ATI tries to downplay SLI

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Clauzii

Member
Apr 24, 2003
133
0
0
Well well, I didn´t read all 6 pages of this forum so if someone said this earlier, forgive me ;)

At the time most people can afford the current dual graphics/motherbords - they´ll be obselete!!!!


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

(But SLI is a necessity - just like dualcore CPUs......)
 

MegaWorks

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
3,819
1
0
it's amazing to see how some members here claim they're not NV fanboys, but when you say something negative about nvidia they jump on you like a kangaroo.

------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2-U400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro Platinum Edition 128MB (380/600)
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Antec PlusView 1000AMG


Turn X800 Pro into X800 XT PE
 

jim1976

Platinum Member
Aug 7, 2003
2,704
6
81
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW-

Anand says lots of people bought SLI

The price is quite high at $599 and is clearly targeted at the hardcore gamer. We know some people will buy it because quite a few people paid about $600 for a Voodoo2 SLI setup when it was released.

So much for Mr. Huddy's assertion SLI only appeals to three rich guys in the Hamptons....
:roll:

heh.. and where's at's sourc of marketing data?

'alot' doesn't say anything. 100 people is 'alot', so is 1000.... but pale when talking about quarter million computers (not accurate #'s, just trying to make a point). ;)

Exactly. V2 SLI rocked no doubt about that( I was one of those "rich" guys that experienced it as well as a STB Velocity 4400 TNT in other rig too ). V2 was the "king" of perf those dayz.
But that doesn't negate the fact that talkin about statistical data with just a number presented out of "nowhere" is worthless.

Anyway:
Da truth bout 3dfx demise

As for the benefits of SM3.0 let's wait and see what market will command. Don't you think that this is better rather than speculating with no apparent factual basis?
 

Creig

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,170
13
81
Nvidia SLI is like heated leather seats in a car. Sure, it's available as an option, but only a few will actually purchase it.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW-

Anand says lots of people bought SLI

The price is quite high at $599 and is clearly targeted at the hardcore gamer. We know some people will buy it because quite a few people paid about $600 for a Voodoo2 SLI setup when it was released.

So much for Mr. Huddy's assertion SLI only appeals to three rich guys in the Hamptons....
:roll:

heh.. and where's at's sourc of marketing data?

'alot' doesn't say anything. 100 people is 'alot', so is 1000.... but pale when talking about quarter million computers (not accurate #'s, just trying to make a point). ;)

Cainam you know I can't give you any statistics. As sli was just people who bought two cards, it's a little harder to nail down than sales of a particular card?

Back then what I remember is that many people had sli, self included, sort of like now "many" people have Ultra level cards. (at least when they are produced in quantity)

I'm most interested to see this in practice, if their claims are even close to true, many people will buy sli.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
Originally posted by: Clauzii
Well well, I didn´t read all 6 pages of this forum so if someone said this earlier, forgive me ;)

At the time most people can afford the current dual graphics/motherbords - they´ll be obselete!!!!


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

(But SLI is a necessity - just like dualcore CPUs......)

WHY cant people understand this!?!??!?!?!?!?

You are not meant to go to the store and pick up 2 Video cards everytime you want to upgrade. SLI is there so if you want to get a top of the line card and then later when that same card is very cheap get it again and get a huge performance increase.

Also all this talk about combining pipes and theoretically how many pipes you have is wrong. This is not the original SLI, this a new SLI, hell SLI isn't even the real name for it its just what we gave it in reference with the Voodoo 2. On this setup all that happens is each card draws half of the screen.
So if you can run at max 800x600 on 1 card if you get 2 you should be able to run at 1600x1200 because each card does half the screen. THere is no combining things.

-Kevin
 

Sideswipe001

Golden Member
May 23, 2003
1,116
0
0
Originally posted by: Rollo
Cainam you know I can't give you any statistics. As sli was just people who bought two cards, it's a little harder to nail down than sales of a particular card?

Back then what I remember is that many people had sli, self included, sort of like now "many" people have Ultra level cards. (at least when they are produced in quantity)

I'm most interested to see this in practice, if their claims are even close to true, many people will buy sli.

All this disagreement about how many people owned a Voodoo2 SLI setup made me curious; I started this poll in General Hardware.

