more future proof nvidia 5900 ultra or ati 9800 pro?

[CaiNaM]

Well I can't help myself since you're such an openminded person.

heh.. well, not like i've never convinced to change my opinion or admit mistakes..

Anyway, did you honestly used Halo as an indicator for future games?

no, i never do. i judge games/features based on the game or the feature. i simply used halo as an example that you really can't draw general conclusions regarding future performance based upon a single application/game.

The game IMO sucked big time regarding graphics and source code, it had only excellent gameplay and AI.
Far cry though, shows remarkable capabilities of dx9, and can help as an indicator for future games.

heh.. based on a demo that's broken (such as ati aa).. okay.

This is not absolute or sure, it's an indicator.

just as halo was in indicator?
yes, it makes much better use of dx9, but it may be crap coding for all we know as doom3 might perform well in comparison.. to draw any valid conclusion you really need a larger sample than one game. only after there are several games using dx9 to the effect that farcry does will we be able to reasonably guage overall dx9 performance.

And that is what we are doing here hypothesizing, based on some indications, don't why?

the first part, yes, but again, we need to draw from a larger sampling in order to draw any type of accurate conclusion. i could use gunmetal as in indicator of ati's performance (the link posted above the 9800 gets its ass handed to it by all the 59xx), just like you are using farcry, but that wouldn't be remotely accurate, would it? the second part (don't why?) does not make sense... i don't understand.

That is a game that we have waited to see differences.

again, it's just one game.. well, not even a game. an unfinished, broken demo.

As for the drivers issues, you said it yourself. It's hard to restore confidence and rely on a company, when mistakes like that were made. Even if this company is the great Nvidia.

ati had the industry's worst drivers for some time.. it was a running joke. then one great product (9700pro) with mediocre drivers, and all is forgiven. no, most people are lemmings, and need little convincing.

ati's driver efforst have improved considerably since then, and while still having some issues, the driver has matured. the biggest difference is effort, which has improved drastically since the pre-catalyst days.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

which brings up another point.. in your ranting about "high end cards" and all that, remember we are not even discussing the flagship parts, rather cards avail online for $160-$200.

lol, no we are not; but no wonder butting heads so much as you don't even understand the topic.

you're gettin weak snowman. try harder please. from your earlier posts i've come to expect more, however your later ones have proven rather disappointing, as they've degraded mostly in innuendos and duragatory remarks. this usually happens when one has nothing intelligent to support an opposing point of view. i hope this is not the case.

 

[jim1976]

We sure need more dx9 games to draw safe conclusions.
BTW Doom 3 is not one of them, great game I will surely play it though.
But what's to know again? That NV30-35 need a mixed codepath in order to perform well?
Or a magical force will make them perform good in ps2?
And you base your opinion that you don't think they will have great differences in the near future.
But you are the one comparing apples and oranges. Mixed codepath vs dx9path?
Is that a fair comparison? you sure make it sound like it is.

As for the drivers, it's not how well Nvidia is at them, it's that there would be a problem with the new NV40 that most probably will use the dx9 path. So what will happen with the nv30-35 parts? Will they use it too, or the current users will have to wait for an "optimized" driver? And are you sure that this will happen all the time?

It's simple man, you're avoiding to admit the indications, and you're using general explanations to face the facts.
I'm not selective you are, because I don't distort the truth to sound it sweeter.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

which brings up another point.. in your ranting about "high end cards" and all that, remember we are not even discussing the flagship parts, rather cards avail online for $160-$200.

lol, no we are not; but no wonder butting heads so much as you don't even understand the topic.

you're gettin weak snowman. try harder please. from your earlier posts i've come to expect more, however your later ones have proven rather disappointing, as they've degraded mostly in innuendos and duragatory remarks. this usually happens when one has nothing intelligent to support an opposing point of view. i hope this is not the case.

show me where you can get the 5900ultra mentioned in the title for anywhere near 200$ and i will take back what i said. but it seems pretty clear to me that i am not degradeing my level of comentary, just pointing out the degradation of yours becuase i know as well as you do that "this usually happens when one has nothing intelligent to support an opposing point of view."

