Firingsquad's NV40 vs R420 final evaluation

[Keysplayr]

Cool, thanks Regs. Anyone else?

 

[ChkSix]

I agree., More features, better technology. I'd go for the Nvidia.

 

[Jeff7181]

It's funny how when the 6800 outperforms the x800 in HL2... the difference in performance is insignificant... but in cases where the x800 outperforms the 6800, it "wins."

 

[kylebisme]

it's funny how you ever came to that conclusion.

 

[VisableAssassin]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
it's funny how you ever came to that conclusion.

because thats how it goes. Most of the ATi people pass off a NV win as "insignificant" but when ATi wins by a small amount its "significant"
thats how the fan boyism works....

 

[reever]

Or to whom ATi payed 8 million for the rights of HL2. A lot either choose to purposely 'forget' this wager, or are completely clueless that the ATi/Valve collaboration sang to the hum of very high digit numbers, all in dead presidents.

First of all, it's 6 million, get your bias right. And second of all, the amount Nvidia paid activision for exclusive D3 marketing rights is undisclosed, how much do you think they paid them?

 

[ChkSix]

For one, I'm not bias, so I'd check your assumption. And two I was responding to something above, which dealt directly with ATi. I'm not biased, but then again you wouldn't know it from seeing only one post from me, now would you? If the question of the suppossed 40% increase on ATi using a HL2 'benchmark' was directed or geared towards Nvidia (aka Doom3 OR Activision for that matter), than I would have responded directly to those statements. Get the facts straight before you accuse me of a position you're completely unaware of.

And by the way, if owning both a 5950Ultra and a 9800pro makes me bias (oh yeah, my sig doesn't list my second computer or videocard for that matter, so how would you know?), than that's a new concept for many. But personally, I don't think so. However, if you still want to assume it does, than more power to you.

 

[reever]

For one, I'm not bias, so I'd check your assumption. And two I was responding to something above, which dealt directly with ATi. I'm not biased,

So you're allowed to be wrong?

You seem to want to discuss what bias is instead of discussing how you somehow think Nvidia is not involved in such deals and such comments as the ati/valve deal

 

[VisableAssassin]

Originally posted by: reever

Or to whom ATi payed 8 million for the rights of HL2. A lot either choose to purposely 'forget' this wager, or are completely clueless that the ATi/Valve collaboration sang to the hum of very high digit numbers, all in dead presidents.

First of all, it's 6 million, get your bias right. And second of all, the amount Nvidia paid activision for exclusive D3 marketing rights is undisclosed, how much do you think they paid them?

Myself id really consider it different to offer game "coupons" a little different than paying for your logo on a game....but then again Im probably missing something 😛

 

[ChkSix]

Obviously you missed what I said initially to your response, so I choose not to discuss it any more. The fact of the matter is Nvidia's 'deals' or supposed 'performance boosts' was not in question when I responded to the 40% yield on Ati cards in HL2. If that was mentioned, than I would have responded accordingly, however I have yet to see Nvidia or any of it's partners boast such ridiculous claims, regardless of the 'company' or 'money' involved. And that in itself should tell you something.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: reever

For one, I'm not bias, so I'd check your assumption. And two I was responding to something above, which dealt directly with ATi. I'm not biased,

So you're allowed to be wrong?

You seem to want to discuss what bias is instead of discussing how you somehow think Nvidia is not involved in such deals and such comments as the ati/valve deal

Reever, reach down below and pull out whatever crawled up there. Stop your nonsense. 🙂

 

[kylebisme]

as i said above, Gabe didn't say that ati's new cards were 40% faster than nvidias!

"In terms of performance, it's pretty fast," said Gabe Newell, president of Valve Software, the developer of Half-Life II. "When I say 'pretty fast' I mean that its 40 percent faster in internal testing, faster than any next-generation parts that are coming out. That's a huge advantage in developing a game."

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1584386,00.asp

that implies the 40% faster in relation to what is out right now, and just a general "faster" than the next gen stuff from nvidia but not 40% by any means.

 

[ChkSix]

Sweet. Thanks for the clarification Snowman. :beer:

 

[Pete]

The bolded part is what really struck me. The part I italicized holds some impact as well. Brilliant point.
Its not much of a bragging right when you dont change your card and pretty much already have good drivers to work with.. because your just buying another pumped up R300. You're not really getting any more features for the money over a 9700 Pro.
😕

I dunno, the GF4 did pretty well with just a speed bump.

 

[ShinX]

Gabe Newell is a fat idiot who likes to delay stuff. I hope Gordon Freeman beats his fat ass silly with a crowbar.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
It's funny how when the 6800 outperforms the x800 in HL2... the difference in performance is insignificant... but in cases where the x800 outperforms the 6800, it "wins."

Whats even MORE funny is that X800 beats 6800 in HL2
And if you think ATI's advantage in Far Cry, and Nature Test in 3dmark03 are not significant wins...then....
And also, Nvidia has only won benchmarks in Old openGL games, or old games period.