Go and vote; maybe we can see at least how many ATers paid for it.
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
Originally posted by: Rollo


Your logic isn't entirely clear to me there, but I'll grant you that touting SM2.0 and then downplaying SM3.0 is a bit double-faced. But the leap from SM1.x to SM2.0 still seems more important than that from SM2.0 to SM3.0, IMO.
My point is that for a year and a half ATI said PS2 was the defining factor in buying a video card, and there were no PS2 games out for most of that time. (except Wallet Raider) Now they say "Who needs PS3? There are hardly any games!" Can't have both ways Mr. Huddy. It remains to be seen what the impact of SM3 will be, hopefully the impending LOTR game will give us a better idea.

Give it a rest, Rollo. The 9700Pro, with or without PS2.0 smoked the previous generation of cards. That's what made it a top seller. In high res and AA/AF situations, it was often 2X faster than the GF4 series. So don't go saying how worthless the 9700 Pro was just because it has taken forever for PS2 supported games to come out.

Meanwhile today the X800 cards are similar performers and pack similar featuresets to the 6800 cards, the only difference being PS 3.0, which I contest is a good feature for the 6800's, but is nothing as monumental as the jump from the GF4 series to the R300 series.

6. Brought nothing to the table for my favorite game in the last few years, Doom3. Will likely lag at it's licenses, which I will buy.

Enough?

I doubt you or anyone else who currently plays Doom3 will be doing much with in a month's time.

But you're already onboard for it's licensed games, so that's good to hear. They should be enjoyable to play on your 6800 cards when they come out in 3 years.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Originally posted by: Rollo


Your logic isn't entirely clear to me there, but I'll grant you that touting SM2.0 and then downplaying SM3.0 is a bit double-faced. But the leap from SM1.x to SM2.0 still seems more important than that from SM2.0 to SM3.0, IMO.
My point is that for a year and a half ATI said PS2 was the defining factor in buying a video card, and there were no PS2 games out for most of that time. (except Wallet Raider) Now they say "Who needs PS3? There are hardly any games!" Can't have both ways Mr. Huddy. It remains to be seen what the impact of SM3 will be, hopefully the impending LOTR game will give us a better idea.

Give it a rest, Rollo. The 9700Pro, with or without PS2.0 smoked the previous generation of cards. That's what made it a top seller. In high res and AA/AF situations, it was often 2X faster than the GF4 series. So don't go saying how worthless the 9700 Pro was just because it has taken forever for PS2 supported games to come out.

Meanwhile today the X800 cards are similar performers and pack similar featuresets to the 6800 cards, the only difference being PS 3.0, which I contest is a good feature for the 6800's, but is nothing as monumental as the jump from the GF4 series to the R300 series.

6. Brought nothing to the table for my favorite game in the last few years, Doom3. Will likely lag at it's licenses, which I will buy.

Enough?

I doubt you or anyone else who currently plays Doom3 will be doing much with in a month's time.

But you're already onboard for it's licensed games, so that's good to hear. They should be enjoyable to play on your 6800 cards when they come out in 3 years.

Do you HONESTLY think quake 4 is that far off? ;)
 

jim1976

Platinum Member
Aug 7, 2003
2,704
6
81
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Originally posted by: Rollo


Your logic isn't entirely clear to me there, but I'll grant you that touting SM2.0 and then downplaying SM3.0 is a bit double-faced. But the leap from SM1.x to SM2.0 still seems more important than that from SM2.0 to SM3.0, IMO.
My point is that for a year and a half ATI said PS2 was the defining factor in buying a video card, and there were no PS2 games out for most of that time. (except Wallet Raider) Now they say "Who needs PS3? There are hardly any games!" Can't have both ways Mr. Huddy. It remains to be seen what the impact of SM3 will be, hopefully the impending LOTR game will give us a better idea.

Give it a rest, Rollo. The 9700Pro, with or without PS2.0 smoked the previous generation of cards. That's what made it a top seller. In high res and AA/AF situations, it was often 2X faster than the GF4 series. So don't go saying how worthless the 9700 Pro was just because it has taken forever for PS2 supported games to come out.

