Have people gotten stupid lately!?

[secretanchitman]

everyone stfu (who is complaining) and just wait. its not like nvidia or ati/amd is forcing you to buy their cards.

sheesh. im running on a voodoo3 16MB PCI card on a modern system and you're complaining that some next gen card got delayed by a couple of months. give me a break.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: apoppin
more stupid "than normal"

we're talking about *video*, right ?

i think you created an oxymoron

you're digging yourself in deeper
:Q



imagine if Rollo were still here
:shocked:

:laugh:

Rollo is still hear among us... some say he is crusader and other say he is wreckage. Which ever new name he goes by now... he will always be in our memory. He wasn?t a NVIDIA employee like most people believe but he was associated to NVIDIA viral program which brought his downfall :frown: . He represented Nvidia like no one could do in our little anandtech forum.

i guess you mean *in spirit*



the *stupidity level* of ATF Video is unchanged

EDIT: PM sent, SickBeast

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The R8500 was not equal or better than the GF4ti series. The ti4600 *dusted* it completely. It could *barely* keep pace w/ a ti4200 under ideal conditions.

You're high, again.
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_1140671__6

And if you guys don't like the 8500 analogy I could just as easily put the 9700pro in there which came out three months after ti4600 which really did destroy it.

WTF?



Your benchmarks completely validate what I said!

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The R8500 was not equal or better than the GF4ti series. The ti4600 *dusted* it completely. It could *barely* keep pace w/ a ti4200 under ideal conditions.

Wrong, an 8500 (not the slower 8500LE) was only just slower than 4600 in most games.

the 8500 128mb left the TI4200 and 4400 for dead, not that it's even worth arguing over now....I left all that behind me back in 2002.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Sorry about the GF6 > X850 analogy and stuff. It has been a long time, and I shouldn't have just spouted that out. They were really quite even with the X8xx series taking the lead in DX9 and up and the 6800 (While it had SM3 support) preferred the older DX 8.1 games. But lets not start that again.

The 8500 was far outperformed by the Geforce's. The problem being mostly driver support. It wasn't until after the 9700-9800 series that the drivers really pushed the 8500 above the Geforce's. So at the time of release it was slower, it got much faster as time progressed though.

-Kevin

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Sorry about the GF6 > X850 analogy and stuff. It has been a long time, and I shouldn't have just spouted that out. They were really quite even with the X8xx series taking the lead in DX9 and up and the 6800 (While it had SM3 support) preferred the older DX 8.1 games. But lets not start that again.

The 8500 was far outperformed by the Geforce's. The problem being mostly driver support. It wasn't until after the 9700-9800 series that the drivers really pushed the 8500 above the Geforce's. So at the time of release it was slower, it got much faster as time progressed though.

-Kevin

that hits the nail right on the head..the only problem with that though was by the time the 8500 was reaching TI4600 levels, most ATI users had ditched it for the mighty 9700Pro.

Ahhhh yes I still remember my upgrade from 8500 to 9700Pro...I couldn't stop grinning for weeks afterwards, best AU$680 I have ever spent....EVER, I used my 9700Pro for over 3 years before I upgraded it to a 6800GT, anything less just wasn't worth it.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: StopSign
People lost their minds when they bought SLI 8800GTX setups, and some of those who bought one 8800GTX "planned to get another one next year for SLI."

I cant believe people feel they need to SLI 8800GTX's anyway!, i'd be happy with a 7 series card....sniff...

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
The X850XT PE outperforms the 6800Ultra by a wider margin in current tittles than in tittles released 2 or 3 years ago. For some reason the R4X0 architecture scales very well in intensive games far better than the NV40 architecture, for me, the G70 is what NV40 was supposed to be. Try to play Oblivion on a 6800 Ultra at 1024x768 (I know is a lowly resolution, but this game is quite demanding even at that resolution with anti aliasing) with 4XFSAA and 16xAF and everything on max and see what I mean, the X850XTPE is far more playable. I was able to play that game with the make it pretty mod at that resolution and eye candy and never dipped below 25fps and the average was about 45's. I was surprised considering that I have a P4 and the hype of the game being a resource hog.

