Difference between 5900 nu, 5900 ultra and 9700 pro?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Rollo, that review you posted is comparing 3 differnet 5900 Ultra cards to the 9700Pro! I don't know why they label it as an "FX5900-TD128", but look at the summary of which cards they're testing:

LOL, I stand corrected on the benchmark issues. (and somewhat surprised they mis-labelled all the benchmarks!)

In any case, the 5900NU is under $200, and the 9700Pro is $238 apparently, so that is a 20% price difference for performance that is only noticeably worse in DX9, PS2.0 shaders. I don't consider ANY card running DX9 PS2 shaders acceptably these days and will probably run HL2 at PS 1.4 if I haven't upgraded my 9800Pro by then. On the other hand, Doom 3 should run much better on a 5900NU than a 9700 Pro, so there is that to consider.
So I'll stick with my 5900 NU recommendation in this case, especially since I seriously have to wonder if there is a 5900 NU on the planet that cannot make that huge leap from 800/850 to 850/850 and achieve full 5900U status. (and then my benchmarks would be valid, although you'd have to consider the 9700Pros OC potential as well)

BTW- Doom3 is far more interesting to me than HL2, so I'd lean nVidia on this one. If HL2 were more important to me, I'd go ATI.
I think all these cards (5900s/9800s) are close enough in performance you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference, except in pretty specific instances.

SOunds like a toss up then...which do the think would have an easier time accepting The zalman heat pipe..Mucho gracias.🙂

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: bpt8056
*sigh* Thank you for the link, it showed that the 5900 beat out the 9800np (or 9700 Pro if you want to call it that) in five of the seven different programs they used in the article.

Compare the stock 9800NP to the *regular* (400/850) stock 5900NU, in the benches with AA/AF turned on (which is how most people would run a card like this). With these cards, benchmarks without AA/AF basically become theoretical fillrate tests. For comparative purposes, I've also pulled out the 5900U and 9800P scores, so you can see how the cards (in theory) scale with clockspeed, in case you want to overclock them. It's not exact, but it's close.

RTCW:

9800: 116
5900: 96.6

9800P: 131.5
5900U: 111

stock 9800 is *faster than a 5900U*! In an OpenGL game built on Q3!


UT2K3:

9800: 69.1
5900: 68.1

9800P: 77.6
5900U: 75.8

Here it's faster than the 5900 (not by much, but I'm also unsure if NVIDIA is doing trilinear filtering with this level of drivers). 5900U is not much faster.


Codecreatures:

9800: 21.1
5900: 22.1

9800P: 24.9
5900U: 25.3

The 5900 is a tiny bit faster.


Unreal 2:

9800: 58.3
5900: 46.2

9800P: 63
5900U: 50.7

The 9800 is significantly faster, beating even the 5900U handily.


Serious Sam:

9800: 99.3
5900: 114.5

9800P: 116
5900U: 126.6

The 5900 (for the first time so far) is noticeably faster than the 9800, approaching the performance of the 9800Pro.


Rightmark:

9800: 51
5900: 46.3

9800P: 58.4
5900U: 50.8

The 9800 is, again, *faster than the 5900U* in this test.

Splinter Cell @1024x768 (no AA/AF results available, since it doesn't work right in SC):

9800: 36.1
5900: 42

9800P: 41.4
5900U: 43.4

The 5900 is noticeably faster here (and just a hair faster than a 9800Pro). This is not surprising, since SC was developed for the XBOX (ie, on NVIDIA hardware), and it uses stencil shadows (which is a strong suit of the FX line).


For kicks, here are their HL2 numbers from last month (they used the new NVIDIA ForceWare 52.XX drivers, but still the same old leaked demo). Disregard them entirely if you see fit, as they are based on beta code and performance is sure to increase on all cards by the time of the game's release.

demo1:

9800: 45.6
5900: 32.4

9800P: 50
5900U: 36.6

demo2:

9800: 71.1
5900: 41

9800P: 75.2
5900U: 46.2

That's, uh, not so good for NVIDIA there. I would hope they'd gotten some better DX9 performance out of their drivers by now.