 

[nRollo]

show me where you can get the 5900ultra mentioned in the title for anywhere near 200$

Most days of the week you can get a 5900U refurb from newegg for $240-$250 shipped? I've never bought a refurb, so I can't testify as to the difference.

 

[CaiNaM]

well, considering 5900xt's and 5900u's pretty much all clock beyond 5900u ultra speeds (the 5900u's max in about the same as an xt/nu) so yea, it's easy to get 5900u performance for $160-$200. the sapphire 9800p can be had for about $210-$215.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
5900u's pretty much all clock beyond 5900u ultra speeds

that is a funny statemnt, i might make it my sig.


seriously though, the topic is clearly asking about the 5900ultra which not only comes guaranteed at higher clocks, but also with twice the ram and they don't cost 200$ or less by any means.

 

[CaiNaM]

We sure need more dx9 games to draw safe conclusions.
BTW Doom 3 is not one of them, great game I will surely play it though.

But what's to know again? That NV30-35 need a mixed codepath in order to perform well?
Or a magical force will make them perform good in ps2?

well, they've already improved to some extent, however i've never argued that ati didn't have a fairly substantial performce, what were discussing the viability of either card being useful for running dx9 games. at this point, it's not been contested some of the degredation inIQ caused by the ps1.1 comprimises, however that has nothing to do with how usable the part is. again, as i stated earlier, the difference in iq would hardly justify people to dump their cards. see, you're turning this into and ati is better than nv thing, and i've never contested that. my entire point is that by the time the 5900 is unable to achieve acceptable performcne in running newly released games, so will the 9800p.

And you base your opinion that you don't think they will have great differences in the near future.

i base it on the fact that performance wise, they are very comparable.

But you are the one comparing apples and oranges. Mixed codepath vs dx9path?

no, because we are talking the same features (dx9). that they take different paths to accomplish the same thing doesn't change the fact the goal is to do the same thing. following your rule, you couldn't compare nv's fsaa to ati's fsaa, since they use completely different methos to accomplish aa, could you?[/quote]

Is that a fair comparison? you sure make it sound like it is.

why isn't it? is fsaa an unfair comparison?

As for the drivers, it's not how well Nvidia is at them, it's that there would be a problem with the new NV40 that most probably will use the dx9 path. So what will happen with the nv30-35 parts? Will they use it too, or the current users will have to wait for an "optimized" driver? And are you sure that this will happen all the time?

they've always supported older parts via the unified driver. why would not be any different? you're drawing conclusions with no historical basis just to try and come up with something else to support your point of view. is it possible? sure, almost anything is "possible", however there's nothing they've done in the past that would suggest this would happen.

It's simple man, you're avoiding to admit the indications, and you're using general explanations to face the facts.
I'm not selective you are, because I don't distort the truth to sound it sweeter.

and we should take your word for it? re-read the thread, you've changed the argument and drawn conclusions to support your view even tho there's nothing there to support it (see previous paragraph).

the argument isn't about which brand is better; at $210ish i think the 9800pro is the best vaule on the market atm (tho it's a tossp if you can get 5900xt's for $160, but that seems to be the exception, not the rule as most are around 175-200). it's about how long these parts will last before they become obsolete. i'd pay a bit more (and i did) for a 9800pro based on it's advantages over a 5900 part, but owning both cards, reading reviews, reading posts, and drawing from my own experience, so far those advantages are not so significant to suggest the 9800pro will have a longer usable life than the 5900.

 

[jim1976]

I don't know what is so hard to understand.
Nvidia is trying to "avoid a basic feature of DX9". How on earth can that compare with the AA methods that each company use?
The first is CHEATING a CLEAR WAY OF AVOIDING THE OFFICIAL PATH,which leads to a very different shader result.
The second is a different method of achieving AA. Who says Nvidia's way of AA is the official one?

The first leads to a different goal, the second to the same. My God man, what are you talkin about?

Anyway I rest my case, either you don't get it(seriously doubt it) or you want to drive us nuts.

 

[Ackmed]

There is little doubt that the 9800 Pro is more future proof. You only have to open your eyes to see this.

