ATI Radeon 9800: [H]ardOCP Scews the Benchmarks (Again)

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: KickItTwice
While the 5800 ultra was probably just a desperate attempt to get the performance crown back from ATI, I wonder if it is just a fraudulent marketing ploy.

nVidia announced the were working on the FX before the 9700 was even released (when their cards were still faster than ATI's), so this point is not valid.

 

[ctk1981]

UT2K3 looks decent on the Ti500...but thats not what I was complaining about. Im complaining about Unreal 2. On that system I play 1024X768 with everything turned up to at least medium/high. AA was set on 2X I believe, AF was set on 2X also. Ive even overclocked the card to get a lil more umpfh out of it (250/550) for the fps issue. Dont get me wrong, before I would have never even noticed anything...but after beeing on a Radeon 9700 Pro with 4X AA and 8X/16X AF at 1280x1024 you notice how crappy it looks really quick.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: KickItTwice
While the 5800 ultra was probably just a desperate attempt to get the performance crown back from ATI, I wonder if it is just a fraudulent marketing ploy.

nVidia announced the were working on the FX before the 9700 was even released (when their cards were still faster than ATI's), so this point is not valid.

Did they specifically announce the GeForce FX5800 Ultra? Every other GeForce Ultra card has been available at retail outlets, but now it will not. Note he said 'the 5800 ultra', not 'the whole FX line'. It looks on the surface like nVidia was trying to compensate for their considerable delays and loss of the lead by paper releasing a card that very obviously is only competetive with no AA/AF on.

It must be rather embarrassing for nVidia to have to admit that ATI has a superior card. The simple fact of the matter is that there is a point at which non-AA/AF performance begins to not matter. Having the non-AA/AF 'performance crown' isn't really a feat anymore, it's irrelevant. Nobody (meaning, any non-silly person) cares about a card that can pump ~150FPS at 1600x1200x32 without AA/AF. People DO want a card that can pump ~100FPS at 1600x1200x32 with 4xAA/8xAF, because they gain image quality. Going from 150FPS to 100FPS you generally don't notice any slowdown except in VERY VERY large open areas in games, and when you do, you'll bump your res down to 1280x1024 if you care.

I personally would rather have ~120FPS at 1024x768x32 4xAA/8xAF than ~150FPS at 1600x1200x32.

IMHO, the 'Performance Crown' isn't nVidia's, it's ATI's.

 

[blindtothagame]

LONG LIVE THE KING
THE KING IS HERE
ATI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol
wow who would have thought that a few yrs ago!!!!!!!!!!

 

[KickItTwice]

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: KickItTwice While the 5800 ultra was probably just a desperate attempt to get the performance crown back from ATI, I wonder if it is just a fraudulent marketing ploy.

nVidia announced the were working on the FX before the 9700 was even released (when their cards were still faster than ATI's), so this point is not valid.

You missed my point. I don't care if nVidia anounced their card 30 years ago. What I'm talking about is overclocking their FX ultra to get it to perform in bench tests in which it would be compared to the 9700 pro which is complete B.S. because the FX ultra is not an eligible contender. It was way overclocked to the point it needed a ridiculous cooling solution that very few people would want to put up with. Thats why they canned it.

Now the FX 5800 non ultra is a legitimate offering by nVidia because it is a marketable product that consumers would actually like to buy. So it's a few beats behind the Radeon 9700 pro. Still a darn nice card. There will probably be some people that will remember looking at the Benchmarks showing the Geforce FX running pretty even with the Radeon 9700 pro, but not remembering it was in fact the ultra that was keeping up with the Radeon. They might just then buy the non ultra thinking that they're getting the performance of the ultra. Marketing ploy.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: KickItTwice

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: KickItTwice While the 5800 ultra was probably just a desperate attempt to get the performance crown back from ATI, I wonder if it is just a fraudulent marketing ploy.

nVidia announced the were working on the FX before the 9700 was even released (when their cards were still faster than ATI's), so this point is not valid.

