Hmm, dailytech's X1950xtx scores seem VERY low for q4 compared to AT's...

[Modular]

Originally posted by: ronnn

No the issue is does the 1950 really perform that poorly playing these games? If dailytech had to cherry pick rare scenes to get these scores - it may mean in most situations the 8800gtx is cpu limited or deliver frame rates that are surplus to a good gaming experience.

GPU limitations would level the playing field, not exacerbate them.

The 1950 doesn't necesarily perform poorly...only when compared to the 8800gtx

DT never said they cherry picked anything. That's simply an assumption you made based off of the crushing data they posted.

Look, I'm no nVidia fanboi or anything. I have ATi and nVidia cards in my machines. I can say that each card manufacturer has its good and bad sides. What I can also say is that ATi is clearly going to have to come up with something amazing in order to counter this card. They have clearly lost a huge markey share to the 8800gtx, especially with numbers like what we're seeing. And remember, when they launch R600, nVidia will be launching the 8900gtx (or equivalent), and (hopefully) in the interem months here we'll see the 8600gt.

What I see at this point is that if you are going to spend the $$ for a high end graphics card, nVidia is where it's at. There's simply no competition. Lots of people cried "foul" on the power requirements, they were proven wrong. Lots of people cried "foul" saying that they would wait to see what the card could really offer. Well, here it is in black and white, and some of those same people are trying to justify crying "foul" again.

Let's face it, nVidia is the G-card king at this time. No if's, and's or but's

 

[josh6079]

Exactly.

What Dug and Josh seem to be forgetting is that the 8800GTX was tested on the exact same time-demo.

I didn't forget that. If you would have read my previous post, you would have seen that I said:

Afterall, this was just a preview and I do think it's safe to say that whatever time-demo made the X1950XTX get it's 34fps average, the 8800GTX underwent the same torture and did quite well.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Modular

Let's face it, nVidia is the G-card king at this time. No if's, and's or but's

No one is questioning that, as the current thinking is that nvidia has fixed their iq deficiency. What is being questioned is how much real difference will this make gaming, using xp in current games. Those that will spend big time to have the latest, will all buy this. A small, insignificant few (like myself), will upgrade when current games will show a gain in quality of gaming, which is of course possible right now - if IQ is better at lower res. I think this card is a no brainer for those that invest in a huge screen, but maybe not so important for us cheapos.

 

[BFG10K]

I do believe though that one should expect similar results over a variety of benches while all using upstanding hardware.

Why? If the benchmarks are taken in totally different places of the game they can have huge framerate swings from each other.

IMO it's not that the the DT's score was a flawed representation of the time-demo they ran, just that whatever time-demo they ran was a misrepresentation of the game as a whole.

The usual lightweight CPU limited demos are actually a misrepresentation since they don't accurately test the benefits of a faster video card. I prefer to know about how well the tough spots are dealt with because that's when a faster GPU will show the most benefit.

 

[moonboy403]

why are people surprised about the framerates that DT has? They used a different timedemo period.

I remember when anandtech benched fear and they came out with a pretty high average and minimum framerates with the 7800gt sli

but when i played fear with my 7800gt sli, i was getting less than 10 frames at one point.

So how many frames websites get highly depends on the scenes they pick as timedemo

 

[Paratus]

Well I let's hope [ H ] decides to bench Q4 at 1600X1200 so we can see real game play.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: BFG10K

You're still as abrasive as ever BFG

Abrasive? You're the one calling people incompetent because your understanding is sorely lacking.

I think it's perfectly valid to expect a reasonable degree of similarity between two different benchmarks of the same game,

Then you still don't understand benchmarking or gaming.

Like I said it's trvial to construct cross-sections of actual gameplay and get wildly different scores.

This is a HUGE disparity,

That doesn't mean either result is wrong.

i'm sure even you with that infamous donkey-like stubbornness might be prepared to concede that?