The fact of the matter is ATI x800xt is faster in Splinter Cell, Halo, Far Cry, HL2 demo, STALKER, UT2K3/UT2k4, Nature Test in 3d03 and every other shader intensive game out there. A win is a win by a mm or a mile, it doesnt matter. If you can afford a 6800Ultra or X800xt, I would never call either owner a loser, as both are magnificent cards. The reality is that even X800Pro and 6800NU/Pro or whatever else is out there (and possible even the x800se) are still faster than any fastest previous generation product. Now in some cases the performance advantage is up to 2x + in current games. If that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Back in the days you got lucky if Geforce 4 gave 40% improvement over Geforce 3 Ti 500, and no one complained about it. Even if Nvidia loses by 5-10% in games it still smokes anything "old" out there. But for pure performance, right now, it seems X800XT has a slight edge by simply being faster in shader intensive games. But why even argue about the cards that most of the people (even on this forum) will not own?

 

[ChkSix]

I would hope so being that Valve and ATi are chummy chummy. But enough about HL2, bring on DOOM III .

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: Pete
The bolded part is what really struck me. The part I italicized holds some impact as well. Brilliant point.
Its not much of a bragging right when you dont change your card and pretty much already have good drivers to work with.. because your just buying another pumped up R300. You're not really getting any more features for the money over a 9700 Pro.
😕

I dunno, the GF4 did pretty well with just a speed bump.

The GF4 did more than a speed bump. It added either a pixel or vertex shader (can't remember which, if not both). And AA performance got a huge boost (laughable performance by today's standards, but it was the first card to offer AA that was able to be turned on while having playable framerates).

 

[Ackmed]

Playable for you, sure wasnt for me. I dont like to game in the 20's or 30's. I tried to play BF with AA on with my Ti4600, and it was dog slow. I think BF is a game that jaggies stand out more than most. I got a 9700 Pro.. and could finally get playable frames with AA on.

 

[kylebisme]

the geforce4 added ps1.2 and 1.3 and ya the aa got a little faster, but it really is about the same change between the r3xx and r420 in features and moreso of a speedbump by far. as for the bold, i did a search on google for "gabe newell 40% faster" and got a bunch of results missrepersenting Gabe's comment; so i figured my clarifcation deserved some bolding.

 

[Pete]

GF4 added nothing substantive in terms of h/w features, AFAIK (PS1.3 was added mainly as a marketing feature to allow the GF4 to be labelled as DX8.1, IIRC). You're right in that the X800XT doesn't show as great of a performance lead over the 6800U as the GF4 did over the 8500, so the comparison isn't perfect.

Yes, I remember the GF4 greatly outperformed the GF3 with AA (by as much as 2x, IIRC).

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Playable for you, sure wasnt for me. I dont like to game in the 20's or 30's. I tried to play BF with AA on with my Ti4600, and it was dog slow. I think BF is a game that jaggies stand out more than most. I got a 9700 Pro.. and could finally get playable frames with AA on.

Try 2x instead of 4x and it most likely will be playable. Or you could run Quinquinix (but I don't like the overall bluriness of this mode).

 

[ShinX]

HL2 will run faster on ATi cards because of the promotion both companies give each other. Same goes for NVIDIA and D00M 3. Its all marchitecture.

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: ShinX
Gabe Newell is a fat idiot who likes to delay stuff. I hope Gordon Freeman beats his fat ass silly with a crowbar.

John Carmack likes doing the same. "Coming Summer 2003"

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
It's funny how when the 6800 outperforms the x800 in HL2... the difference in performance is insignificant... but in cases where the x800 outperforms the 6800, it "wins."

Whats even MORE funny is that X800 beats 6800 in HL2
And if you think ATI's advantage in Far Cry, and Nature Test in 3dmark03 are not significant wins...then....
And also, Nvidia has only won benchmarks in Old openGL games, or old games period.

The fact of the matter is ATI x800xt is faster in Splinter Cell, Halo, Far Cry, HL2 demo, STALKER, UT2K3/UT2k4, Nature Test in 3d03 and every other shader intensive game out there. A win is a win by a mm or a mile, it doesnt matter. If you can afford a 6800Ultra or X800xt, I would never call either owner a loser, as both are magnificent cards. The reality is that even X800Pro and 6800NU/Pro or whatever else is out there (and possible even the x800se) are still faster than any fastest previous generation product. Now in some cases the performance advantage is up to 2x + in current games. If that is not impressive, I don't know what is. Back in the days you got lucky if Geforce 4 gave 40% improvement over Geforce 3 Ti 500, and no one complained about it. Even if Nvidia loses by 5-10% in games it still smokes anything "old" out there. But for pure performance, right now, it seems X800XT has a slight edge by simply being faster in shader intensive games. But why even argue about the cards that most of the people (even on this forum) will not own?

Link for X800 whooping 6800 in HL2 Please?