Want to see PS 2.0 effects in Farcry? Better not be using a FX, because the game defaults it to PS 1.1, and doesnt do any PS 2.0 effects at all. While the 9800 Pro does do PS 2.0 effects.

The only way to get PS 2.0 effects in Farcry with a FX is to force it with a 3rd party program. And then the framerate drops A LOT. This is just the demo.. and could change in the full retail game, who knows. Its the same in the second beta of Farcry though too.

 

[BFG10K]

again, and apple to orange comparison. we are talking "current generation", not 3 generations ago...

9600XT vs 9800XT then. Come one, surely you can come up with something better to attempt to prove that your argument isn't weak.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: jim1976
I don't know what is so hard to understand.
Nvidia is trying to "avoid a basic feature of DX9". How on earth can that compare with the AA methods that each company use?
The first is CHEATING a CLEAR WAY OF AVOIDING THE OFFICIAL PATH,which leads to a very different shader result.
The second is a different method of achieving AA. Who says Nvidia's way of AA is the official one?

The first leads to a different goal, the second to the same. My God man, what are you talkin about?

Anyway I rest my case, either you don't get it(seriously doubt it) or you want to drive us nuts.

what is hard to understand is your arguing these concepts when it seems you have no clue what you are talking about. what is even more diffucult to understand is your attempt to turn it into others not being able to understand. furthermore your habit of selectively choosing areas to debate while leaving other areas unanswered is getting annoying.

my God (to use your term) now you have to revert to "nvidia is cheating" rhetoric?

nv is quite capable of rendering ps2.0 shaders. the fact is they do it poorly based on using the generic codepath - and let's not forget who was involved in this. it's pretty much ati's "spec". bottom line is they simply have a different architecture (a risc processor uses compltetely different codepaths to achieve the same goal as in i386 processor.. are they "cheating"?) and a different approach to accomplishing the same result. was this architecture a result of poor engineering decisions, an arrogance that everyeone would optimize for them rather than a generic codepath? did they simpy underestimate what ati was doing? one can only speculate, however the end result is obvious: a) developers overall seem unwilling to follow an nvidia specific codepath, and b) nvidia ps2.0 performance is sub-par in comparison to ati.

tests actually show performance can be quite good if the order instructions are optimized for nvidia's architecture, but it seems akin to taking the long route rather than the short route to get to the same place. a good example is the work nv has been doing on their compiler. tests with this compiler showed that these measures alone can lead to an "up to" 40% higher frame rate in certain cases, without modifications in the driver. however using this driver is up to the software developers, though, and nv is rather arrogant if they think they should always expect cooperation. you will see "some" optimizations i am sure, as software developers want their software to run well on all hardware (wouldn't make much sense if their stuff only ran on part of the pc's in the market), however the degree of trouble they will be willing to go thru will remain up in the air.

can the current nvidia parts ever achieve the ps2 shader perfomance of the ati parts? probably not. in terms of raw power, the radeon has a considerable advantage. if you compare nv3x to ati's r3xx on a per-clock basis, nv part gets it ass handed to it from R3xx. there are tradeoffs however, and there is room for improvement on the part of nv. if you really want to understand the differences in the approach and why the ati performs better, and what nv can still do to close the gap, there's a very thorough article at 3Dcenter that's worth reading.

at any rate, you're taking this thread into areas unrelated to the nature of the original post, which is whterh one card is more "future proof" than the other, and this current line of rhetoric you're pushing does nothing to "prove" your opinion. instead, it simply shows once again how you deviate from the subject at hand.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: PCTweaker5

Originally posted by: Pete
I can't believe someone actually bit at this topic.

Well so far I havent read any immature remarks or bashing(xcept from Snowman) that the bait may have been intended for so this is an ok topic to post on as long as it doesnt get childish.

I don't know what your definition of childish is, but some of the posters in this thread have the spelling and grammar skills of a 3rd grader. So I suppose if that's what you mean by childish, then it already is childish.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: jim1976
I don't know what is so hard to understand.
Nvidia is trying to "avoid a basic feature of DX9". How on earth can that compare with the AA methods that each company use?
The first is CHEATING a CLEAR WAY OF AVOIDING THE OFFICIAL PATH,which leads to a very different shader result.
The second is a different method of achieving AA. Who says Nvidia's way of AA is the official one?