Pot-kettle-black. I expect the same tactics from you here as we got when you were trying to convince us that 512 MB cards weren't needed because you couldn't understand that a single benchmark isn't representative of the whole game.

lol, if you want to go back to that, i saw you trying to recommend a 7950 pro 512mb over the 256mb x1900xt the other day, despite the xt being faster in every useful situation That's great advice :thumbsup:

I'm sticking to my guns here, by dailytech's scores the minimum card you need to play q4 at 1600x1200 4xAA is an x1950xtx, and we know that plainly isn't true When they got scores that are so totally out of line with every other site on the net, they should have at least checked them and explained why this was so...

Whether your sticking to your guns, or the fly-paper strips hanging from your ceiling, BFG is correct here. No matter how he is coming across to you, he is right. Unless the bench is of the exact same demo, at the exact same settings AND on the exact same hardware, you cannot compare one to the other.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: BFG10K

You're still as abrasive as ever BFG

Abrasive? You're the one calling people incompetent because your understanding is sorely lacking.

I think it's perfectly valid to expect a reasonable degree of similarity between two different benchmarks of the same game,

Then you still don't understand benchmarking or gaming.

Like I said it's trvial to construct cross-sections of actual gameplay and get wildly different scores.

This is a HUGE disparity,

That doesn't mean either result is wrong.

i'm sure even you with that infamous donkey-like stubbornness might be prepared to concede that?

Pot-kettle-black. I expect the same tactics from you here as we got when you were trying to convince us that 512 MB cards weren't needed because you couldn't understand that a single benchmark isn't representative of the whole game.

lol, if you want to go back to that, i saw you trying to recommend a 7950 pro 512mb over the 256mb x1900xt the other day, despite the xt being faster in every useful situation That's great advice :thumbsup:

I'm sticking to my guns here, by dailytech's scores the minimum card you need to play q4 at 1600x1200 4xAA is an x1950xtx, and we know that plainly isn't true When they got scores that are so totally out of line with every other site on the net, they should have at least checked them and explained why this was so...

Whether your sticking to your guns, or the fly-paper strips hanging from your ceiling, BFG is correct here. No matter how he is coming across to you, he is right. Unless the bench is of the exact same demo, at the exact same settings AND on the exact same hardware, you cannot compare one to the other.

That's where you're wrong my friend You can compare them, it's just that the validity of the comparison is reduced.

As has been said ad nauseam, you can reasonably expect two demos of the same game, on very similar hardware, to produce similar results, IF THE DEMOS ARE A GOOD AVERAGE SLICE OF GAMEPLAY...

Clearly, either AT or DT has taken an extremely unrepresentative slice of gameplay to bench for the results to be so dramatically different. Now the AT comments suggest that they used a mixture of indoor and outdoor gameplay, and they get results that are broadly similar to the countless other x1950xtx reviews out there. DT doesn't even deign to tell us what comprised their timedemo, and gets results that are over half most of the other x1950xtx reviews out there.

So an intelligent observer should question, and ask for more information, as to why this is so.

That's my take on it, but by your claims, we shouldn't and can't, ever look at a broad selection of results to come to an overall conclusion, and that every benchmark you read is 100% correct, and we should accept it at face value, without questioning why it may be so disparate to existing results on similar hardware for the same game...

 

[tuteja1986]

X1950XTX vs Geforce 8800GTX 1600x1200 4x AA
Half Life 2 Anandtech X1950XT:92.6 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 60.4 Daily Tech G80 : 116.93
Quake 4 Anandtech X1950XT: 74 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 34.23 Daily Tech G80: 65.93


Something is fishy going on ;(

But could be they benchmarked a different part of quake area.. the area with more action and explosion. I still wanting a PC game looking better than Gears of War ;( we have better system why are we getting better looking game. More resource hogging game like Never Winter Night 2 that looks crap for RPG of Q4 06 but requires a beefed up machine.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I do believe though that one should expect similar results over a variety of benches while all using upstanding hardware.