Meanwhile today the X800 cards are similar performers and pack similar featuresets to the 6800 cards, the only difference being PS 3.0, which I contest is a good feature for the 6800's, but is nothing as monumental as the jump from the GF4 series to the R300 series.

6. Brought nothing to the table for my favorite game in the last few years, Doom3. Will likely lag at it's licenses, which I will buy.

Enough?

I doubt you or anyone else who currently plays Doom3 will be doing much with in a month's time.

But you're already onboard for it's licensed games, so that's good to hear. They should be enjoyable to play on your 6800 cards when they come out in 3 years.

Do you HONESTLY think quake 4 is that far off? ;)

Nobody argued the nessecity of existence of a brilliant and innovative engine as DIII's is.
Cmon you know what he means, Rollo has a "weird" habbit to oversimplify facts when it comes to ATI's accomplishments... It's his right of course I respect his opinions but sometimes it's TOO MUCH...
Of course he owned R3xx cards, but if you ask me I don't know why, since they didn't offer him SM2.0 games as he expected....
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,219
55
91
As of April, Raven software was looking to hire a technical artist for Quake 4. So I imagine Q4 is currently being written.

Quote from Ravensoft site:

"Now Hiring - Technical Artist For Quake 4
Technical Artist Position for Quake 4:

Raven Software is looking for a Technical Artist for the Quake 4 PC title.
We prefer a person with a strong understanding of the technical side of
creating art assets, such as creating textures and world models, generating
shaders, and proficient in scripting. We also prefer a candidate with
strong drawing and painting skills and an ability to model hi and lo-poly
models in Maya and/or Lightwave. Programming experience is a plus. A background
with Quake 3 shaders, a familiarity with the Quake 3 Editor, and experience in
animation and effects are also a definite plus, but not required. Contact
Kevin xxxx at xxxxxx@ravensoft.com or mail resume and demo to:


Responsibilities:

- Create art assets, scripts, animations, shaders, and effects for Quake 4.


Requirements:

- 2D drawing and painting skills.
- Experience using Photoshop.
- Experience creating textures and world models for games.
- Experience building hi-poly and lo-poly 3D models in Lightwave or Maya or has experience
with another 3D package and a willingness to switch.
- Experience with shaders and proficient in scripting.
- Self-motivated, with a strong artistic vision that allows them to complete tasks without supervision."
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
BFG10K-
Still spouting off this nonsense are you Rollo? How about doing some research for a change instead of repeating the same rubbish?

Besides, four is still greater than one. Or rather half.

Instead of alluding that their may be lots more games that use PS2 and were released before the 6800s, why don't you just tell us so we can evaluate whether it mattered or not whether we had PS2 hardware before nVidia released hardware capable of running it well?

My guess is because it's only another game or two, and it makes your argument sound a lot more substantial than it really is to say mine is "nonsense".

So prove me wrong BFG or retract your flame BFG. At least I tried to list the games, you just said I was wrong and we should take your word for it. LOL- I don't think so.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Jiffy:
Give it a rest, Rollo. The 9700Pro, with or without PS2.0 smoked the previous generation of cards. That's what made it a top seller. In high res and AA/AF situations, it was often 2X faster than the GF4 series. So don't go saying how worthless the 9700 Pro was just because it has taken forever for PS2 supported games to come out.
The 9700Pro smoked 4600s for six whole months before 5800Us came out and offered comparable if not better performance at all playable settings. Then the 5900s came out and evened the palying field again. There was no "Golden Era of 9700Pro Domination" unless call the 6 months the 5800U was delayed due to TSMCs failure an "era".

Meanwhile today the X800 cards are similar performers and pack similar featuresets to the 6800 cards, the only difference being PS 3.0, which I contest is a good feature for the 6800's, but is nothing as monumental as the jump from the GF4 series to the R300 series.
So if an advance isn't as big of an advance as GF4 to R300, it's not relevant? That makes a lot of sense. :roll:

But you're already onboard for it's licensed games, so that's good to hear. They should be enjoyable to play on your 6800 cards when they come out in 3 years.
I think it's a little easier to license an engine and put different art/AI on it than design it from the ground up Jiffy. I've got $50 that says we see Doom3 license games before three years from now?
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Jim:
Of course he owned R3xx cards, but if you ask me I don't know why, since they didn't offer him SM2.0 games as he expected....
I've owned most of the ATI cards, multiple boards of some of them. Why wouldn't I want to buy and use hardware that has unique capabilities and is always either best or second best?