So, by my count, I get 5 games where the 9800 is faster (and in four of those, the 9800 is faster than the stock 5900U!), 1 where they're probably too close to call, and two where the 5900 beats it (and one of those is an XBox port, which is biased by design towards NVIDIA). If you can show some benchmarks where the 5900NU is significantly better than the 9800NP or 9700Pro across the board, I'd love to see them.

 

[bpt8056]

LOL, you seriously need to go to an eye doctor. 😛 It's funny how you omitted most of the benchmarks where the GeForce FX 5900 dominated the 9800np. Also keep in mind that the 9700 Pro doesn't do AF as well as the 9800 series so those scores would be lower for the 9700 Pro.

Can't wait to see what you're going to type next. Your post has struck gold in comedy! LOL 😛

 

[Matthias99]

I'm a bit confused, as that was *all* of the benchmarks from digit-life... like I said, the numbers without AA and AF are basically worthless with these cards. Who runs a 9700Pro or 5900NU without AA and AF? Unless you're running them at some insanely high resolution... but generally overall performance is better at a low or medium res with AA and AF enabled.

Here's the other review I posted where the 9700Pro pastes the 5900NU head-on. Without even using AA and AF.

And it's not like they made enormous changes to the core for the R360. You say the 9700Pro has much worse AA/AF performance? Prove it! Never seen it in the benchmarks...

edit: such as these
edit: and these
edit: or perhaps you would trust anandtech more?

Look, I'm not saying the 5900 is a bad card. It still kicks the crap out of a 9600Pro at a pretty competitive price point. But the 9700Pro/9800NP perform better, and they cost more as a result.

 

[gibhunter]

Great, posting review from June. Last I checked, the 5x.xx drivers give FX5900 up to 20% boost in some games, quite a difference I'd say.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: bpt8056
LOL, you seriously need to go to an eye doctor. 😛 It's funny how you omitted most of the benchmarks where the GeForce FX 5900 dominated the 9800np. Also keep in mind that the 9700 Pro doesn't do AF as well as the 9800 series so those scores would be lower for the 9700 Pro.

Can't wait to see what you're going to type next. Your post has struck gold in comedy! LOL 😛

Do you really think 9700Pro performs worse than 9800np with AA/AF????
Changes made to the core were very little, and 9700Pro has a point in it's higher bandwich (remenber 9700Pro memory:310Mhz, 9800:290)
Morover. AA/AF optimizations were mainly driver related and those were then extended to R300 core drivers, so differences are marginal.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: gibhunter
Great, posting review from June. Last I checked, the 5x.xx drivers give FX5900 up to 20% boost in some games, quite a difference I'd say.

Look. You don't like the benchmarks I've got? There are only so many review sites out there, and they don't continually review older/lower-end cards. I posted numbers from digit-life -- from THIS MONTH, with the newest drivers -- that showed the 5900 losing in a majority of tests, and still losing *badly* at HL2 even with the new "DX9-capable" ForceWare drivers. But those are no good because "the 9700 pro isn't as good as the 9800NP at AA/AF" or something like that. So I went back and found numbers from when sites were reviewing the 9700 Pro, which was -- big surprise -- when it first came out. If you can find somewhere that has put them head to head recently, please post it.

edit: here's the 9700 and 9800pro versus a 5800ultra. Yes, it's from March. This was the last time I could find a 9700Pro in a comparative benchmark at AT. After that they only use the 9800-series cards.

edit: here's an article from october with a 9700pro, 9800pro, and 5900Ultra. they don't have the 9800NP and 5900NU, but it at least does show the AA/AF impact across the board.

 

[VIAN]

The reason I picked the ATi card over the nVIDIA card is for the following reasons:

I've seen a lot of benchmarks, and they all have something good to say about ATi. Not everyone has something good to say about nVIDIA, so it can be said to go with ATi for a best experience and no iffies on performance.