Why? If the benchmarks are taken in totally different places of the game they can have huge framerate swings from each other.

IMO it's not that the the DT's score was a flawed representation of the time-demo they ran, just that whatever time-demo they ran was a misrepresentation of the game as a whole.

The usual lightweight CPU limited demos are actually a misrepresentation since they don't accurately test the benefits of a faster video card. I prefer to know about how well the tough spots are dealt with because that's when a faster GPU will show the most benefit.

I guess that's true.

Perhaps I came to a judgment too quickly. I guess I just expect taxing benches to be expressed as such and lightweight inflations to be noted as well. I think it would do all benches good if they mentioned how strenuous their benchmark was, but, then again, DT's wasn't an all-out thorough benchmark but rather a preview. Like I said earlier, its purpose was fulfilled and it looks like the G80 will be a GPU to be reckoned with if true.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
X1950XTX vs Geforce 8800GTX 1600x1200 4x AA
Half Life 2 Anandtech X1950XT:92.6 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 60.4 Daily Tech G80 : 116.93
Quake 4 Anandtech X1950XT: 74 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 34.23 Daily Tech G80: 65.93


Something is fishy going on ;(

Shhhhhhhhh BFG & Keys say we can't question DT's benchmarks mate :laugh:

I'm sure that DT was just making the benchmarks as hard as conceivably possibly to let the G80 stretch it's legs...or wait, they could have made a mistake and set the xtx to a higher AA level...but no, we can't possibly behave intelligently and question these results :roll:

EDIT: They should have given us details of these tests, as Josh notes, because they are so far out of line with what we have seen elsewhere. I've no doubt there is a good reason for the results, and that the G80 is that good, but it's extremely poor review behaviour/practice to release something like that without taking the extra 30 seconds to include some settings and demo information....

I've certainly seen keys and company crying blue murder over intels pre-release conroe stuff when it didn;t come with enough info about settings/files used etc, so it suprises me to see him in total acceptance of these considerably less well documented results...

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
X1950XTX vs Geforce 8800GTX 1600x1200 4x AA
Half Life 2 Anandtech X1950XT:92.6 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 60.4 Daily Tech G80 : 116.93
Quake 4 Anandtech X1950XT: 74 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 34.23 Daily Tech G80: 65.93


Something is fishy going on ;(

Shhhhhhhhh BFG & Keys say we can't question DT's benchmarks mate :laugh:

I'm sure that DT was just making the benchmarks as hard as conceivably possibly to let the G80 stretch it's legs...or wait, they could have made a mistake and set the xtx to a higher AA level...but no, we can't possibly behave intelligently and question these results :roll:

EDIT: They should have given us details of these tests, as Josh notes, because they are so far out of line with what we have seen elsewhere. I've no doubt there is a good reason for the results, and that the G80 is that good, but it's extremely poor review behaviour/practice to release something like that without taking the extra 30 seconds to include some settings and demo information....

I've certainly seen keys and company crying blue murder over intels pre-release conroe stuff when it didn;t come with enough info about settings/files used etc, so it suprises me to see him in total acceptance of these considerably less well documented results...

Why so closed minded? You immediately shout "incompetantcy" and others follow and cry conspiracy...

Behaving intelligently? Two demos can make a very large difference in benchmark results. It's not anywhere near accurate enough to try to "guess" how similar the demos were.
You go from intelligent, to ogre, and back to intelligent again all in 3 short paragraphs.