The first leads to a different goal, the second to the same. My God man, what are you talkin about?

Anyway I rest my case, either you don't get it(seriously doubt it) or you want to drive us nuts.

what is hard to understand is your arguing these concepts when it seems you have no clue what you are talking about. what is even more diffucult to understand is your attempt to turn it into others not being able to understand. furthermore your habit of selectively choosing areas to debate while leaving other areas unanswered is getting annoying.

my God (to use your term) now you have to revert to "nvidia is cheating" rhetoric?

nv is quite capable of rendering ps2.0 shaders. the fact is they do it poorly based on using the generic codepath - and let's not forget who was involved in this. it's pretty much ati's "spec". bottom line is they simply have a different architecture (a risc processor uses compltetely different codepaths to achieve the same goal as in i386 processor.. are they "cheating"?) and a different approach to accomplishing the same result. was this architecture a result of poor engineering decisions, an arrogance that everyeone would optimize for them rather than a generic codepath? did they simpy underestimate what ati was doing? one can only speculate, however the end result is obvious: a) developers overall seem unwilling to follow an nvidia specific codepath, and b) nvidia ps2.0 performance is sub-par in comparison to ati.

tests actually show performance can be quite good if the order instructions are optimized for nvidia's architecture, but it seems akin to taking the long route rather than the short route to get to the same place. a good example is the work nv has been doing on their compiler. tests with this compiler showed that these measures alone can lead to an "up to" 40% higher frame rate in certain cases, without modifications in the driver. however using this driver is up to the software developers, though, and nv is rather arrogant if they think they should always expect cooperation. you will see "some" optimizations i am sure, as software developers want their software to run well on all hardware (wouldn't make much sense if their stuff only ran on part of the pc's in the market), however the degree of trouble they will be willing to go thru will remain up in the air.

can the current nvidia parts ever achieve the ps2 shader perfomance of the ati parts? probably not. in terms of raw power, the radeon has a considerable advantage. if you compare nv3x to ati's r3xx on a per-clock basis, nv part gets it ass handed to it from R3xx. there are tradeoffs however, and there is room for improvement on the part of nv. if you really want to understand the differences in the approach and why the ati performs better, and what nv can still do to close the gap, there's a very thorough article at 3Dcenter that's worth reading.

at any rate, you're taking this thread into areas unrelated to the nature of the original post, which is whterh one card is more "future proof" than the other, and this current line of rhetoric you're pushing does nothing to "prove" your opinion. instead, it simply shows once again how you deviate from the subject at hand.

Look Nvidia PR guy to get it over with...

The fact that they have completely different architectures(my mother knows that), and if Nvidia can do PS2 in another "unique" way throuth their own compiler is meaningless to me, ok?

WE WON'T CHANGE THE WORLD SO NVIDIA CAN BE ON THE TOP FOR EVER

As for what I know is my business, and I couldn't care less what ppl like you think.
You have made purpose of your existence to justify Nvidia's failure. That's fine with me. I'll stick with reality.Period.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: PCTweaker5

Originally posted by: Pete
I can't believe someone actually bit at this topic.

Well so far I havent read any immature remarks or bashing(xcept from Snowman) that the bait may have been intended for so this is an ok topic to post on as long as it doesnt get childish.

I don't know what your definition of childish is, but some of the posters in this thread have the spelling and grammar skills of a 3rd grader. So I suppose if that's what you mean by childish, then it already is childish.

hey man, it isn't easy being dyslectic. :frown:

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: PCTweaker5

Originally posted by: Pete
I can't believe someone actually bit at this topic.

Well so far I havent read any immature remarks or bashing(xcept from Snowman) that the bait may have been intended for so this is an ok topic to post on as long as it doesnt get childish.

I don't know what your definition of childish is, but some of the posters in this thread have the spelling and grammar skills of a 3rd grader. So I suppose if that's what you mean by childish, then it already is childish.

hey man, it isn't easy being dyslectic. :frown:

Sorry if I offended you. It really wasn't your posts that I noticed. It was just a general level of poor grammar and spelling that quite a few posters in this thread are guilty of, even some that posted only once in this thread.