 

[Matthias99]

For people claiming the 9700Pro is significantly slower than the 9800NP: this should clear things up.

They're within 2% of each other on every single test, with or without AA and AF. The 9700Pro is a tiny bit faster in most of them because its memory is clocked a little higher at stock.

 

[bpt8056]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
I'm a bit confused, as that was *all* of the benchmarks from digit-life... like I said, the numbers without AA and AF are basically worthless with these cards. Who runs a 9700Pro or 5900NU without AA and AF? Unless you're running them at some insanely high resolution... but generally overall performance is better at a low or medium res with AA and AF enabled.

And it's not like they made enormous changes to the core for the R360. You say the 9700Pro has much worse AA/AF performance? Prove it! Never seen it in the benchmarks...

Here's the proof that the 9800 is more efficient than the 9700Pro.
In your face *rim shot* 🙂

I run games without AA because it has no benefit to me since I already run in high resolutions. Why bother especially in FPS? I do turn on AF, but I never bother to notice the difference in image quality. I don't have time to go sightseeing and it's already crisp at 1600 x1200, but if you do then I'd love to play with ya online and frag the heck outta ya. 😛

The FX5900 remains the best bang for the buck in my book.

 

[Matthias99]

Well, that's great, except the last benchmarks I posted show they're *equally* efficent (a 9800NP is a 9800Pro running at 325/290, compared with the 9700Pro's 325/310).

look, same results with and without AA/AF!

So something's out of whack in one of these benches. Maybe the newer drivers made up some of the difference? The AT review was in March...

 

[OinkBoink]

ATi's hardware+nVidia's software=KICK ASS! 😀

 

[bpt8056]

These were your words, "Prove it! Never seen it in the benchmarks..."

I just showed you an article that proved it and now you can't say "never". 😉 Now you went out of your way to find another article to counter the one I found to prove how stupid your remarks were. It's pretty funny how you react, keep it up! 😛 To top that, you link benchmarks that has no relevance to this thread by comparing a 9700 to a Geforce 4 and comparing the 9700 & 9800 to the 5800 Ultra. Dude, seek help.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: bpt8056
These were your words, "Prove it! Never seen it in the benchmarks..."

I just showed you an article that proved it and now you can't say "never". 😉 Now you went out of your way to find another article to counter the one I found to prove how stupid your remarks were. It's pretty funny how you react, keep it up! 😛 To top that, you link benchmarks that has no relevance to this thread by comparing a 9700 to a Geforce 4 and comparing the 9700 & 9800 to the 5800 Ultra. Dude, seek help.

What are you talking about?? 9700pro>9800 by 1-2% with new drivers. I have explained why before.
His Dig-life benches are from last month, so it's very up to date.

 

[bpt8056]

What are you talking about?

I'll explain it slowly this time.

Here's the other review I posted where the 9700Pro pastes the 5900NU head-on. Without even using AA and AF.

He handpicked one of the many benchmarks in this article. Most of the others show the FX5900 in the lead.

edit: such as these

Radeon 9700 Pro against a GeForce 4 in that article. Purely irrelevant!

edit: and these

No idea what he's trying to prove.

edit: or perhaps you would trust anandtech more?

Yet another link to an article comparing a 9700 Pro to a GeForce 4.

Look, I'm not saying the 5900 is a bad card. It still kicks the crap out of a 9600Pro at a pretty competitive price point. But the 9700Pro/9800NP perform better, and they cost more as a result.

He made that conclusion based on those links? Go figure. 😛

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: bpt8056
These were your words, "Prove it! Never seen it in the benchmarks..."

I just showed you an article that proved it and now you can't say "never". 😉 Now you went out of your way to find another article to counter the one I found to prove how stupid your remarks were. It's pretty funny how you react, keep it up! 😛 To top that, you link benchmarks that has no relevance to this thread by comparing a 9700 to a Geforce 4 and comparing the 9700 & 9800 to the 5800 Ultra. Dude, seek help.

