more can be said to not make those numbers misleading?

 

[Genx87]

I think they are just pissed because there is a possibility the FX cards will be on par with the R3.xx card in HL2.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think they are just pissed because there is a possibility the FX cards will be on par with the R3.xx card in HL2.

naturally this would be implied

thanks again for another lovely technically sound assessment...

 

[BFG10K]

Has it been established that a 2.8 GHz Prescott can beat a 3.4 Ghz P4EE? I'm not sure that it can.

Apparently you haven't tried playing Halo at 1280 x 1024 ;-)

Halo isn't the only game that was reviewed. For 95% of games out there 1024 x 768 is a CPU test rather than a GPU test on today's big gun cards.

 

[hominid skull]

If you used beta drivers for the NV38 then at least you should have had some sort of image comparison both with a reference released driver, and a comparison to the R360 image quality.

Just saying "Image quality appears to have improved for NVIDIA in this benchmark over what has been reported of previous drivers" and having no pictures to back it up is poor.

 

[GTaudiophile]

On page 4 of the Radeon 9800XT Part 1 Review, Ananda says:

We used ATI?s publicly available Catalyst 3.7 drivers and in order to support the NV38 we used NVIDIA?s forthcoming 52.14 drivers.

Is this a lie given that the WHQL DET 45.32 drivers support NV38 according to Elite member THUGSROOK:

[Strings]
NVIDIA&DEV_0020.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT"
NVIDIA&DEV_0028.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2/TNT2 Pro"
NVIDIA&DEV_0029.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_002C.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Vanta/Vanta LT"
NVIDIA&DEV_002D.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Model 64/Model 64 Pro"
NVIDIA&DEV_00A0.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Aladdin TNT2"
NVIDIA&DEV_0100.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce 256"
NVIDIA&DEV_0101.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce DDR"
NVIDIA&DEV_0103.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro"
NVIDIA&DEV_0110.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400"
NVIDIA&DEV_0111.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 100/200"
NVIDIA&DEV_0113.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro2 MXR/EX"
NVIDIA&DEV_01A0.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Integrated GPU"
NVIDIA&DEV_0150.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/GeForce2 Pro"
NVIDIA&DEV_0151.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Ti"
NVIDIA&DEV_0152.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0153.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro2 Pro"
NVIDIA&DEV_0170.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 460"
NVIDIA&DEV_0171.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440"
NVIDIA&DEV_0172.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420"
NVIDIA&DEV_0173.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440-SE"
NVIDIA&DEV_0178.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 550 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_017A.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro NVS"
NVIDIA&DEV_0181.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440 with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_0182.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440SE with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_0183.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420 with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_0188.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 580 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_018A.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro NVS with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_018B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 380 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_01F0.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX Integrated GPU"
NVIDIA&DEV_0200.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3"
NVIDIA&DEV_0201.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200"
NVIDIA&DEV_0202.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500"
NVIDIA&DEV_0203.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro DCC"
NVIDIA&DEV_0250.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600"
NVIDIA&DEV_0251.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400"
NVIDIA&DEV_0253.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200"
NVIDIA&DEV_0258.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 900 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0259.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 750 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_025B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 700 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0280.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4800"
NVIDIA&DEV_0281.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_0282.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4800 SE"
NVIDIA&DEV_0288.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 980 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0289.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 780 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0301.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0302.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800"
NVIDIA&DEV_0308.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 2000"
NVIDIA&DEV_0309.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 1000"
NVIDIA&DEV_0311.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0312.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600"
NVIDIA&DEV_0313.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV31"
NVIDIA&DEV_0314.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600SE"
NVIDIA&DEV_0321.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0322.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200"
NVIDIA&DEV_0323.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200SE"
NVIDIA&DEV_032A.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV34GL"
NVIDIA&DEV_032B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 500"
NVIDIA&DEV_032F.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV34GL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0330.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0331.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900"
NVIDIA&DEV_0332.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV35"
NVIDIA&DEV_0333.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0334.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV38"
NVIDIA&DEV_0338.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 3000"
NVIDIA&DEV_0341.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36"
NVIDIA&DEV_0342.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36"
NVIDIA&DEV_0343.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36"
NVIDIA&DEV_034E.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36GL"
NVIDIA&DEV_034F.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36GL"

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think they are just pissed because there is a possibility the FX cards will be on par with the R3.xx card in HL2.

LOL. The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[RamIt]

Anyone seen this?