You missed my point. I don't care if nVidia anounced their card 30 years ago. What I'm talking about is overclocking their FX ultra to get it to perform in bench tests in which it would be compared to the 9700 pro which is complete B.S. because the FX ultra is not an eligible contender. It was way overclocked to the point it needed a ridiculous cooling solution that very few people would want to put up with. Thats why they canned it.

Now the FX 5800 non ultra is a legitimate offering by nVidia because it is a marketable product that consumers would actually like to buy. So it's a few beats behind the Radeon 9700 pro. Still a darn nice card. There will probably be some people that will remember looking at the Benchmarks showing the Geforce FX running pretty even with the Radeon 9700 pro, but not remembering it was in fact the ultra that was keeping up with the Radeon. They might just then buy the non ultra thinking that they're getting the performance of the ultra. Marketing ploy.

Do you have anything at all to back this up? Sounds like made up bs to me.

 

[KickItTwice]

Back what up? It was done right in front of the whole world to see. Didn't you notice? Read the writing on the wall.
It's just speculation based upon... if it walks like a duck.....talks like a duck....it might even be a duck. When ATI dropped the bomb on nVidia, they were caught with their pants down. Here they were in a product cycle, increasing performance something like 15 - 20 percent every six months. Along comes the Radeon 9700 pro with its 50 % performance over the ti 4600. Next thing you know the FX becomes much delayed. Could be just the migration to the .13 micron proccess. I'm sure it had to do a lot with it. But the FX got delayed for a very long time. Crap, you still can't buy one even today. It looks as though nVidia finally came out with the "Benchmark Special" FX ultra to give some sort of a showing that they indeed had the answer to the Radeon 9700 pro. Some answer. It was more of a big flop than anything else. You have to ask yourself " Why didn't they just come out with the normal Geforce FX 5800 (non ultra). Let's see. If they had come out with the regular 5800, it would have gotten beaten by the 9700 pro which had all ready been out about 5 or 6 months at the time. So they bring out a card that really isn't a viable product to the consumer for what purpose? Why would they be so anxious to release a video card that they would put that dust buster on it?

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: KickItTwice
Back what up? It was done right in front of the whole world to see. Didn't you notice? Read the writing on the wall.
It's just speculation based upon... if it walks like a duck.....talks like a duck....it might even be a duck. When ATI dropped the bomb on nVidia, they were caught with their pants down. Here they were in a product cycle, increasing performance something like 15 - 20 percent every six months. Along comes the Radeon 9700 pro with its 50 % performance over the ti 4600. Next thing you know the FX becomes much delayed. Could be just the migration to the .13 micron proccess. I'm sure it had to do a lot with it. But the FX got delayed for a very long time. Crap, you still can't buy one even today. It looks as though nVidia finally came out with the "Benchmark Special" FX ultra to give some sort of a showing that they indeed had the answer to the Radeon 9700 pro. Some answer. It was more of a big flop than anything else. You have to ask yourself " Why didn't they just come out with the normal Geforce FX 5800 (non ultra). Let's see. If they had come out with the regular 5800, it would have gotten beaten by the 9700 pro which had all ready been out about 5 or 6 months at the time. So they bring out a card that really isn't a viable product to the consumer for what purpose? Why would they be so anxious to release a video card that they would put that dust buster on it?

Ha ha, I don't know when you made this stuff up, but it is pretty entertaining. nothing more. I think you, me, and everybody who is reading your posts knows there is not a spec of truth to any of it. I guess I could go on about how many things you have printed are wrong, and or exaggeratted, but I don't think I need to because I feel it is pretty obvious.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: KickItTwice
Back what up? It was done right in front of the whole world to see. Didn't you notice? Read the writing on the wall.
It's just speculation based upon... if it walks like a duck.....talks like a duck....it might even be a duck. When ATI dropped the bomb on nVidia, they were caught with their pants down. Here they were in a product cycle, increasing performance something like 15 - 20 percent every six months. Along comes the Radeon 9700 pro with its 50 % performance over the ti 4600. Next thing you know the FX becomes much delayed. Could be just the migration to the .13 micron proccess. I'm sure it had to do a lot with it. But the FX got delayed for a very long time. Crap, you still can't buy one even today. It looks as though nVidia finally came out with the "Benchmark Special" FX ultra to give some sort of a showing that they indeed had the answer to the Radeon 9700 pro. Some answer. It was more of a big flop than anything else. You have to ask yourself " Why didn't they just come out with the normal Geforce FX 5800 (non ultra). Let's see. If they had come out with the regular 5800, it would have gotten beaten by the 9700 pro which had all ready been out about 5 or 6 months at the time. So they bring out a card that really isn't a viable product to the consumer for what purpose? Why would they be so anxious to release a video card that they would put that dust buster on it?