I didn't find "another" article, I reposted the one from the post right above yours that you clearly didn't read. Look. I know it got a little confusing in there, because there was more than one thing being debated, and I was posting applicable benchmarks as I found them. Try reading a little more carefully. To summarize for you:

Item 1: 5900 is faster than 9700Pro (or 9800NP).

digit-life benchmark showing 9800NP whups 5900NU

There were complaints that it should be compared directly to a 9700Pro, so I found this:

A benchmark with the 9700Pro on top

The 9700Pro wins in everything except IL-2 Sturmovik and Serious Sam, and it's like 1% slower in Sturmovik. I wouldn't call that "most" of the tests.

Then there were complaints that this benchmark used older drivers. You know what? They're older drivers on the ATI card as well. Suck it up or find a newer benchmark to disprove me.

Item 2: A 9700Pro is directly comparable to a 9800NP, and does not lose any extra performance with AA/AF.

(posted by me) Look! They're identical!
(posted by you) Look! They're 30% different!

The general consensus is that they're pretty damn close, and the one I posted was much more recent. I don't know how AT got a 30% difference between them, since if there was, there should be a huge difference in all benchmarks with AA and AF (which there does not appear to be; see the 9800pro vs. 9700pro benches I posted for an example). Certainly ATI would have hyped a 30% increase in AA/AF performance as a major selling point on the 9800 cards...

The benchmarks you dismissed as "irrelevant" were confirming that the 9700Pro loses the same amount of performance with AA and AF as the 9800 does. They were benches from when the 9700Pro came out -- which was well before the 5900 (or 5800, for that matter) hit the streets. Thank you for not paying attention. I posted one with a 9700Pro and 9800Pro against a 5800Ultra because none of the major review sites have benched a 9700Pro heads-up against a 5900NU, and that's the closest I could find. When the 5900 cards came out, ATI had already put out the 9800s, and the 9700s were becoming hard to find. And almost every benchmark out there is "9800Pro/XT vs. 5900U/5950U" or "9600Pro/XT vs. 5600U/5700U". It would be *nice* if more people benched the 9800NP against the 5900NU, but they're just not doing it (except digit-life).

I've made my point. The 9700Pro is just about the same speed as the 9800NP, and the 9800NP kicks the 5900's butt with AA and AF enabled. Therefore, the 9700Pro also kicks its butt. You don't like it? The burden of proof is on you -- find some evidence that supports your position instead of just attacking mine.

 

[bpt8056]

You want to consider a 9800NP as a 9700 Pro? Fine, let's compare them with the first link you just posted:

To quote you: "No, you're just right. The 9700Pro is faster than the 5900NU most of the time." Let's see if you're right about that. Using game benchmarks from your link to digit-life (since your post was a bit messy, I ought to clear it right up for you and others):