Just because it's second best now, I still probably would have bought a current gen ATI to use a while if they had actually made it a little different.
 

Killrose

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 1999
6,230
8
81
I want to see SLI benches now. I don't want to hear about FUD. I want to see the real world in game benchmarks done at a reputable hardware site with games running 100% fine with no glitches, driver issues, ect.

Untill then, all these SLI claims are worth nothing, just more corporate BS to get you to buy into someones product that you may find out will not work properly once the idea comes to retail fruitation.
 

Drayvn

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,008
0
0
Originally posted by: Rollo
Jiffy:
Give it a rest, Rollo. The 9700Pro, with or without PS2.0 smoked the previous generation of cards. That's what made it a top seller. In high res and AA/AF situations, it was often 2X faster than the GF4 series. So don't go saying how worthless the 9700 Pro was just because it has taken forever for PS2 supported games to come out.
The 9700Pro smoked 4600s for six whole months before 5800Us came out and offered comparable if not better performance at all playable settings. Then the 5900s came out and evened the palying field again. There was no "Golden Era of 9700Pro Domination" unless call the 6 months the 5800U was delayed due to TSMCs failure an "era".

Why are u comparing the 5900 against the 9700?

Shouldnt u compare the 5900 against the 9800?

And if i remember, i thought the 9700 Pros were able to outclass the 5800 in almost all benchmarks also?
 

Drayvn

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,008
0
0
Oops, maybe not, i was wrong the 5800U did beat the 9700, but man, that was six months, and also remeber the dust buster, and the fact that it just beat the 9700 in most benchies by a few fps, but remember the image quality was quite miserable also.

But the 9800Pro sorted that all out, even when the 5900 came out it was only able to beat it again by a few FPS, and that card was huge and had image quality problems also, so the 9700 and 9800 didnt have that few fps but in the end its image quality was superior.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: Drayvn
Originally posted by: Rollo
Jiffy:
Give it a rest, Rollo. The 9700Pro, with or without PS2.0 smoked the previous generation of cards. That's what made it a top seller. In high res and AA/AF situations, it was often 2X faster than the GF4 series. So don't go saying how worthless the 9700 Pro was just because it has taken forever for PS2 supported games to come out.
The 9700Pro smoked 4600s for six whole months before 5800Us came out and offered comparable if not better performance at all playable settings. Then the 5900s came out and evened the palying field again. There was no "Golden Era of 9700Pro Domination" unless call the 6 months the 5800U was delayed due to TSMCs failure an "era".

Why are u comparing the 5900 against the 9700?

Shouldnt u compare the 5900 against the 9800?

And if i remember, i thought the 9700 Pros were able to outclass the 5800 in almost all benchmarks also?

1. I didn't. I said the 5800U established parity with ATI after 6 months, and the subsequent release of the 5900 established parity again.

2. The 9700Pros don't outclass the 5800U at any playable settings, which is exactly what I said. Why don't you refer to the benchmarks done here at AT and tell us which ones you think the 9700P wins by an appreciable difference?

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1821

I really get tired of people saying the 9700Pro was somehow "superior" at all the benchmarks. It lost all the non AA/AF benchmarks, some of the AA/AF benchmarks, and barely won the AA/AF benchamrks it did win. The only benchmarks the 9700Pro ever DECIDEDLY won were 16X12 4X8X benchmarks, and the performance of both cards was so crappy at that level it didn't matter.
 

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW-

Anand says lots of people bought SLI

The price is quite high at $599 and is clearly targeted at the hardcore gamer. We know some people will buy it because quite a few people paid about $600 for a Voodoo2 SLI setup when it was released.

So much for Mr. Huddy's assertion SLI only appeals to three rich guys in the Hamptons....
:roll:

heh.. and where's at's sourc of marketing data?