 

[kylebisme]

nah, no need to apologize to me even if it was directed at me. i can't really get offended over such things as i know i have a disability; it would like a quadriplegic getting offended because he was told that his body language sucks. i was simply pointing out that sometimes there is a good reason for people to have poor spelling skills regardless of age.

 

[JBT]

9800 pro

 

[CaiNaM]

Look Nvidia PR guy to get it over with...

The fact that they have completely different architectures(my mother knows that), and if Nvidia can do PS2 in another "unique" way throuth their own compiler is meaningless to me, ok?

see.. that's the whole thing.. it's not about what's right, wrong, objective or not.. it's about YOU. you say this, that, and the other but none of it is based on your understanding of anything. what.. you just read other posts from ati "pr guys" and just copy and paste? seems that way, as your replies rarely touch the issue at hand in the first place.

WE WON'T CHANGE THE WORLD SO NVIDIA CAN BE ON THE TOP FOR EVER

again you babble and make no sense... what the hell are you talking about? who is we? are you qualified enough to do anything about this? somehow from your posts that seems highly unlikely.

who ever said nv was on top with anything? sure as hell wasn't me. reading comprehension difficult for you? where did i say nvidia was on top? what are they on top of?

As for what I know is my business, and I couldn't care less what ppl like you think.
You have made purpose of your existence to justify Nvidia's failure. That's fine with me. I'll stick with reality.Period.

not when you want to share it with others. and what are "people like me"? someone who undertands, or reasearches what he doesn't understand so he can have a meaningful, objective discussion about something he finds interesting? somone who can just as easily see the good things in both products, as well as the shortcomings since he doesn't have to limit himself to experiencing only one product, and doesn't have the need to pump that product up just to justify his own decision in owning it?

fine, worry about what you think. go in a room somewhere and pat youreself on the back, and quit posting here and showing us how much you don't know.

as far as justifying.. hmm.. i'm not justifying anything.. your're babbling about this failed that failed, this is on top, that's on top.. you have no clue what reality is. you have little knowledge, don't care to acquire any by reading articles that shed insight on a subject which you are opinionated on (and if you didn't care, again why is it important for people to read what you think?), and are perfectly happy seeing things from your distorted point of view. again, why are you here?

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Look Nvidia PR guy to get it over with...

The fact that they have completely different architectures(my mother knows that), and if Nvidia can do PS2 in another "unique" way throuth their own compiler is meaningless to me, ok?

see.. that's the whole thing.. it's not about what's right, wrong, objective or not.. it's about YOU. you say this, that, and the other but none of it is based on your understanding of anything. what.. you just read other posts from ati "pr guys" and just copy and paste? seems that way, as your replies rarely touch the issue at hand in the first place.

WE WON'T CHANGE THE WORLD SO NVIDIA CAN BE ON THE TOP FOR EVER

again you babble and make no sense... what the hell are you talking about? who is we? are you qualified enough to do anything about this? somehow from your posts that seems highly unlikely.

who ever said nv was on top with anything? sure as hell wasn't me. reading comprehension difficult for you? where did i say nvidia was on top? what are they on top of?

As for what I know is my business, and I couldn't care less what ppl like you think.
You have made purpose of your existence to justify Nvidia's failure. That's fine with me. I'll stick with reality.Period.

not when you want to share it with others. and what are "people like me"? someone who undertands, or reasearches what he doesn't understand so he can have a meaningful, objective discussion about something he finds interesting? somone who can just as easily see the good things in both products, as well as the shortcomings since he doesn't have to limit himself to experiencing only one product, and doesn't have the need to pump that product up just to justify his own decision in owning it?

fine, worry about what you think. go in a room somewhere and pat youreself on the back, and quit posting here and showing us how much you don't know.

as far as justifying.. hmm.. i'm not justifying anything.. your're babbling about this failed that failed, this is on top, that's on top.. you have no clue what reality is. you have little knowledge, don't care to acquire any by reading articles that shed insight on a subject which you are opinionated on (and if you didn't care, again why is it important for people to read what you think?), and are perfectly happy seeing things from your distorted point of view. again, why are you here?