Return to Castle Wolfenstein

1024 x 768
GeForce FX : 220.3
Radeon 9800: 207.1

1280 x 1024
GeForce FX: 150.3
Radeon 9800: 139.5

1600 x 1200
GeForce FX: 108.3
Radeon 9800: 101.5

1024 x 768 + AA + AF
GeForce FX: 96.6
Radeon 9800: 116.0

GeForce FX wins in 3 of 4 benchmarks

Unreal Tournament 2003

1024 x 768
GeForce FX: 116.4
Radeon 9800: 115.7

1280 x 1024
GeForce FX: 93.7
Radeon 9800: 91.9

1600 x 1200
GeForce FX: 70.8
Radeon 9800: 69.7

1024 x 768 + AA + AF
GeForce FX: 68.1
Radeon 9800: 69.1

GeForce wins in 3 of 4 benchamarks

Unreal 2: The Awakening

1024 x 768
GeForce FX: 81.0
Radeon 9800: 91.9

1280 x 1024
GeForce FX: 61.3
Radeon 9800: 71.3

1600 x 1200
GeForce FX: 46.6
Radeon 9800: 54.3

1024 x 768 + AA + AF
GeForce FX: 46.2
Radeon 9800: 58.3

Radeon 9800 wins all benchmarks

Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

1024 x 768
GeForce FX: 203.5
Radeon 9800: 186.3

1280 x 1024
GeForce FX: 154.5
Radeon 9800: 146.1

1600 x 1200
GeForce FX: 112.1
Radeon 9800: 111.6

1024 x 768 + AA + AF
GeForce FX: 114.5
Radeon 9800: 99.3

GeForce FX wins all benchmarks

Tom Clancy?s Splinter Cell

1024 x 768
GeForce FX: 42
Radeon 9800: 36.1

1280 x 1024
GeForce FX: 37.4
Radeon 9800: 30.5

1600 x 1200
GeForce FX: 33.3
Radeon 9800: 28.2

GeForce FX wins all benchmarks

Final Score:

GeForce FX: 13
Radeon 9800: 6


Since you like to hand pick benchmarks, allow me to link a couple from the article you linked (second link):

The other AA + AF benchmark

This one is an updated one since the game added enhanced graphics:
Updated benchmark

The second other AA + AF benchmark

There's your evidence. Whether you choose to accept it or not, it's up to you. At least the viewers will know that you dilberately misled them by linking to hand-picked benchmarks while there were other benchmarks that tell a different story.

Do I think the 9700Pro is a bad card? I don't think it's bad at all. Right now the GeForce FX can compete very well against the Radeon 9700 Pro/9800NP and it can be purchased cheaper than either of those two cards. As I stated before, the GeForce FX is easily the best bang for the buck video card at this moment. I rest my case and let the viewers and Zebo make decisions based on facts, not speculation. Thank you. 😀

 

[destaccado]

My main rig uses a 9800xt but I can't argue with his conclusion....the 5900nu really is the best bang for your buck right now....

 

[edmundoab]

ATi still rulez... spice it up spice it up...
heat of war.... and words..

I prefer the smaller size card.. 😉
lol

of course with power, unlike the FX 5200

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: bpt8056
You want to consider a 9800NP as a 9700 Pro? Fine, let's compare them with the first link you just posted:

To quote you: "No, you're just right. The 9700Pro is faster than the 5900NU most of the time." Let's see if you're right about that. Using game benchmarks from your link to digit-life (since your post was a bit messy, I ought to clear it right up for you and others):

Please read the following sentence very carefully:

Nobody buys a $200+ card to run it at low resolutions and without AA and AF. The 9800NP wins across the board in the AA/AF benchmarks, which are what I posted above. I thought I was quite clear about that, but you seem to not be reading [all of] my posts.

Since you like to hand pick benchmarks, allow me to link a couple from the article you linked (second link):

The other AA + AF benchmark

The 9700Pro beats it at two of the resolution settings. It's a wash at best.

This one is an updated one since the game added enhanced graphics:
Updated benchmark

That's more interesting; NVIDIA seems to have done some serious work on their drivers for this game. Add NASCAR fans to the folks that should consider NVIDIA over ATI.

The second other AA + AF benchmark

That's IL-2 Sturmovik again. The same game I already gave the 5900 credit for winning above. Congratulations; you're now repeating me.

There's your evidence. Whether you choose to accept it or not, it's up to you. At least the viewers will know that you dilberately misled them by linking to hand-picked benchmarks while there were other benchmarks that tell a different story.