I think the 6 series would be using SM3 while the X series uses SM2, therefore the 6 series is being taxed alot more than the other accounting for the better performance.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Yes go back in memory lane since alot of people forget about the past :

From HardOP which was called a bias review towards nvidia by alot of people back then.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njk3LDExLCw=

"Make no bones about it, the X850XT-PE can easily best the NVIDIA 6800Ultra in many of today?s latest 3D gaming titles, and Catalyst driver maturation is evident in these latest evaluations. And while it does fall a bit behind in DOOM 3, it hardly delivers anything close to what could be described as ?bad? performance."

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=936&page=7
"At the time of writing, Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition is undoubtedly the fastest graphics product money can buy."

http://www.guru3d.com/article/content/176/15/
"Of course the Radeon x850 XT PE is the fastest thing around, once you have it in your rig you will absolutely love it. Whatever task you'll assign it in terms of media playback, 2D desktop, recording video and of course playing games You'll simply love it. You better start saving though because the prices of the fastest graphics cards around are getting a bit more steep then is good for them."


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x850xt_agp/page12.asp

Just look at bechmark at high res.

QFT. My X800XT PE was faster than my 6800GT@Ultra speeds through a series of games I benched. My X850XT PE only widened the margin.

Back on topic: I agree with the OP in that there seems to be even more unfounded "facts" being thrown around the Video forum than usual. We have very little hard facts at this point and while speculation threads are interesting IMO, people shouldn't spout speculation as fact.

Because the 68xx was using more complex SM3 not easier SM2

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Yes go back in memory lane since alot of people forget about the past :

From HardOP which was called a bias review towards nvidia by alot of people back then.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njk3LDExLCw=

"Make no bones about it, the X850XT-PE can easily best the NVIDIA 6800Ultra in many of today?s latest 3D gaming titles, and Catalyst driver maturation is evident in these latest evaluations. And while it does fall a bit behind in DOOM 3, it hardly delivers anything close to what could be described as ?bad? performance."

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=936&page=7
"At the time of writing, Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition is undoubtedly the fastest graphics product money can buy."

http://www.guru3d.com/article/content/176/15/
"Of course the Radeon x850 XT PE is the fastest thing around, once you have it in your rig you will absolutely love it. Whatever task you'll assign it in terms of media playback, 2D desktop, recording video and of course playing games You'll simply love it. You better start saving though because the prices of the fastest graphics cards around are getting a bit more steep then is good for them."


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x850xt_agp/page12.asp

Just look at bechmark at high res.

QFT. My X800XT PE was faster than my 6800GT@Ultra speeds through a series of games I benched. My X850XT PE only widened the margin.

Back on topic: I agree with the OP in that there seems to be even more unfounded "facts" being thrown around the Video forum than usual. We have very little hard facts at this point and while speculation threads are interesting IMO, people shouldn't spout speculation as fact.

Because the 68xx was using more complex SM3 not easier SM2

That's what I always thought.

 

[tuteja1986]

Should we have stupid election :!! we need a leader till our brain cell come back from vaction.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I agree with most of your rant, but to say AMD isnt in trouble without looking at their situation and knowing wtf you are talking about isnt exactly wise either.

They are posting huge losses, both the former ATi graphics division and CPU division lost money, not counting the enormous amount of debt from the merger.

They have no flagship product for their next gen, and wont until May.

Their 65nm process isnt shaping up well, whereas Intel has announced their 45nm is ahead of schedule. AMD will retain their manufacturing disadvantage.

AMD has a lot of outstanding debt from the new facility in NY and the aquisition of ATi, now theres talks of a buyout of AMD outright.

I don't know where you got all of your info, but AMD is in no trouble whatsoever. They lost what $1.50 on their stock last quarter?

As for a flagship product....seriously, you can't be serious. <1% of the people in this world are gamers and will buy a flag ship product. They are probably want to get it out ASAP, but are certainly not in any trouble.

As for their CPU...65nm process is fine. It's just new. When Intel's came out it wasn't the best either. As for not "beating" Intel, do you remember the days of the AXP? They didn't win then and they did just fine.

