INQ reviews overclocked eVGA 7900 GTX vs Stock X1900 XTX

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Too bad i bash you both for being stupid retard fanbois.[/quote]

Nice comeback for facts backing up the statements. Two Green thumbs up!

[/quote]

LOL gee i wonder what your bias will turn out to be as well.

Clearly because 1 of my 4 PCs has an Nvidia card im hardcore fanboi.

I think you guys should kill yourselves for being so pathetic as to have an emotional attachment to a company. So much so that you devote part of your life to furthering them without restitution.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
All I can say is: Owned.

well, i wouldn't expect any other response from joker's biatch (one look at your sig is all that's required), and i don't expect you to change your bias, but i'll say it anyway.

first, i can run valid tests which will show completely different #'s. all i have to do is run it in a different area. why is this a valid point?

1. because it isn't the same test area bit-tech used, and
2. there are no GTX results to compare them to, tested over the same area.
3. joker's less than biased interpretation shows again. how? by using min fps vs avg fps to "pad" his % (for all we know, it may have run at the "min" fps for only a second or two,
making little or no difference in how well the game runs or not)
4. we still have no idea whether bit-tech was actually running HQAF in their orignal test or not, which means it may or may not have made any impact on their results. heck, i'm not even sure they had grass shadows running as they only stated the grass looked a "little darker" but did that mean there were actually shadows cast on the grass (they would have had to run it in third person, as in first person view your char does not cast a shadow), or all grass was a "little darker"?
5. Firingsquad stated that in their test, grass shadows were on (and it's not that the grass casts shadows, it's that your shadow shows on the grass):

"For our testing, we cranked up all visual settings to their maximums. Of course, we also turned on settings such as self shadows, shadows on grass, tree canopy shadows, water ripples etc."

they also stated they had "stumbled across" an area where grass had a huge impact on performance, yet according to their results they show the XTX has about the same advantage as shown in bit-tech's review, not joker's extrapolation which resulted from him adding fps to their results:

Radeon X1900 XTX 29 41
Radeon X1900 XT 27 39
GeForce 7900 GTX 21 27

Radeon X1900 XTX 31 39
Radeon X1900 XT 29 35
GeForce 7900 GTX 23 31

the first glaring thing is their min fps is nowhere near what joker's is, even when running 4xAA. next is the fact that the advantage the xt/xtx holds over the gtx falls in line with what bit-tech was reporting.

so as i stated earlier, joker adding additional fps to their tests was completely invalid and was not only a biased misinterpretation of bit-tech's conclusion, but a blatant attempt to cheat, while justifying it with "they're not doing it with the same settings so i'm gonna add my own #'s to it" excuse, which as i've shown, just doesn't fly.

unless of course you think firingsquad is tipping the scale in nvidia's favor as well.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

well, i wouldn't expect any other response from joker's biatch (one look at your sig is all that's required), and i don't expect you to change your bias, but i'll say it anyway.

LOL what happened to your quote, "never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it". Looks like your hypocrisy is shining through again.

first, i can run valid tests which will show completely different #'s. all i have to do is run it in a different area. why is this a valid point?

Actually you can't because you don't have an X1900 XTX and secondly the methods behind my test were explained very clearly and I supplied the save files. This means my results can be verified and reproduced.

1. because it isn't the same test area bit-tech used, and

This just shows that you can't even comprehend what you're arguing against. I didn't need to test in the same area as bit-tech since all I was doing was verifying that the XTX does indeed do more work when HQ AF + grass shadows is enabled vs. having the latter settings turned off...hello mcfly!

2. there are no GTX results to compare them to, tested over the same area.

Maybe because it has everything to do with the workload placed on the XTX, genius?

3. joker's less than biased interpretation shows again. how? by using min fps vs avg fps to "pad" his % (for all we know, it may have run at the "min" fps for only a second or two,
making little or no difference in how well the game runs or not)

Do you know how to comprehend what you read? I'm beginning to think you rode the shortbus all your life. The min. fps was derived over a total of 12 runs (6 for each setting) and a percentage was calculated. The average fps was also calculated between those runs, there is no "padding" involved since once again, the results can be reproduced quite easily even with different numbers - the workload stays consistent.