'alot' doesn't say anything. 100 people is 'alot', so is 1000.... but pale when talking about quarter million computers (not accurate #'s, just trying to make a point). ;)

Cainam you know I can't give you any statistics. As sli was just people who bought two cards, it's a little harder to nail down than sales of a particular card?
i know, and didn't expect you to, but that was my point.. AT wouldn't know any more than you or me. ;)

Back then what I remember is that many people had sli, self included, sort of like now "many" people have Ultra level cards. (at least when they are produced in quantity)

but even today, the 'ultra' market is miniscule, and likely monetarily insignificant. it just has a disproptionately high impact on overall image.

I'm most interested to see this in practice, if their claims are even close to true, many people will buy sli.

sure, but again, "many people" is a relative term. 10 people is "many" :)

regardless of wheher the claims hold true or not, i'm sure many people will get it.. it's not like people don't buy 'crap' - "many" people bought nv30's ;)

all i've said (as i've said all along) is that if/when sli is available to the masses, my guess is that we'll find it's not double the performance, there will likely be a single card alternative avail at that time, or soon thereafter, and that sli will be a niche market, primarily due to complexity, heat & power concerns, and expense.

while this is certainly speculation on my part as well, i think history has given me a basis for this conclusion.
 

Killrose

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 1999
6,230
8
81
Originally posted by: CaiNaM

sure, but again, "many people" is a relative term. 10 people is "many" :)

regardless of wheher the claims hold true or not, i'm sure many people will get it.. it's not like people don't buy 'crap' - "many" people bought nv30's ;)

all i've said (as i've said all along) is that if/when sli is available to the masses, my guess is that we'll find it's not double the performance, there will likely be a single card alternative avail at that time, or soon thereafter, and that sli will be a niche market, primarily due to complexity, heat & power concerns, and expense.

while this is certainly speculation on my part as well, i think history has given me a basis for this conclusion.[/quote]


I agree. There are quite a few arguments against SLI when you consider the technical aspects/requirements of implementing SLI. Unless it is 25% faster than a single card solution, 99% of the market will likely pass on the idea.
 

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
Originally posted by: Killrose
Originally posted by: CaiNaM

sure, but again, "many people" is a relative term. 10 people is "many" :)

regardless of wheher the claims hold true or not, i'm sure many people will get it.. it's not like people don't buy 'crap' - "many" people bought nv30's ;)

all i've said (as i've said all along) is that if/when sli is available to the masses, my guess is that we'll find it's not double the performance, there will likely be a single card alternative avail at that time, or soon thereafter, and that sli will be a niche market, primarily due to complexity, heat & power concerns, and expense.

while this is certainly speculation on my part as well, i think history has given me a basis for this conclusion.


I agree. There are quite a few arguments against SLI when you consider the technical aspects/requirements of implementing SLI. Unless it is 25% faster than a single card solution, 99% of the market will likely pass on the idea.[/quote]

i think it will be 50% (and higher in specific cases) faster than a single solution of the same card, and that might provide a reasonable reason for sli as an upgrade path, but the thing is, what will the cost of a competing single card solution be when an upgrade is finally required?

will to 6600gt's even be faster than one 6800gt? ultra? there's just too many unanswered questions to proclaim this as anything more than a technology showcase at this time. it could certainly end up to be more than that, but we just have any information; it could just as easily be a bust as it could be a success.
 

Pete

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,953
0
0
Klixxer,

The nest generation wasn't the 4400's or even the 5500's it was the Vodoo 3000's.
The 3000 was basically the same speed as a SLI'ed V2, so while I may have skipped it by mistake, my point still stands: 3dfx obviously tried to do without SLI ever since the V2. There must have been a reason for that, and for why nV didn't bother with SLI all this time.

Besides, SLI on one card is SGPU tech, not at all comparable to SLI tech, you need to get a grip on the tech before arguing these things.
SGPU tech? Never heard of it. Are you inventing a new term, "single GPU tech"?

You may have the generations right, but not the concepts. AFAIK, the main reason for 3dfx's SLI was because they were behind on process tech (either their engineers just weren't as good as nV's, or they weren't willing to take as many risks, or they couldn't do what they wanted on a single [reasonably sized] die). nV resurrecting SLI a generation after they hit a limit fabbing the 5800U doesn't seem like a coincidence, though the timing may be right for more than just the gaming market.

Do I still need to get a grip on the tech?