The fact is that this discussion turned into a personal debate, and as far as I'm concerned this was my fault too.
Ok maybe I do exaggerate on some points , but I've never said that Nvidia wasn't a very good gpu.
I just tried to point the fact that when I pay a significant amount of money for a card I want the best one possible.
That is why I consider ATI's offer more attractive and futureproof.
Well maybe none of these cards will be futureproof for the next year, but if one is possible of achieving that this is ATI.

I'm irritated though by your statement regarding objectiveness, when your obvious favoritism on Nvidia's products is clear, since you spend one line to mention ATI's advantages and vast amounts of paragraphs to justify Nvidia. (for the sake of objectiveness and knowledge? plz don't make me laugh with your hypocritical skills)

Bottom line is why should I care more about the reasons that Nvidia failed to present a better offer?
I am a consumer and I care for the best offer in the market, not the problems of the supplier. If tommorow Nvidia give me a better offer then I will surely make it. But I refuse to stand here with you and listen you ellaborating on meaningful excuses. How do I gain from understanding Nvidia's possible solutions ? Am I out of reality here or you are trying desperately to excuse this situation?

PPL like you hide behind themselves with the excuse of objectiveness to support their fanatism, but that's your right.
But don't come telling me that I bubble since your "research" proved nothing to me, since the fact remains that for the time being and probably in macro perspective ATI leads the race.

 

[Acanthus]

So stability and compatibility arent concerns for you?

Thats the reason i dont personally use ATi on my machines. I do however build them for others on request.

When i buy a game and install it, i want it to work. I dont want to wait for driver updates or hotfixes.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
So stability and compatibility arent concerns for you?

Thats the reason i dont personally use ATi on my machines. I do however build them for others on request.

When i buy a game and install it, i want it to work. I dont want to wait for driver updates or hotfixes.

Of course they are, and I've never "blessed" ATI for that. I myself though had minor problems with the games I play. I don't mind waiting if you ask me, and they aren't so important reasons to prevent me over performance issues.
If I see it from your personal point of view then you're right. You aren't obliged to wait for nothing, so if this is your primary concern then I guess you're 100% correct.

 

[Acanthus]

Honestly the way it seems lately though ATi has really been on top of things with the most current releases, CoD took a while but theres only one title that has major problems that i know of now, and it might not even be a driver issue. It might just be the games crappy engine.

 

[CaiNaM]

The fact is that this discussion turned into a personal debate, and as far as I'm concerned this was my fault too.

fair enuff..

Ok maybe I do exaggerate on some points , but I've never said that Nvidia wasn't a very good gpu.
I just tried to point the fact that when I pay a significant amount of money for a card I want the best one possible.

again, fair enuff.. i think we ALL do.. which is a good reason that when someone buys a prodcut, they will sometimes defend it to the bitter end to make themselves feel better about the product they own.

That is why I consider ATI's offer more attractive and futureproof.

see, perhaps this is where it gets off-track. i don't deny or refute the fact that you consider the 9800pro more attractive.. hell i OWN one myself. they both have pros/cons, and how you feel about it has alot to do with which features are most important to you. the 9800pro is a great card, and if the 5900xt/9800pro were the same price, i'd recommend the 9800pro in a heartbeat over the 5900. what makes it more difficult is that you can get the 5900xt for $160, and on retail shelves in B&M stores such as bestbuy or compusa, i don't think it's a stretch to recommend the $199 5900xt as a better value over the $299 9800pro. that doesn't mean the 5900 is a better card, it just offers better price/peformance at those prices.

Well maybe none of these cards will be futureproof for the next year, but if one is possible of achieving that this is ATI.

see, that's the whole point of this debate. i see so many posts saying "buy the 9800pro it's more futureproof", when you know.. at best it's a "guess" based on inconclusive evidence. if you stretch history a bit further, and compare previous generations, no cards of the same generation have proved any more futureproof than another. the 9700 is the exception, however it was a differentiation as the 9700 was a dx9 part, where it's competition consisted of dx8 parts.

the statement you just made. "maybe none of these...." is something I really can't argue, as that is indeed speculation. that's alot different than those that jump up on a soapbox saying "it's more futureproof!".