4. we still have no idea whether bit-tech was actually running HQAF in their orignal test or not

Actually we do because they said they were using it. Yet you are assuming they weren't.

5. Firingsquad stated that in their test, grass shadows were on (and it's not that the grass casts shadows, it's that your shadow shows on the grass):

FS did not use HQ AF in their testing and they limited their testing to 8xAF. However lets say we ignore the additional workload placed on the graphics card using 16xHQ AF, look at the min FPS supplied by FS at 1280x1024 for outdoor HDR:

7900 GTX: 21 fps
X1900 XTX: 29 fps

Now compare it to bit-tech's findings with grass shadows + 16x HQ AF enabled only on the XTX:

7900 GTX: 17 fps
X1900 XTX: 15 fps


Bit-tech noted the GTX min. fps went from 12-17 fps by turning off grass shadows and HQ AF. Bit-tech shows the GTX getting 2 more min. fps than the XTX does due to the XTX having a higher workload. Now look at FS's numbers where both cards have the exact amount of workload placed on them and you find the XTX's min. fps exceeds the GTX by 8 fps - again proving I was right and you, as usual, were wrong.

Since FS only had grass shadows turned on, the GTX took a large enough hit to where it's min. fps fell behind the XTX. This clearly demonstrates that the XTX in bit-tech's article was doing more work with HQ AF + grass shadows turned on. Hell even common sense should tell you that but obviously it's in short supply for you. My results confirmed the percentage hit the XTX takes with grass shadows + 16x HQ AF turned on.

the first glaring thing is their min fps is nowhere near what joker's is, even when running 4xAA. next is the fact that the advantage the xt/xtx holds over the gtx falls in line with what bit-tech was reporting.

The min. fps doesn't need to be like mine or anywhere close to it. All it needs to demonstrate is that the XTX pulls ahead in min. fps when equal workload (grass shadows + HQ AF) is placed on both cards. Although FS didn't use HQ AF, the grass shadows was more than enough to prove my point. Seems you have trouble grasping simple concepts, maybe it's your old age?

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM


first, i can run valid tests which will show completely different #'s. all i have to do is run it in a different area. why is this a valid point?

Look dumbass, run your god damn own ****** test! Post the fraps video and stfu and quit posting BS! Jesus you are so frieking stupid I cannot imagine talking about technical issues with you let alone stand and look at you babble about nothing all day long.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: CaiNaM


first, i can run valid tests which will show completely different #'s. all i have to do is run it in a different area. why is this a valid point?

Look dumbass, run your god damn own ****** test! Post the fraps video and stfu and quit posting BS! Jesus you are so frieking stupid I cannot imagine talking about technical issues with you let alone stand and look at you babble about nothing all day long.

At first I thought he was trolling but I'm beginning to realize that he's just....slow.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
LOL what happened to your quote, "never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it". Looks like your hypocrisy is shining through again.

not at all. i wasn't discussing it further with you, rather replying to someone else entirely. nice try tho. turns out to be a better example of your habit of distorting the truth. don't cry.

Originally posted by: Zstream
Look dumbass, run your god damn own ****** test! Post the fraps video and stfu and quit posting BS! Jesus you are so frieking stupid I cannot imagine talking about technical issues with you let alone stand and look at you babble about nothing all day long.

wow. nice.

are you capable of contributing anything of intelligence? if so, then please do (if not you can simply take your own advice).... or can you only show your grasp of profanity and the ability to use insults (these are often good indicators of one's capacity for intelligence, or the lack thereof)?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
LOL what happened to your quote, "never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it". Looks like your hypocrisy is shining through again.

not at all. i wasn't discussing it further with you, rather replying to someone else entirely. nice try tho. don't cry.