What about Conroe? You mean AT's "first peek" and "corrective second follow up? Those were on the same machines dug. You show me crying blue murder "whatever the hell that is" and I'll concede.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
X1950XTX vs Geforce 8800GTX 1600x1200 4x AA
Half Life 2 Anandtech X1950XT:92.6 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 60.4 Daily Tech G80 : 116.93
Quake 4 Anandtech X1950XT: 74 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 34.23 Daily Tech G80: 65.93


Something is fishy going on ;(

Shhhhhhhhh BFG & Keys say we can't question DT's benchmarks mate :laugh:

I'm sure that DT was just making the benchmarks as hard as conceivably possibly to let the G80 stretch it's legs...or wait, they could have made a mistake and set the xtx to a higher AA level...but no, we can't possibly behave intelligently and question these results :roll:

EDIT: They should have given us details of these tests, as Josh notes, because they are so far out of line with what we have seen elsewhere. I've no doubt there is a good reason for the results, and that the G80 is that good, but it's extremely poor review behaviour/practice to release something like that without taking the extra 30 seconds to include some settings and demo information....

I've certainly seen keys and company crying blue murder over intels pre-release conroe stuff when it didn;t come with enough info about settings/files used etc, so it suprises me to see him in total acceptance of these considerably less well documented results...

Why so closed minded? You immediately shout "incompetantcy" and others follow and cry conspiracy...

Behaving intelligently? Two demos can make a very large difference in benchmark results. It's not anywhere near accurate enough to try to "guess" how similar the demos were.
You go from intelligent, to ogre, and back to intelligent again all in 3 short paragraphs.

What about Conroe? You mean AT's "first peek" and "corrective second follow up? Those were on the same machines dug. You show me crying blue murder "whatever the hell that is" and I'll concede.

I shouted 'incompetent' because i was somewhat irritated by DT's countless errors and mistakes in their articles in recent times. It wasn't exactly called for, and i was aware of that, so i changed it...

Your comment above was 'unless the bench is of the exact same demo, at the exact same settings AND on the exact same hardware, you cannot compare one to the other. '

I pointed out why i thought this isn't entirely correct, and concluded that the DT scores should be treated circumspectly until they explain how they've managed to get a score that is more than half what we've seen elsewhere on very similar rigs...you and BFG appear to be suggesting that we've no right to question a difference as dramatic as this, and that we're to accept this unquestioningly....

I recall you being one of the many in CPU who refused to believe that Conroe was as good as the intel sanctioned benchies suggested (and then we knew the system settings down to fairly fine detail), and that appears to contrast somewhat with your unquestioning support of pre-release benchmarks done with no disclosure of settings or demos used...

If you weren't part of that group, then i apologise.

As to 'Blue murder', this link should help, I was using it in an exaggerated fashion of course

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/scream+blue+murder.html



EDIT: for what it's worth, i'll reiterate what i said above to conclude:

They should have given us details of these tests, as Josh notes, because they are so far out of line with what we have seen elsewhere. I've no doubt there is a good reason for the results, and that the G80 is that good, but it's extremely poor review behaviour/practice to release something like that without taking the extra 30 seconds to include some settings and demo information....

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
X1950XTX vs Geforce 8800GTX 1600x1200 4x AA
Half Life 2 Anandtech X1950XT:92.6 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 60.4 Daily Tech G80 : 116.93
Quake 4 Anandtech X1950XT: 74 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 34.23 Daily Tech G80: 65.93


Something is fishy going on ;(

Shhhhhhhhh BFG & Keys say we can't question DT's benchmarks mate :laugh:

I'm sure that DT was just making the benchmarks as hard as conceivably possibly to let the G80 stretch it's legs...or wait, they could have made a mistake and set the xtx to a higher AA level...but no, we can't possibly behave intelligently and question these results :roll:

EDIT: They should have given us details of these tests, as Josh notes, because they are so far out of line with what we have seen elsewhere. I've no doubt there is a good reason for the results, and that the G80 is that good, but it's extremely poor review behaviour/practice to release something like that without taking the extra 30 seconds to include some settings and demo information....

I've certainly seen keys and company crying blue murder over intels pre-release conroe stuff when it didn;t come with enough info about settings/files used etc, so it suprises me to see him in total acceptance of these considerably less well documented results...

Why so closed minded? You immediately shout "incompetantcy" and others follow and cry conspiracy...