sure, you will be able to make these current cards work on games 2 years from now, but we KNOW FOR A FACT we will have to make sacrifices in IQ and/or resolution and features in order to run these games at playable rates. they simply will not comapre to cards available then. would you trade your 9800pro for an 8500? you can still run all these games.... see, this is why i say that the degree to which a card is futureproof is more about how much you want to lower your standards than how good the hardware is. sure, you can actually "get by" with a gf3 or 8500.. but would you really want to? the 3d scene just changes too fast. the 9800pro imo is the better card today, but not so much so that it will compete with next gen cards where the 5900 won't. the degree to which the 9800pro is better is not going to magically change exponentially as time passes, regradless of DX9. a year from now, it will still be better than the 5900, but it will still be nowhere near as good as the cards available then.

I'm irritated though by your statement regarding objectiveness, when your obvious favoritism on Nvidia's products is clear, since you spend one line to mention ATI's advantages and vast amounts of paragraphs to justify Nvidia. (for the sake of objectiveness and knowledge? plz don't make me laugh with your hypocritical skills)

it has nothing to do with that. this isn't about my trumpeting ati's virtues. you have little good to say about the nv product, so naturally my response is directed towards the subject you dictate - nv's failures. if you spent the entire thread slamming the 9800pro, my replies would be tilted toward being an "ati fan" simply because my posts are reactive to yours. does that make sense?

Bottom line is why should I care more about the reasons that Nvidia failed to present a better offer?
I am a consumer and I care for the best offer in the market, not the problems of the supplier. If tommorow Nvidia give me a better offer then I will surely make it. But I refuse to stand here with you and listen you ellaborating on meaningful excuses. How do I gain from understanding Nvidia's possible solutions ? Am I out of reality here or you are trying desperately to excuse this situation?

because you are making speculation on the future without any knowledge of why things are now. how can you claim to know what the future holds if you have no clue as to how things work today? i would offer no rebuttal if you said "today the ati in most cases performs significantly better than the nv part when dealing with dx9 titles currently available such as farcry and traod". but to claim you will know how they will compare in the future without having a clue as to why this is the case today? yea, i'm gonna jump all over that, since you are making recommendations to others in which you have no qualifications to make. you don't care how it works or if it can be made better or not? fine, that's your right, and i don't question that, but don't profess to be knowledgeable enough that you can predict the furte regarding prodcuts you have no understanding of. that's like saying "stock a is going to be worth more than stock b in 12 months, but i have no clue why and don't care".

PPL like you hide behind themselves with the excuse of objectiveness to support their fanatism, but that's your right.

the thing is, you're describing yourself, not me, and again you are taking this back to being personal, not objective.

But don't come telling me that I bubble since your "research" proved nothing to me, since the fact remains that for the time being and probably in macro perspective ATI leads the race.

you "bubble"? no clue what you mean there. as far as "research" not proving anything to you.. why would it? you don't know and don't care. again, that's fine, just don't make statements acting like you know or understand something when you admittedly don't, and are not inclined to learn.

as far as ati "leading the race", yes, they do. no argument there. will they lead in the future with current generation cards? yes, i'm pretty sure they will (see, again you're trying to argue points which i have already conceded, and are generally accepted), but no more so than they do today, in which case a year and a half or 2 years from now, when dx9 apps will be the rule rather than the exeption, neither the 9800pro or 5900 will perform any better in "tomorrow'" games than the 8500/ti4xxx cards perform relative to today's games.

in other words, today the ti and 8500 sucks compared to the 9800pro, and a year and a half from now, the 5900 and 9800pro will suck compared to the parts available then. whether they will still work for those games will largely depend on what you're willing to give up in IQ, resolutions, features, just as the case is today in making an 8500 or ti run FarCry.

 

[sxr7171]

Okay forget about this current generation of 9800XT and 5950. I mean our current cards are based on technology from 2002, I haven't see this kind of stagnation in the video card industry ever before. From 1998 to 2002 we were seeing new architectures every year with good refreshes every 6 months. I know today's cards have had several refreshes from their 2002 incarnation but they've been pretty weak refreshes that over a year and half have amounted to decent performance increases over the originals (but pathetic for a year and a half in this industry).