Ha ha, I don't know when you made this stuff up, but it is pretty entertaining. nothing more. I think you, me, and everybody who is reading your posts knows there is not a spec of truth to any of it. I guess I could go on about how many things you have printed are wrong, and or exaggeratted, but I don't think I need to because I feel it is pretty obvious.

Not a spec of truth to it ?????

The only entertaining thing about this thread is you.

 

[Ketchup]

Not a spec of truth to it ?????

The only entertaining thing about this thread is you.

Why thank you That just made my day.

 

[CurtCold]

I just wanna know what happened with HardOCP's stance with 3DMark2003? I thought they had previously stated that they wouldn't be using the benchmark for their reviews?

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: CurtCold
I just wanna know what happened with HardOCP's stance with 3DMark2003? I thought they had previously stated that they wouldn't be using the benchmark for their reviews?

Not sure, but I believe they said the "overall score" would carry no impact with them as to a cards performance.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: ketchup79
Ha ha, I don't know when you made this stuff up, but it is pretty entertaining. nothing more. I think you, me, and everybody who is reading your posts knows there is not a spec of truth to any of it. I guess I could go on about how many things you have printed are wrong, and or exaggeratted, but I don't think I need to because I feel it is pretty obvious.

So then where can I buy an FX5800 Ultra?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

If the Ultra is not going to be commercially available, why should it be included in the benchmarks?

I believe he was right to exclude them, since it would be unfair to include a card that is not really available to the public anymore.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
If the Ultra is not going to be commercially available, why should it be included in the benchmarks?

I believe he was right to exclude them, since it would be unfair to include a card that is not really available to the public anymore.

DevilsAdvocate, the whole point here is that nVidia never said this card would not be commercially available. It is all word of mouth, and I am not sure where it got started. Do any of you know?

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: ketchup79

DevilsAdvocate, the whole point here is that nVidia never said this card would not be commercially available. It is all word of mouth, and I am not sure where it got started. Do any of you know?

How good would that look on them?

Interesting to note, all nVidia's listed FX Launch partners (from http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=geforcefx_partners)
http://www.asus.com/products/vga/vgaindex.htm
http://www.bfgtech.com/product_home.html
http://www.evga.com/products/
http://www.gainward.com/c.html
http://www.leadtek.com/3d.htm
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/chipset.asp?chipset=vga
http://www.pny.com/products/verto/
and not a SINGLE one of these companies has got a GeForce FX5800 Ultra card. ALL of the listed products are GeForce FX5800 Based.

If it were ultra based, they would mention ultra in the specs somewhere. So tell me, the Radeon 9800 Pro comes out, and foom, immediately Sapphire lists the Radeon 9800 Pro on their site, but it's been what, a few weeks since the official release of the GeForce FX, and still no Ultra cards anywhere?

Get over yourself, it's obvious what nVidia is doing. They just wanted a limited quantity card to pad their benchmark wallet. Imagine how badly they'd get beaten by an OC'ed R9800Pro.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: SmuvMoney
I feel that tests should have been done for the GeFX Ultra clocks (500/1000) and the GeFX regular clocks (400/800). I somewhat agree with the inclusion of 400/800 benchies since the Ultra will not supposedly not be available in retail channels. However, I disagree with the complete omission of the Ultra benchies. For the record, do I think the 5800 Ultra would have beaten the 9800 Pro in benchmarks? Only without AA/AF or in very CPU-limited scenarios IMHO. However, I think it would have been a better overall comparison to have the #1 & #2 cards from both Nvidia (5800 Ultra/Regular) & ATI (9800 and 9700) represented.