Do I think the 9700Pro is a bad card? I don't think it's bad at all. Right now the GeForce FX can compete very well against the Radeon 9700 Pro/9800NP and it can be purchased cheaper than either of those two cards. As I stated before, the GeForce FX is easily the best bang for the buck video card at this moment. I rest my case and let the viewers and Zebo make decisions based on facts, not speculation. Thank you. 😀

What "other story"? You showed the same evidence I did! I said -- repeatedly -- that I was looking at the AA and AF benchmarks, since that's how just about everybody runs a card in this class. If you don't care about AA and AF, then it's a different story -- but, of course, that's the primary reason to buy a $200+ card. Twisting my posts to make it sound like I'm lying is not going to make your points any better, nor does it disprove what I said above. Ad hominem attacks (ie, calling me a liar) are not particularly welcome on this board.

However, I actually agree with your conclusion. The 5900NU is only marginally slower than the 9700Pro/9800NP (although the gap may be much more significant in full DX9 games), and it's also somewhat cheaper (around $200, compared to $225-250 for the 9700Pro/9800NP). There's nothing wrong with it; it's just not faster than a 9700Pro or 9800NP.

 

[cindy22]

please stop showing old or new articles that shows benchmark scores and didn't disable cheats and or uses nvidia's forceware cheat drivers .That's what nvidia wants us to believe that their cards are actually competitive to their competition by cheating and probably paying or sponsoring certain magazines,websites and game developers to overlook and turn their heads when they see cheats

that's why other articles caught nvidia cheating with their pants down so many times lately

In certain games sometimes you'll see nvidia's logo (the way it's meant to be played ) while playing .But then you wonder ,why is it so slow with aa and af on compared to your friend's ati cards.That happens to me alot when my friends come over to compare their new 5900 fx to my 9800 pro .I'm happy they finally made the switch to ati just like I did

 

[cindy22]

"Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In DX8:
5900<9700pro<5900ultra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You have a link or two backing this up McArra?

UT2003 is a DX8 game, and the 5900 is beating the 9700Pro at every resolution Here

Splinter Cell is DX 8 as well I believe, and the 5900 > 9700Pro at every resolution againMore proof

IL2Sturmovik is DX8 as well, and, you guessed it, 5900 beats 9700 Pro at every resolution.
So much misinformation here

Errrr, Nascar 2003 is DX8, and the 5900 stomps a 9700Pro at the first two, wins the third, and only loses the 4th by 1fps.
McArra, what the heck are you talking about?

So I just linked a direct comparison of the 5900 and 9700Pro in four popular games, at four popular settings, and the 9700Pro won 1/16 benchmarks. (and that one by 1 fps! Woot!) I can see why you say 5900<9700Pro, the 9700Pro is faster a whopping 6% of the time! "

MR.ROLO I totally disagree with you on this one.

1.those articles you showed us are very old ,they did't even diable cheats and are using nvidia's cheat drivers

2. the articles were bias by showing scores in certaing games with aa and af that favor nvidia ,in others they showed either aa only or none at all while in certain games that nvidia would have lost by a far margin with aa and af they only showed with aa and af disabled

3.nvidia'd fx cards does pretty well when playing older or directx 8 games and may even tie or beat ati in certain older games with directx 8 by a small margin with cheats disabled ,but when playing newer and future directx 9 games nvidia gets left far behind with aa and af . when nvidia get stomped they get stomped by as much as double the scores compared to ati

4. if your planning to play only older and directx8 games or not planning to play games at all buy nvidia's fx series,but if your planning to play both directx8 and future games using latest directx 9 technology with aa and af smoothly get ati's 9x00 series

5.nvidia = good performance in older games using older directx8 uses 2 pc slots,a bit noisier than ati,has poor performance with directx9 ,not future proof and will most likely need to upgrade soon if planning to play new and future directx9 games

6 ati = best overall price/performance,outstanding image quality,1 pc slot ,very quiet,
future proof ,very fast with aa and af

check this out:

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/1003/itogi-video-hl2_2-w2k.html

or

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTE5

or this with cheats disabled

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/340/index.php?p=5

or this cheats not disabled ati's still wins when with aa and af

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-24.html

 