Behaving intelligently? Two demos can make a very large difference in benchmark results. It's not anywhere near accurate enough to try to "guess" how similar the demos were.
You go from intelligent, to ogre, and back to intelligent again all in 3 short paragraphs.

What about Conroe? You mean AT's "first peek" and "corrective second follow up? Those were on the same machines dug. You show me crying blue murder "whatever the hell that is" and I'll concede.

I shouted 'incompetent' because i was somewhat irritated by DT's countless errors and mistakes in their articles in recent times. It wasn't exactly called for, and i was aware of that, so i changed it...

Your comment above was 'unless the bench is of the exact same demo, at the exact same settings AND on the exact same hardware, you cannot compare one to the other. '

I pointed out why i thought this isn't entirely correct, and concluded that the DT scores should be treated circumspectly until they explain how they've managed to get a score that is more than half what we've seen elsewhere on very similar rigs...you and BFG appear to be suggesting that we've no right to question a difference as dramatic as this, and that we're to accept this unquestioningly....

I recall you being one of the many in CPU who refused to believe that Conroe was as good as the intel sanctioned benchies suggested (and then we knew the system settings down to fairly fine detail), and that appears to contrast somewhat with your unquestioning support of pre-release benchmarks done with no disclosure of settings or demos used...

If you weren't part of that group, then i apologise.

As to 'Blue murder', this link should help, I was using it in an exaggerated fashion of course

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/scream+blue+murder.html



EDIT: for what it's worth, i'll reiterate what i said above to conclude:

They should have given us details of these tests, as Josh notes, because they are so far out of line with what we have seen elsewhere. I've no doubt there is a good reason for the results, and that the G80 is that good, but it's extremely poor review behaviour/practice to release something like that without taking the extra 30 seconds to include some settings and demo information....

I understand where you're coming from Dug. But at no time did I ever hint that we've no right to question these things. In this case however, it was pretty obvious that things could not have been the same from AT's to DT's benches, even though details were not given, it is a matter of not even assuming, but just knowing that all things were nowhere near equal. That's all. You can question anything you like of course. Others just happened to notice that the answer was already apparent, or could not be anything else.

Peace.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: dug777
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2833&p=9

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4812

Seriously, how could they possibly be that incompetent? :roll:

I know who i trust in this, AT articles are usually spell checked and grammatically correct before they post them up for starters

EDIT: i'm aware they don't say which bench they use for it, but to get them that far apart you'd have to set out to intentionally make the score as low as possible

You can't compare benchmarks across different websites.

Dailytech =/= Anandtech.

They probably utilized one of the most heavy situations in Quake 4 to help showcase the power of the Geforce 8800 GTX, no sense CPU limiting the card.

yeah, because quad core kentsfield and cpu limitation go hand in hand...wait...no they don't :Q

Quake 4 cant execute 4 threads, and its a lower clock speed...

 

[BFG10K]

Another thing of course is that Anandtech ran the benchmarks at the default quality settings while DailyTech may've used HQ. That's a potential 25% variation right there, even if the same demo was used.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Another thing of course is that Anandtech ran the benchmarks at the default quality settings while DailyTech may've used HQ. That's a potential 25% variation right there, even if the same demo was used.

I would certainly love to see some more details from DT as to what settings they used and where they timedemo'd.

 

[HigherGround]

Instead of speculating and wondering, wouldn't it be easier to go over to the DT forums (article comments section) and ask them? I know for a fact that Chris and his crew are very keen on answering any questions about their pre/reviews.

 

[Vinnybcfc]

Originally posted by: HigherGround
Instead of speculating and wondering, wouldn't it be easier to go over to the DT forums (article comments section) and ask them? I know for a fact that Chris and his crew are very keen on answering any questions about their pre/reviews.

Agreed this arguing is getting stupid when the card is coming out in a few days and other sites will bench it anyway

Does it really matter that much to rant about?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc

Originally posted by: HigherGround
Instead of speculating and wondering, wouldn't it be easier to go over to the DT forums (article comments section) and ask them? I know for a fact that Chris and his crew are very keen on answering any questions about their pre/reviews.