I think including both cards would have been a good idea, but why the complete omission of the Ulta? It just seems like they are trying to hide something. Sure the 9800 would have beat the FX Ultra, so why did they feel the need to underclock it? The Ultra did win some benchies in Anand's review (some of the benchies without AA and AF as I recall) but the downclocked card looked pretty slow in the HardOCP review.

And if they were not going to treat the ultra as a legit video card, why did they not do it until now? When they first previewed the card, it was all full speed, so why didn't they downclock it then?

Please don't take me as an nVidia fanatic who is pissed that his favorite card didn't win. I saw this coming, and knew the 9800 would be faster. I think we all did. So why did they even bother waiting 'till now to downclock the card? Heck, a Geforce FX is not currently available at any speed, so it really makes little difference to the consumer, nVidia buyers are still stuck with a ti4800 as the top choice.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: ketchup79

DevilsAdvocate, the whole point here is that nVidia never said this card would not be commercially available. It is all word of mouth, and I am not sure where it got started. Do any of you know?

How good would that look on them?

Interesting to note, all nVidia's listed FX Launch partners (from http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=geforcefx_partners)
http://www.asus.com/products/vga/vgaindex.htm
http://www.bfgtech.com/product_home.html
http://www.evga.com/products/
http://www.gainward.com/c.html
http://www.leadtek.com/3d.htm
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/chipset.asp?chipset=vga
http://www.pny.com/products/verto/
and not a SINGLE one of these companies has got a GeForce FX5800 Ultra card. ALL of the listed products are GeForce FX5800 Based.

If it were ultra based, they would mention ultra in the specs somewhere. So tell me, the Radeon 9800 Pro comes out, and foom, immediately Sapphire lists the Radeon 9800 Pro on their site, but it's been what, a few weeks since the official release of the GeForce FX, and still no Ultra cards anywhere?

Get over yourself, it's obvious what nVidia is doing. They just wanted a limited quantity card to pad their benchmark wallet. Imagine how badly they'd get beaten by an OC'ed R9800Pro.

Ok, let's go through these, shall we?

First Gainward: http://www.gainward.com/d-5.html?id=100
Gainward Co., Ltd, the leading manufacturer of high performance 3D graphics and home entertainment accelerators, announces its new products Gainward FX PowerPack! Model Ultra/1000 Plus Golden SampleTM and Gainward FX PowerPack! Model Ultra/800 Plus Golden SampleTM are available worldwide now. Both are the world's most powerful series of 128MB 3D graphics processor boards based on NVIDIA's GeForce FX 5800 technology. The most powerful graphics board of the series; the Gainward FX PowerPack! Model Ultra/1000 Plus Golden SampleTM features NVIDIA¡¦s fastest GeForce FX 5800 Ultra while the Gainward FX PowerPack! Model Ultra/800 Plus Golden SampleTM is based on the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800.

BFGtech- Edit: they wil be producing the ultra after they have filled the pre-order for it.

MSI - http://www.msi.com.tw/html/newsrelease/product_news/2003_0305_8904.htm

EVGA- their site does not list any specs for the FX 5800 or the FX 5800 Ultra, so if you are saying they are not going with the Ultra by looking at their site, you would just be guessing. Here is what the official stance of EVGA is: "We cannot comment on a product that has not been fully announced. We at eVGA.com know that the information is important to you and our customers. We can say that everything will be released on our website very shortly. We apologize that we cannot say more at the moment, but it will all be announced very soon."
Edit: there is one listed right here: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...mit=property&mfrcode=0&propertycodevalue=4496

Leadtek: they also say nothing about the FX 5800. or the Ultra.

PNY: http://www.pny.com/products/verto/geforceFx/fx.cfm
Edit: PNY's website currently has no information about the Ultra.