AMD/ATI is absolutely fine.

-Kevin

They didnt do just fine in the AMD XP days. They survived.

This time they are in a price war with intel who is nearly 2 full manufacturing stages ahead of them, intel can make it faster and substantially cheaper.

If you think not having the flagship product out doesnt hurt the sales of the others, you dont understand basic economics or marketing.

And again, AMD has an enormous amount of debt right now.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Yes go back in memory lane since alot of people forget about the past :

From HardOP which was called a bias review towards nvidia by alot of people back then.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njk3LDExLCw=

"Make no bones about it, the X850XT-PE can easily best the NVIDIA 6800Ultra in many of today?s latest 3D gaming titles, and Catalyst driver maturation is evident in these latest evaluations. And while it does fall a bit behind in DOOM 3, it hardly delivers anything close to what could be described as ?bad? performance."

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=936&page=7
"At the time of writing, Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition is undoubtedly the fastest graphics product money can buy."

http://www.guru3d.com/article/content/176/15/
"Of course the Radeon x850 XT PE is the fastest thing around, once you have it in your rig you will absolutely love it. Whatever task you'll assign it in terms of media playback, 2D desktop, recording video and of course playing games You'll simply love it. You better start saving though because the prices of the fastest graphics cards around are getting a bit more steep then is good for them."


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x850xt_agp/page12.asp

Just look at bechmark at high res.

QFT. My X800XT PE was faster than my 6800GT@Ultra speeds through a series of games I benched. My X850XT PE only widened the margin.

Back on topic: I agree with the OP in that there seems to be even more unfounded "facts" being thrown around the Video forum than usual. We have very little hard facts at this point and while speculation threads are interesting IMO, people shouldn't spout speculation as fact.

Because the 68xx was using more complex SM3 not easier SM2

That's what I always thought.

SM 3 is purely speed improvements. It is not complexity and should not have a negative affect on performance at all.

They didnt do just fine in the AMD XP days. They survived.

Where did you see this. Last I checked they did quite well despite not having the performance crown.

-Kevin

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I agree with most of your rant, but to say AMD isnt in trouble without looking at their situation and knowing wtf you are talking about isnt exactly wise either.

They are posting huge losses, both the former ATi graphics division and CPU division lost money, not counting the enormous amount of debt from the merger.

They have no flagship product for their next gen, and wont until May.

Their 65nm process isnt shaping up well, whereas Intel has announced their 45nm is ahead of schedule. AMD will retain their manufacturing disadvantage.

AMD has a lot of outstanding debt from the new facility in NY and the aquisition of ATi, now theres talks of a buyout of AMD outright.

I don't know where you got all of your info, but AMD is in no trouble whatsoever. They lost what $1.50 on their stock last quarter?

As for a flagship product....seriously, you can't be serious. <1% of the people in this world are gamers and will buy a flag ship product. They are probably want to get it out ASAP, but are certainly not in any trouble.

As for their CPU...65nm process is fine. It's just new. When Intel's came out it wasn't the best either. As for not "beating" Intel, do you remember the days of the AXP? They didn't win then and they did just fine.

AMD/ATI is absolutely fine.

-Kevin

They didnt do just fine in the AMD XP days. They survived.

This time they are in a price war with intel who is nearly 2 full manufacturing stages ahead of them, intel can make it faster and substantially cheaper.

If you think not having the flagship product out doesnt hurt the sales of the others, you dont understand basic economics or marketing.

And again, AMD has an enormous amount of debt right now.

At present both are 65nm, Intel go 45nm in 2007, AMD go 45nm in 2008. That's not even close to nearly 2 process's behind.

I'm thinking ATI was just a little bit too much for them to swallow considering the price war & their FAB expenditure spree of late. They won't die off (might get a few pecks from Vultures tho) but it's gonna be hard for them to gain much more marketshare until they sort out ATI's GPU problems & their chipset problems along with their traditional CPU business.

R600 may well be the best card (when it's released) but the delays are costing them sales which investors don't like.