Agreed this arguing is getting stupid when the card is coming out in a few days and other sites will bench it anyway

Does it really matter that much to rant about?

EDIT: ignore me, i meant no more than friendly banter

Anyway, I did indeed post that at DT before either of you posted in here

:beer:

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
X1950XTX vs Geforce 8800GTX 1600x1200 4x AA
Half Life 2 Anandtech X1950XT:92.6 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 60.4 Daily Tech G80 : 116.93
Quake 4 Anandtech X1950XT: 74 Daily Tech X1950XTX : 34.23 Daily Tech G80: 65.93


Something is fishy going on ;(

Shhhhhhhhh BFG & Keys say we can't question DT's benchmarks mate :laugh:

I'm sure that DT was just making the benchmarks as hard as conceivably possibly to let the G80 stretch it's legs...or wait, they could have made a mistake and set the xtx to a higher AA level...but no, we can't possibly behave intelligently and question these results :roll:

EDIT: They should have given us details of these tests, as Josh notes, because they are so far out of line with what we have seen elsewhere. I've no doubt there is a good reason for the results, and that the G80 is that good, but it's extremely poor review behaviour/practice to release something like that without taking the extra 30 seconds to include some settings and demo information....

I've certainly seen keys and company crying blue murder over intels pre-release conroe stuff when it didn;t come with enough info about settings/files used etc, so it suprises me to see him in total acceptance of these considerably less well documented results...

Why so closed minded? You immediately shout "incompetantcy" and others follow and cry conspiracy...

Behaving intelligently? Two demos can make a very large difference in benchmark results. It's not anywhere near accurate enough to try to "guess" how similar the demos were.
You go from intelligent, to ogre, and back to intelligent again all in 3 short paragraphs.

What about Conroe? You mean AT's "first peek" and "corrective second follow up? Those were on the same machines dug. You show me crying blue murder "whatever the hell that is" and I'll concede.

I shouted 'incompetent' because i was somewhat irritated by DT's countless errors and mistakes in their articles in recent times. It wasn't exactly called for, and i was aware of that, so i changed it...

Your comment above was 'unless the bench is of the exact same demo, at the exact same settings AND on the exact same hardware, you cannot compare one to the other. '

I pointed out why i thought this isn't entirely correct, and concluded that the DT scores should be treated circumspectly until they explain how they've managed to get a score that is more than half what we've seen elsewhere on very similar rigs...you and BFG appear to be suggesting that we've no right to question a difference as dramatic as this, and that we're to accept this unquestioningly....

I recall you being one of the many in CPU who refused to believe that Conroe was as good as the intel sanctioned benchies suggested (and then we knew the system settings down to fairly fine detail), and that appears to contrast somewhat with your unquestioning support of pre-release benchmarks done with no disclosure of settings or demos used...

If you weren't part of that group, then i apologise.

As to 'Blue murder', this link should help, I was using it in an exaggerated fashion of course

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/scream+blue+murder.html



EDIT: for what it's worth, i'll reiterate what i said above to conclude:

They should have given us details of these tests, as Josh notes, because they are so far out of line with what we have seen elsewhere. I've no doubt there is a good reason for the results, and that the G80 is that good, but it's extremely poor review behaviour/practice to release something like that without taking the extra 30 seconds to include some settings and demo information....

I understand where you're coming from Dug. But at no time did I ever hint that we've no right to question these things. In this case however, it was pretty obvious that things could not have been the same from AT's to DT's benches, even though details were not given, it is a matter of not even assuming, but just knowing that all things were nowhere near equal. That's all. You can question anything you like of course. Others just happened to notice that the answer was already apparent, or could not be anything else.

Peace.

Why are we fighting over Anandtech or Daily Tech scores ;( ... Most of us know that both site do crappy video review. Lets fight when real review come from Rage 3D , Firing Squad and other website that uses HQ setting.