This information does show the Ultra has not been canned, and that some manufacturers definately have plans to release an Ultra. Does this mean they will sell fewer of these cards than they sell of any of their other top-of-the-line cards? Not necessarily. If you looked at all the cards ATI currently sells, the 9700 PRO's would make up less than 5% of current sales. The FX Ultra is not out to set sales records, this should come as a surpise to no one.

Anyone remember the AMD XP 2800+? How many own one? It was a very limited-edition chip. AMD said so. So, why did people benchmark it at full speed? They should have underclocked it to XP 2700 speeds so that people could have a better understanding of how fast a chip that is readily-available would be!

"That's stupid!" you say. Well, so is underclocking a video card!

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: SmuvMoney
I feel that tests should have been done for the GeFX Ultra clocks (500/1000) and the GeFX regular clocks (400/800). I somewhat agree with the inclusion of 400/800 benchies since the Ultra will not supposedly not be available in retail channels. However, I disagree with the complete omission of the Ultra benchies. For the record, do I think the 5800 Ultra would have beaten the 9800 Pro in benchmarks? Only without AA/AF or in very CPU-limited scenarios IMHO. However, I think it would have been a better overall comparison to have the #1 & #2 cards from both Nvidia (5800 Ultra/Regular) & ATI (9800 and 9700) represented.

I think including both cards would have been a good idea, but why the complete omission of the Ulta? It just seems like they are trying to hide something. Sure the 9800 would have beat the FX Ultra, so why did they feel the need to underclock it? The Ultra did win some benchies in Anand's review (some of the benchies without AA and AF as I recall) but the downclocked card looked pretty slow in the HardOCP review.

And if they were not going to treat the ultra as a legit video card, why did they not do it until now? When they first previewed the card, it was all full speed, so why didn't they downclock it then?

Please don't take me as an nVidia fanatic who is pissed that his favorite card didn't win. I saw this coming, and knew the 9800 would be faster. I think we all did. So why did they even bother waiting 'till now to downclock the card? Heck, a Geforce FX is not currently available at any speed, so it really makes little difference to the consumer, nVidia buyers are still stuck with a ti4800 as the top choice.

Ketchup - do you work for nVidia or something? Listen to what you're saying! "It seems like they have something to hide" . You are blathering on about conspiracy theories from HardOCP for gods sakes! What do they have to gain? Do you think they are on ATI's payroll? Do you think anytime they discredit a company's products because of *legitimate* reasons they are being banked by the rival company??

The reason they previewed the FX 8500Ultra at it's stock speed is because they were previewing a card that was supposed to be released to the masses and fill the market for months. Instead, as you can read even on HardOCP's site, the FX launch has become a cut-down low-volume trickle of cards that will either never make it to retail, or be released in such low volume that it will be insignificant.
It is nVidia who backed down from their word (to release the FX5800 Ultra like any previous nVidia ultra card), not HardOCP taking an evangelical stance to screw nVidia. Open your eyes, man!

HardOCP tries to protect their readers from being blinded by marketing and raise awareness of PR abuse, and some people discredit them because of their attempts to remain as objective as possible!

 

[sash1]

Don't be so quick to judge. EVGA shipping a FX 5800 Ultra. As well to quote FS on this: "In terms of availability, the only manufacturer to ship so far has been BFG Technologies, which began shipping their 5800 Ultra cards last week. From what we?ve heard from our sources, samples of Ultra cards are extremely limited right now"

~Aunix

 

[Killrose]

What I would like to know is if anyone has received their BFG 5800 Ultra pre-order yet? Were'nt they supposedly shipped over a week ago? How long does it take to ship one of these?

More PR bullsh!t!! The FX needs to be an available product, not a limmited production unit for it to be considered into any kind of competitive benchmark situation IMHO.

If that's the case, I will buy ONE supercharged R350 from Ati at retail price, specially made just for benchmarks, and then we will bench it against the FX 5800 Ultra, and consider all that information the way it is to be. One limited production retail card against another limmited production retail card.