What AMD/ATI need is a lot of people to stick their boots up their asses to get them into gear or else ATI = Dodo.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Because the 68xx was using more complex SM3 not easier SM2

Only FarCry used SM3 at the time of the 6800 and it was very slow anyway in SM3 mode(I'm not detracting from the achivements of the 6800 however). Go back to the first page of this thread and you'll find several links for many games (not just FarCry) that show the X8XX series handily beating the 6800.

Jeez where are people coming up with some of this stuff?? :disgust:

 

[ebeattie]

Originally posted by: StopSign
People lost their minds when they bought SLI 8800GTX setups, and some of those who bought one 8800GTX "planned to get another one next year for SLI."

Not me bro, learned my lesson about SLI with my 7900 GTO's. Great cards, dont get me wrong, but I would rather have a hardcore card, than two cards with ALMOST the same performance.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Because the 68xx was using more complex SM3 not easier SM2

Only FarCry used SM3 at the time of the 6800 and it was very slow anyway in SM3 mode(I'm not detracting from the achivements of the 6800 however). Go back to the first page of this thread and you'll find several links for many games (not just FarCry) that show the X8XX series handily beating the 6800.

Jeez where are people coming up with some of this stuff?? :disgust:

SM 3 was NOT slower than SM 2.

Not me bro, learned my lesson about SLI with my 7900 GTO's. Great cards, dont get me wrong, but I would rather have a hardcore card, than two cards with ALMOST the same performance.

SLI most certainly isn't "Almost the same performance".

-Kevin

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
SM 3 was NOT slower than SM 2.
-Kevin

Sorry what I meant was when HDR was enabled in Farcry, which was an SM3 feature.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
SM 3 was NOT slower than SM 2.
-Kevin

Sorry what I meant was when HDR was enabled in Farcry, which was an SM3 feature.

HDR has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with SM 3.

-Kevin

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
SM 3 was NOT slower than SM 2.
-Kevin

Sorry what I meant was when HDR was enabled in Farcry, which was an SM3 feature.

HDR has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with SM 3.

-Kevin

The OpenEXR method of HDR in FarCry could only be done in SM3 (that's why the X8XX cards couldn't do it). Why was there no HDR before the 1.3patch in FarCry which enabled those features?? I'm not talking HDR a la Half Life 2: Lost Coast, which was different, and could be done with SM2.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Oh my goodness where are you getting this information from. Wherever you are getting it, it is completely wrong.

OpenEXR just renders the Dynamic Range with FP Buffers and Blending.

HL 2: Lost Coast is merely a glorified version of bloom. All of it is done within the pixel shaders and does not require FP Blending.

As I said, SM3 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with OpenEXR HDR.

-Kevin

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Oh my goodness where are you getting this information from. Wherever you are getting it, it is completely wrong.

OpenEXR just renders the Dynamic Range with FP Buffers and Blending.

HL 2: Lost Coast is merely a glorified version of bloom. All of it is done within the pixel shaders and does not require FP Blending.

As I said, SM3 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with OpenEXR HDR.

-Kevin

My mistake. I was under the impresison that since FP16(?) blending was found on SM3 hardware that it was a requirement of the SM3 spec.

 

[apoppin]

i present you with *proof* ... see above^^^ last 20 or so posts

Video is totally *normal*



arguing endlessly about the most ridiculous and minor *details*
:roll:

so ... to *answer* the OP's Topic - No more than Usual!

Where's the 'checkbox' for *the Answer* ?


:laugh:

sorry

 

[thilanliyan]

 

[Cookie Monster]

What we need is some sort of a deathmatch between AT video users... perfect solution for getting rid of the frustration that people are facing lately, e.g vista drivers to R600 delays.

IMO, the nv4x vs R4x0 era was abit of a tie. Even though the X850XT PE had the performance crown, many people jumped on the SLi bandwagon, where 6800GT SLi was really popular among end users. Then there was the 6800GT, dominating the high end market til the X800XL was released. Mid range, the 6600GT totally dominated this area of the market and ATi's response to it was too weak. Both had their cons/pros but when you were looking for extreme performance, 6800GT SLi, single GPU performance was X850XT PE, mid range card was defitnately the 6600GT for a long period of time before X800GTOs were available, etc.