Rollo,

The people SLI will appeal to aren't the ones thinking about the cost of a psu.
True, which is why I said SLI is great for the high-end. It basically offers you next-gen high-end performance a generation early. But that doesn't really apply to people upgrading $200-400 at a time, as I said.

As far as the 128MB on a NU SLI setup being a limiter goes, I wonder if it will be? You would think rendering half the scene would require half the memory intuitively?
I don't think they've solved that yet. If you think of two SLI'ed cards as just a single one with a bridge chip, you'd think it'd be possible, if not feasible. nV's new SLI can apparently do AFR as well, though, and that definitely requires each card to hold the whole scene.

My point is that for a year and a half ATI said PS2 was the defining factor in buying a video card
It's certainly a valid factor when your competitor is only as fast as you in PS1 and very uncompetitive in PS2. It was the defining factor in terms of longevity, but ATi also offered nicer AA and faster AF. Look, ATi had a lot of cards to play with the 9700P. I'm not sure why you begrudge PS2 performance, as it was valid. Every single PS2 benchmark showed ATi ahead, even the questionable ones. So why shouldn't they tout it? Just like SM3.0, it's better to have it than not to have it, no?

That they are not comparable is my point exactly. Here we are two years after the launch of the "Gotta have PS2" 9700P. How many PS2 games can I go to the store and buy?
Enough that it was worth considering. Don't you think Far Cry alone is enough to justify SM2.0? It's sort of like SM3.0--not necessary, but nice to have. And decently fast PS2.0 support turned out to be nice for the 9700P, at least nicer than for 5800/5900 owners.

At least with PS3, Far Cry has shown us some benefit, and actually runs well on the PS3 cards? Like I said, the next year will tell us a lot more about the necessity/utility of PS3, and whether TWIMTBP developers will retro code to give ATI users the same performance.
And Far Cry has shown some benefit with the 9700P's PS2 performance when compared with the 5900. And we were all saying the same thing about PS2 back then, weren't we? "The next year will tell us a lot more about the nec/util of [PS2]." And the benefits we saw with SM3 in Far Cry weren't all because of SM3. A lot of it was Crytek more fully exploiting PS2 to incorporate more lights per pass.

1. ATI lied to me and everyone else about their trilinear, while intentionally trying to deceive the press to make their parts look better.
Not the same as 3DM03, as most couldn't tell the difference in real life, and it applied to all games. nV's 3DM03 cheats applied to a single application, and a benchmark at that. Dude, trylinear was in ATi parts since the fecking 9600 and NO ONE NOTICED. (Actually, one person did. Want to guess who? Yeah, that ATI apologist, Wavey.) You're not going to get magical DX9 improvements with FX cards unless the dev or nV switches to mostly DX8. Is the IQ difference huge? Doesn't seem so. But nV was lying outright when they twisted 3DM03 to show similar DX9 performance. Was ATi forcing your eyeballs to lie?

2. When caught, they re-defined trilinear so they could say "We didn't lie". (Must have been watching Clinton's impeachment when he explained how he didn't have sex with Monica)
Granted, but this isn't any worse than 3DM03, IMO.

3. Brought out the same damn part three calendar years in a row. I won't buy it next year either, if they try to trot it out yet again.
Yeah, uh, that didn't stop you from liking nVidia in their GF1>GF2>GF2U or GF3>GF3Ti>GF4 eras, did it? In the end, they performed at the top of their field, and that's all that matters. No matter how much you or me want ATi and nV to release new tech every six months, it ain't gonna happen when most people buy $80 video cards.

4. Lost edge on features.
5. Didn't offer answer to SLI
6. Brought nothing to the table for my favorite game in the last few years, Doom3. Will likely lag at it's licenses, which I will buy.

Granted. The last three I buy, but the first three are mostly BS, and you know it.