This is basically what Nvidia has done.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: SmuvMoney
I feel that tests should have been done for the GeFX Ultra clocks (500/1000) and the GeFX regular clocks (400/800). I somewhat agree with the inclusion of 400/800 benchies since the Ultra will not supposedly not be available in retail channels. However, I disagree with the complete omission of the Ultra benchies. For the record, do I think the 5800 Ultra would have beaten the 9800 Pro in benchmarks? Only without AA/AF or in very CPU-limited scenarios IMHO. However, I think it would have been a better overall comparison to have the #1 & #2 cards from both Nvidia (5800 Ultra/Regular) & ATI (9800 and 9700) represented.

I think including both cards would have been a good idea, but why the complete omission of the Ulta? It just seems like they are trying to hide something. Sure the 9800 would have beat the FX Ultra, so why did they feel the need to underclock it? The Ultra did win some benchies in Anand's review (some of the benchies without AA and AF as I recall) but the downclocked card looked pretty slow in the HardOCP review.

And if they were not going to treat the ultra as a legit video card, why did they not do it until now? When they first previewed the card, it was all full speed, so why didn't they downclock it then?

Please don't take me as an nVidia fanatic who is pissed that his favorite card didn't win. I saw this coming, and knew the 9800 would be faster. I think we all did. So why did they even bother waiting 'till now to downclock the card? Heck, a Geforce FX is not currently available at any speed, so it really makes little difference to the consumer, nVidia buyers are still stuck with a ti4800 as the top choice.

Ketchup - do you work for nVidia or something? Listen to what you're saying! "It seems like they have something to hide" . You are blathering on about conspiracy theories from HardOCP for gods sakes! What do they have to gain? Do you think they are on ATI's payroll? Do you think anytime they discredit a company's products because of *legitimate* reasons they are being banked by the rival company??

The reason they previewed the FX 8500Ultra at it's stock speed is because they were previewing a card that was supposed to be released to the masses and fill the market for months. Instead, as you can read even on HardOCP's site, the FX launch has become a cut-down low-volume trickle of cards that will either never make it to retail, or be released in such low volume that it will be insignificant.
It is nVidia who backed down from their word (to release the FX5800 Ultra like any previous nVidia ultra card), not HardOCP taking an evangelical stance to screw nVidia. Open your eyes, man!

HardOCP tries to protect their readers from being blinded by marketing and raise awareness of PR abuse, and some people discredit them because of their attempts to remain as objective as possible!

Hey, I am flattered that you think I work for nVidia. So, since you stick up for HardOCP so much, should I assume you work for them? (don't worry I don't .)

I just think it's strange that they totally left out the Ultra benchmarks, and really didn't mention it except for those precious few words on the test setup page. Heck, you did more explaining than they did. You sure you don't work for them? j/k

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: Killrose
What I would like to know is if anyone has received their BFG 5800 Ultra pre-order yet? Were'nt they supposedly shipped over a week ago? How long does it take to ship one of these?

More PR bullsh!t!! The FX needs to be an available product, not a limmited production unit for it to be considered into any kind of competitive benchmark situation IMHO.

If that's the case, I will buy ONE supercharged R350 from Ati at retail price, specially made just for benchmarks, and then we will bench it against the FX 5800 Ultra, and consider all that information the way it is to be. One limited production retail card against another limmited production retail card.

This is basically what Nvidia has done.

Supercharged R350! Cool! Did you make that up? Link please!

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: AunixM3
Don't be so quick to judge. EVGA shipping a FX 5800 Ultra. As well to quote FS on this: "In terms of availability, the only manufacturer to ship so far has been BFG Technologies, which began shipping their 5800 Ultra cards last week. From what we?ve heard from our sources, samples of Ultra cards are extremely limited right now"

~Aunix

Nice find. I hope some retail Ultras start showing up around here. They should be easy to spot, all you have to do is listen for that fan!

 

[Killrose]

I notice in the specs they list it as being 256-bit

Hehe, of course I made up the supercharged R350. But I hear we may be seeing one soon....