NV38 seals Nvidia's coffin...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
On page 4 of the Radeon 9800XT Part 1 Review, Ananda says:

We used ATI?s publicly available Catalyst 3.7 drivers and in order to support the NV38 we used NVIDIA?s forthcoming 52.14 drivers.

Is this a lie given that the WHQL DET 45.32 drivers support NV38 according to Elite member THUGSROOK:

[Strings]
NVIDIA&DEV_0020.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT"
NVIDIA&DEV_0028.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2/TNT2 Pro"
NVIDIA&DEV_0029.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_002C.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Vanta/Vanta LT"
NVIDIA&DEV_002D.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Model 64/Model 64 Pro"
NVIDIA&DEV_00A0.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Aladdin TNT2"
NVIDIA&DEV_0100.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce 256"
NVIDIA&DEV_0101.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce DDR"
NVIDIA&DEV_0103.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro"
NVIDIA&DEV_0110.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400"
NVIDIA&DEV_0111.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 100/200"
NVIDIA&DEV_0113.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro2 MXR/EX"
NVIDIA&DEV_01A0.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Integrated GPU"
NVIDIA&DEV_0150.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/GeForce2 Pro"
NVIDIA&DEV_0151.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Ti"
NVIDIA&DEV_0152.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0153.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro2 Pro"
NVIDIA&DEV_0170.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 460"
NVIDIA&DEV_0171.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440"
NVIDIA&DEV_0172.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420"
NVIDIA&DEV_0173.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440-SE"
NVIDIA&DEV_0178.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 550 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_017A.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro NVS"
NVIDIA&DEV_0181.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440 with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_0182.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440SE with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_0183.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420 with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_0188.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 580 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_018A.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro NVS with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_018B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 380 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_01F0.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX Integrated GPU"
NVIDIA&DEV_0200.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3"
NVIDIA&DEV_0201.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200"
NVIDIA&DEV_0202.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500"
NVIDIA&DEV_0203.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro DCC"
NVIDIA&DEV_0250.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600"
NVIDIA&DEV_0251.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400"
NVIDIA&DEV_0253.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200"
NVIDIA&DEV_0258.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 900 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0259.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 750 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_025B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 700 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0280.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4800"
NVIDIA&DEV_0281.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X"
NVIDIA&DEV_0282.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4800 SE"
NVIDIA&DEV_0288.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 980 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0289.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 780 XGL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0301.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0302.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800"
NVIDIA&DEV_0308.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 2000"
NVIDIA&DEV_0309.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 1000"
NVIDIA&DEV_0311.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0312.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600"
NVIDIA&DEV_0313.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV31"
NVIDIA&DEV_0314.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600SE"
NVIDIA&DEV_0321.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0322.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200"
NVIDIA&DEV_0323.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200SE"
NVIDIA&DEV_032A.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV34GL"
NVIDIA&DEV_032B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 500"
NVIDIA&DEV_032F.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV34GL"
NVIDIA&DEV_0330.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0331.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900"
NVIDIA&DEV_0332.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV35"
NVIDIA&DEV_0333.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra"
NVIDIA&DEV_0334.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV38"
NVIDIA&DEV_0338.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 3000"
NVIDIA&DEV_0341.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36"
NVIDIA&DEV_0342.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36"
NVIDIA&DEV_0343.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36"
NVIDIA&DEV_034E.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36GL"
NVIDIA&DEV_034F.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA NV36GL"

No GT, that wouldn't make sense. The NV35 and NV38 are identical save for core and mem speed increases, so the 45.23's could have been used.

 

[reever]

No GT, that wouldn't make sense. The NV35 and NV38 are identical save for core and mem speed increases, so the 45.23's could have been used.

So why didn't you? http://www.ixbt-labs.com/articles2/radeon/r9800xt.html Det 50's have problems rendering fog in rtcw and unreal 2, which account for a hefty framerate increase

 

[Rogodin2]

Good question: did nvidia as you guys to use the 50s ?

rogo

 

[Genx87]

This was taken from your review.

"ATI RADEON 9800 PRO (380/350 (700) MHz, 256 MB DDR).
ASUS V9950 Ultra (GeForce Fx 5900 Ultra, 450/425 (850) MHz, 256 MB DDR, driver 45.23, 51.75).
"

51.75 had known issues with rendering fog. Anands used 52.xx series. These are completely different driver sets.

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This was taken from your review.
51.75 had known issues with rendering fog. Anands used 52.xx series. These are completely different driver sets.