[cindy22]

seriously why spend that kind of dough on a high end card for older games only and isn't even futureproof.
in the next couple of months there will be so many games out using directx 9 that you might want , you'll have to then spend more $$$ upgrading again and you'll regret buying that lousy,louder ,2 slot ,slow performance fx card. Then you'll say why didn't I listen to others warning me not to buy nvidia right now until they change their cheating ways and produce a better card

 

[cindy22]

"Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you like to hand pick benchmarks, allow me to link a couple from the article you linked (second link):

The other AA + AF benchmark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The 9700Pro beats it at two of the resolution settings. It's a wash at best.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This one is an updated one since the game added enhanced graphics:
Updated benchmark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's more interesting; NVIDIA seems to have done some serious work on their drivers for this game. Add NASCAR fans to the folks that should consider NVIDIA over ATI.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second other AA + AF benchmark"


LOL!!!!!!!LOL!!!!!!!! THAT'S SO FUNNY !I'm not kidding seriously a 5800fx beating a 9700 pro and 9800 pro thats the biggest bs I've ever seen.
everyone knows that the 5800fx gets waisted in practically every benchmark out there even ati's 9500 pro some times beat it!
Those articles are totally bias by not disabling cheats in nvidia's drivers and using only a small percentage and certain games they know nvidia does well in only

and one of their tests shows the fx series beating ati's in unreal 2003 .that's also bs because every real unbias articles tests shows ati beating nvidia by a far margin in that game

that prooves that they're bias and mostlikely being payed$$$ or sponsored by nvidia!

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: cindy22
please stop showing old or new articles that shows benchmark scores and didn't disable cheats and or uses nvidia's forceware cheat drivers .That's what nvidia wants us to believe that their cards are actually competitive to their competition by cheating and probably paying or sponsoring certain magazines,websites and game developers to overlook and turn their heads when they see cheats

Please provide some evidence of NVIDIA "paying or sponsoring certain magazines, websites and game developers" instead of just spamming this in every video card thread (which is a good way to get yourself banned if you keep it up long enough). They were cheating -- badly -- in 3DMark03, and had a lot of graphical irregularities in some other benchmarks (ie, AM3) with their beta drivers over the summer. But there are a *lot* of benches posted in this thread -- some new, some old -- and most of them agree on the results. Throwing around wild accusations that every FX benchmark is invalid doesn't help anything. If you can't trust old articles (which use the "old" cheating drivers), and you can't trust articles using the newer ForceWare drivers (which is all they use now!), then should we just throw out all the benchmarks?

that's why other articles caught nvidia cheating with their pants down so many times lately

Proof. Please. Something in the last two or three months, perhaps. They seem to have cleaned up their drivers now that ForceWare is out of beta (with the exception of 3DM03, which they still seem insistent on optimizing for). If they're still cheating, they're at least doing it well enough that nobody's catching it.

*very* recent AT article on image quality. They didn't see much of a difference with recent NVIDIA drivers, although ATI's AA quality is better across the board, and NVIDIA has a very slight edge in AF quality (although it would be nice to see if ATI's 16X setting looks better than NVIDIA's 8x, since the performance hit is comparable).

In certain games sometimes you'll see nvidia's logo (the way it's meant to be played ) while playing .But then you wonder ,why is it so slow with aa and af on compared to your friend's ati cards.That happens to me alot when my friends come over to compare their new 5900 fx to my 9800 pro .I'm happy they finally made the switch to ati just like I did

They've got a crappy AA implementation (which has been discussed in this thread and others many many times) that runs slow and doesn't look as good. Their AF looks (slightly) better, but can't do 16X and takes a bigger performance hit than ATI's. Their developer relations program has nothing to do with this; it's a hardware limitation.

NVIDIA does better in some games (certain OpenGL titles, mostly -- Jedi Academy, for example, runs much better on NVIDIA hardware right now, as do Splinter Cell and most XBox ports with the exception of Halo). You seem inclined to call this "cheating" for no good reason. Please present some evidence rather than just pointing fingers and making accusations.