Anand says lots of people bought SLI
Seriously, Rollo? You're going to use Anand's quote that "quite a few people" SLI'ed their $300 V2 ten years ago as a rebuttal to less people SLI'ing their $300-500 6800s, when the latter will require a new MB and probably a new PSU? Honestly, what's the point of debating something with you when you trot out an Anand quote as proof in a 3D card discussion? He's a smart guy, but he's not exactly the messiah when it comes to video cards. Show me figures, not a throw-away line on an internet article, if you want to back up that rolleyes. :p

If you had been doing the same thing during the cheerleading(particularly in the early days) of SM2 I wouldn't see any problem with it, but it is coming off as one sided when you choose to defend/apologize for ATi and tend not to do the same with nV.
I was fooled once with SM2, so I think it's understandable that I'm not as excited about SM3, no? But I also haven't read anything about SM3 that'll translate to in-game superiority in terms of either IQ or performance, and that's an equal reason for my cool reaction.

Fvck nVidia and their hype. This type of 'SLI' offers flexibility and significantly more power- how are either of those things remotely close to bad?
Agreed, fvck hype, but, again, I haven't knocked SLI's greater power. I am questioning SLI's flexibility in the $200 card segment, but how is that remotely close to saying it's bad? I'm undecided as to its benefit in the midrange, and fvcking impressed with its benefits in the high end. And thus my irritation when people start labelling me as an nV hater, because I don't accept nV's SLI as perfect on every level. It's perfect on one, the high end; the rest, I'm unsure about. This is reason enough to call me less than frothing at the mouth?

You're better than that, Ben.

Clauzii,

At the time most people can afford the current dual graphics/motherbords - they´ll be obselete!!!!
Actually, SLI will be much more attractive when dual-PEG MBs are standard (thus removing that initial entry barrier). As it is, the barrier stands, thus my ambivalence toward SLI for $200-300 video cards.

Gamingphreek,

So if you can run at max 800x600 on 1 card if you get 2 you should be able to run at 1600x1200 because each card does half the screen. THere is no combining things.
1600x1200 is 4x(800x600). You meant 1600x600, or maybe 1152x768. Yes, you can call me Mathphreek. It's preferable to nitpicker, anyway. ;)

And, finally, back to Rollo.

The 9700Pro smoked 4600s for six whole months before 5800Us came out and offered comparable if not better performance at all playable settings. Then the 5900s came out and evened the palying field again. There was no "Golden Era of 9700Pro Domination" unless call the 6 months the 5800U was delayed due to TSMCs failure an "era".
The 9700P dominated for as long as the 4600 did, about a generation, which is really all a card needs to dominate before it's replacement comes along. And you're the only one using the term "golden era."
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
wouldn't 4 800x600's equal 3200x2400?

One thing forgotten is it isn't that easy as we ware thinking as one side is probably going to be easier or harder for one to render than the other, like the card rendering the floor, wooo really stressful, however the one rendering eveyrhting else is going to struggle.

-Kevin
 

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
wouldn't 4 800x600's equal 3200x2400?

One thing forgotten is it isn't that easy as we ware thinking as one side is probably going to be easier or harder for one to render than the other, like the card rendering the floor, wooo really stressful, however the one rendering eveyrhting else is going to struggle.

-Kevin

but i thought sli was able to intelligently "load balance" (the alienware solution is the one that rendered half the scene), or does that apply to something else?
 

jim1976

Platinum Member
Aug 7, 2003
2,704
6
81
Originally posted by: Rollo
Jim:
Of course he owned R3xx cards, but if you ask me I don't know why, since they didn't offer him SM2.0 games as he expected....
I've owned most of the ATI cards, multiple boards of some of them. Why wouldn't I want to buy and use hardware that has unique capabilities and is always either best or second best?

Just because it's second best now, I still probably would have bought a current gen ATI to use a while if they had actually made it a little different.

So let me see...
Plz define "a little different". No SM3.0 capabilities? But SM3.0 following your criteria isn't available anywhere except FarCry.... So why didn't you choose (at least for now since you can and you obviously want the best perf for now not in some months or 1 year) a X800XT? It's a better performer in most of the DX9 titles than 6800U is. Oh wait. It's your beloved DIII that crushes ATI cards right? Right.
Even if DIII was called Mary Poppins or Heidi or Popeye the sailorman you'd still say the same thing!!!
" But Heidi,Mary or Popeye is my favorite game of all times!!!! ."
I would have understand (as many ppl that buy a single gpu not many) your comments about SM3.0 efficiency but there's NO WAY I CAN BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY DUE TO YOUR SELECTIVE MIND AND NATURE.