And you know they don't contain the same error?

 

[Genx87]

Because Anands review didnt note it. I am pretty sure if there was something this large it would of been noted.

What would lead you to believe otherwise? And does rendering fog == a bug or a cheat? Have you ever heard of Combat Mission? No ATI cards can render fog. This has been a bug since day 1. Would you consider that a bug or a cheat?

I think it is fairlysafe to safe the big bugs like lack of fog or rendering the wrong shades are probably out of this driver release. These are supposed to be final candidates for WHQL certification.

 

[reever]

Oh and Evan:

Anand Lal Shimpi wrote on October 17, 2001 NVIDIA clearly spoiled the preliminary introduction of the Radeon 8500 back in August with the release of their Detonator 4/XP drivers. We were told by NVIDIA that these new drivers would not only improve performance, but that they would be made publicly available the very same week we tested with them. Obviously, that didn't happen, and it ended up taking another month before the drivers were released. The performance gains were tangible, but the drivers weren't fit for release when NVIDIA provided them to the press and honestly shouldn't have been used. Hindsight being 20/20, we made a promise to ourselves that we would not allow any further performance enhancing drivers to be used in our video card reviews unless we could make the drivers publicly available to our readers immediately.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=4

Secondly, I don't really see how using beta drivers for a review is somehow wrong because they're not available to the public

 

[Genx87]

Get over it, it was 2 years ago, and they apparently changed their tune.

Go cry over at the rage3d forums.

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Get over it, it was 2 years ago, and they apparently changed their tune.

Go cry over at the rage3d forums.

Your name sure doesnt look like Evan Lieb

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Get over it, it was 2 years ago, and they apparently changed their tune.

Go cry over at the rage3d forums.

Show me where they have changed the rules? Just because a rule is old, doesnt mean its not a good one, or to be used currently.

If you think all old rules should just be forgotten without any reason, or explanation, then we would all be in trouble.

Dont be bitter you card isnt very good

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Secondly, I don't really see how using beta drivers for a review is somehow wrong because they're not available to the public. Last I checked, HL2 wasn't available to the public yet, does that mean we shouldn't use it in a review? Now, of course, I think comparing the official 45.23 drivers to the beta 52.13 drivers we used would have been very useful to readers. However, the final Det 50's are going to be out very very soon, and they will reflect the 52 series beta drivers very closely as far as we've been told. We'll do a comparison to see if that's true. And of course, you'll have all the IQ and high resolution results to compare for yourself. I think a little patience here is the best medicine for most people.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire benchmark is invalidated, since it was done on a platform that is not yet publicly available.
Let's recap what these numbers tell us:
With unavailable drivers for an unavailable card, on an unavailable system, we get some performance numbers at a resolution that is GPU limited in very few of the tests.

I'd prefer the old benchmark suite you guys used, at least we knew what the specs of the system was, and we had some useable numbers.

 

[Genx87]

Show me where they have changed the rules?

I think it is obvious the rules have changed as they used Beta drivers in the last review. Dont you think it is safe to assume this?

Dont be bitter you card isnt very good

It always brings a chuckle to me when people say something as ignorant as this. You tell me what about my current video card isnt very good?

Right now I can run every single one of my games that I play at 1600X1200X32 with 4AA\4AF, and they are silky smooth. Now please do tell me what about that setup "isnt very good"?

lol!

 

[lifeguard1999]

You are skating on thin ice.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[nRollo]

Right now I can run every single one of my games that I play at 1600X1200X32 with 4AA\4AF, and they are silky smooth. Now please do tell me what about that setup "isnt very good"?

You can't win Genx. Somebody will just post, "Those are butt ugly, low detail settings! I run my Radeon at 16X12 6X16X!"

It wouldn't matter if your card antialiased every jaggie but 2, and the Radeon did every jaggie but 1. They'd say your card sux and theirs is great because some people have a psychological "need" to prove they are right and others are wrong, or that they have better stuff than you. They'll pick out the tiniest differences and put you down.

The only way you'll ever "win" the argument with people like this is to just look at their system rig, buy better stuff, and reply things like, "Well that may be true for you guys with 9800Pros, but I've noticed since I got my 9800XT I can run at these settings you're just incapable of." Whether it's true or not, you can trust me that losers who post crap like "You can only stand nVidia because you have lower standards" will be pi$$ed. That's the whole problem with basing your self worth on your possessions, somebody can always buy better stuff and put you down. Give it a try, I guarantee you'll anger some of them a lot.