Originally posted by: Zstream
Look dumbass, run your god damn own ****** test! Post the fraps video and stfu and quit posting BS! Jesus you are so frieking stupid I cannot imagine talking about technical issues with you let alone stand and look at you babble about nothing all day long.

wow. nice.

are you capable of contributing anything of intelligence, please do so.... or can you only show your grasp of profanity and the ability to use insults (these are often good indicators of one's capacity for intelligence, or the lack thereof)?

LOL you just owned yourself there buddy. You lashed out at Extelleron by calling him my "biatch" and then state the following above: "can you only show your grasp of profanity and the ability to use insults (these are often good indicators of one's capacity for intelligence, or the lack thereof)?"

Man why do I even waste my time on someone like you? At first I thought you were reasonably intelligent but boy was I sorely mistaken. Now I wish Rollo would come back to the forums, at least he had a lot of wit and was entertaining to argue with - you're just....slow.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
LOL you just owned yourself there buddy. You lashed out at Extelleron by calling him my "biatch" and then state the following above: "can you only show your grasp of profanity and the ability to use insults (these are often good indicators of one's capacity for intelligence, or the lack thereof)?"

not really. while it can be interpreted as duragatory, it's hardly profanity, at least not in any dictionary i've seen.

however in case anyone finds it that offensive (other than you), then i extend my apologies, and will simply say, "joker's puppet".

 

[thilanliyan]

So I guess Joker proved his point?? Grass shadows does indeed put a heavy strain on either card and Bit-Tech's review is not completely apples to apples??

I would imagine that turning grass shadows on does indeed have a performance hit on both cards so why would Bit-Tech turn it off for the GTX when a completely fair review requires it be left on??

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: thilan29
So I guess Joker proved his point?? Grass shadows does indeed put a heavy strain on either card and Bit-Tech's review is not completely apples to apples??

well, for one thing, it was never meant to be an "apples to apples" comparison. it was more of a kyle bennet style "highest playable setting" review.

Originally posted by: thilan29
I would imagine that turning grass shadows on does indeed have a performance hit on both cards so why would Bit-Tech turn it off for the GTX when a completely fair review requires it be left on??

again, this wasn't an "apples to apples" review. i don't like the methodology, but some people do.

firingsquad did more of a standard comparison, however it was run using 8xaf, and someone stated ati's hqaf was off (didn't see FS state that one way or the other). they only stated

"For our testing, we cranked up all visual settings to their maximums. Of course, we also turned on settings such as self shadows, shadows on grass, tree canopy shadows, water ripples etc."

i took "cranked up all visual settings to their max" as enabling max iq settings in the driver, and "we also turned on all settings" as turning up all settings in the game. could be wrong i guess...

while you'd certainly expect "grass shadows" to negatively impact performance, FS seemed to have a different take on it:

"There?s a fair amount of shadowing involved but the swaying foliage is what really seems to tax the card."

i dunno.. perhaps FS is all messed up too?

 

[josh6079]

Normally I try to agree with those who are making sense. That is why, CaiNaM, I don't think I'm going to agree with you. I think your logic isn't logic at all. You name-call just like those you make fun of for doing it..."biatch" and then you say that you weren't meaning to be offensive? Are you high? Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid? If you were really half as smart as you claim to be, you wouldn't even talk on these forums. A smarter man would see that someone thinks something and if he didn't agree with it he would simply click the "Back" button. But no, you have to go and try to fill your ego, meanwhile the rest of us have to see you fumble around with your pea shooter until you shoot yourself in your foot.

Since you want to argue, you could do it better than a little girl going, "Nuh uh..Nuh uh". Do your own test and present evidence like Joker did. He's already smarter than you for doing that and if you truly wanted to combat his figures then that's what you should do. You say some stupid line no one ever heard of like "never wrestle with a pig" and continue to do it? Maybe I'm lowering down to a level of insulting people rather than their ideas but it doesn't seem like your statements are worth the argument. Rather than provide worthless links to the reviews which we've already read, you could direct us to your "unchallenged" and almost "uncomprehensible" knowledge that proves Joker to be such a primal character as you make him out to be.

 

[5150Joker]

Well I'm just gonna let this thread die. CaiNam failed to make a point as usual and its a waste of time going in circles w/him.