more future proof nvidia 5900 ultra or ati 9800 pro?

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
wow jim.. u sure shout alot...

When you are buying a new gpu (especially a high end one) you seem to care A LOT for those "TINY" features that make the difference from a previous generation card (eg PS 2.0 a directx 9.0 feature).

you hit it right on the head. they are, at least at this point in time, "tiny" features to use your words. that's all we've been saying the whole time. now that you've already confirmed what many of us have said all along, i don't think there's a need to answer your other comments, point by point, as they mostly contradict what you said in the firs couple of paragraphs

Why do they contradict?
As I said, if someone don't care for these small differences why does he constantly buy high end cards ALL THE TIME?
Because he knew from the first time that he wouldn't have immediate use of DX9 features.
Cmon you can understand clearly what I'm saying...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Its openGL, ati will suck at it. They always do.

ya they suck so bad that they hold the top spots on glexess.

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
the whole deal tho snowman is you and others are making a huge thing about ps2 shaders.

we arn't making a huge deal about them, the "huge deal" is comeing from our unwillingness sit by and have people outright dissmiss the value of comparing ps2.0 shader performace in a topic about what is more or less future proof.

but you're contradicting yourself.. if it's not a "huge deal", there's nothing to dismiss.

i'm not contradicting myself, you are having trouble understading plain english. i am not the one dismissing anything here, just pointing out the error made by those who do.

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
lol.. it was a fact acknowledged by ati, who even issued a "hot patch" to correct the problem.

i know this, and that doesn't exactly jive with this statment:

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Good for them, and they finally got it to stop crashing every 5 minutes after FOUR DRIVER RELEASES.

now does it?

Originally posted by: Rollo

Snowman:
I concede the argument to you. If you think playing TRAoD is reason enough ATI is the best card for the buck, I think that's great. I don't play any Tomb Raider, but I'm sure it's all I've heard it is.

you don't even understand my argument sense you think this is all about tomb raider.

Originally posted by: Rollo


No, I'm against people saying there are future proof cards,

no one here is claiming that there are future proof cards in the absolute sense, only that some cards are moreso than others.

Originally posted by: Rollo

and slamming nVidia's current product line as somehow "defective" because they have slower DX9 PS2 performance. (which matters about as much as Howard Dean's run at presidency these days)

sorry you get so defensive but we arn't slaming nvidia for anything here, simply pointing out the fact that the 5900 won't hold up as well as the 9800 in the long run.

Originally posted by: Rollo
They point to the Half Life demos, point to the Far Cry demos as "proof" of why no one should buy nVidia based cards these days, when these are just demos of unreleased games.

again sorry about geting you on the defensive but we arn't claiming that no one should buy a nvidia card or useing those examples as proof of anything but the low ps2.0 performace of the 5900.

Originally posted by: jim1976
I have seen ppl attacking Snowman just because he's trying to defend his statements, which btw look far more convincing to me.

thanks jim, it is always nice to have my efforts respected. i'm not sure why so maybe people get upset by simple facts, especialy when they own cards that come out looking beter in light of those facts. my best guess is that they are nvidia share holders.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Rollo

No my friend, YOU CARE BUT WHEN YOU MAKE A MISTAKE YOU ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO FACE IT.

Errrr, if you're talking to me, I have a 9800Pro?

No Rollo I don't have somethin against you in particular. I'm talking for a lot of ppl. I respect your opinions, can't say the same for your beliefs.

 

[PCTweaker5]

Originally posted by: jim1976
I'm reading carefully this flamebait, and I'm laughing my ass off.
My God we are geeks (including me).. But what can you say? We luv these stuff....

As for this whole debate I have to say the following:

I have seen ppl attacking Snowman just because he's trying to defend his statements, which btw look far more convincing to me.

When you are buying a new gpu (especially a high end one) you seem to care A LOT for those "TINY" features that make the difference from a previous generation card (eg PS 2.0 a directx 9.0 feature).

What I'm trying to say is that ALL OR 99% of ALL THESE PPL WHO ARE ATTACKING SNOWMAN TODAY were anxious to see these new features installed on the gpus.

Now that the first safe DX9 conclusions are finally here, the displeased ppl (NVIDIA NV30-NV35 owners) are trying to lower and underestimate the value of ATI cards for obvious reasons....

Sure WE CANNOT TAKE ADEQUATE ADVANTAGE OF TRUE DX9 applications today, but that does not mean we HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISTORT THE TRUTH EVEN IF THAT SERVES AS A REFERENCE POINT. (FOR NOW)

ATI GPUS ARE BETTER THAT NVIDIAS IN DX9 ENVIROMENT. FACT

You pay for a high end card .So you want the BEST from it. ATI offers you the best "FOR TODAY FOR TODAY FOR TODAY "games and most probably for the whole 2004, based on facts. NOTE : WITH THESE GPUS NOW TOMMOROWS

Why when you see that Nvidia failed to bring a good dx9 gpu you are saying. " Yes ATI is theoretically better in DX9 but I want to see some real application of that , otherwise its worthless???"

Why then do you care for DX9 features? And why do you buy a high end card if you don't care as you claim for that slight boost in performance? BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT TAKING A BRAND NEW DX9 GPU WOULDN'T OFFER YOU REAL USE OF IT FROM THE FIRST MOMENT, DIDN'T YOU??

No my friend, YOU CARE BUT WHEN YOU MAKE A MISTAKE YOU ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO FACE IT.
EVERYONE MADE A BAD ESTIMATION OR CHOICE WITH A HARDWARE PURCHASE. EVERYONE. SO WHAT ?? GET OVER IT. 2MORROW YOU MIGHT BE THE WINNER.

BUT DON'T TRY TO UNDERESTIMATE AND DISTORT THE FACTS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO FEEL BETTER.

Is that "No my friend" part directed to me? If so my estimation for the 9800 Pro was way below what it delivered to me, I was blown away by its performance but its just the drivers that are pushing my away from it. I have never had a problem with any of my Nvidia cards which is why I am going back so getting the 9800 Pro wasnt really a mistake it was just a lesson learned. I will of course never go back to ATI whether the graphics look the best or move the best I will always stay with Nvidia due to the experiences Ive had with them. Im not a fanboy I just like not having to worry about my game crashing constantly so *I* stick to what I believe is the best.

 

[BFG10K]

Brilliant. Something has value even when there's no use for it. I see.

Do you have unused physical RAM on your box Rollo? What about unused HD space?

Yes? Then you'd better remove it because they have no value. .roll;

Then, when our sewer pipe looks shinier, and our water has more reflected light, we'll know it was all worth it and we are the true "in the know" gamers.

If you want to pretend to be ignorant and deliberately avoid the issues at hand then by all means go ahead, just don't try to pass it off as a fact.

Or did I somehow miss the release of all the titles that use PS2 shaders?

Apparently you've missed quite a few things.

and that neither runs PS2 effects as fast as I want games to run

Then why own a PS2 card at all? I mean it's not like you ever plan to run PS2 on it anway, right? It's just another useless feature that needs to be removed, just like your spare RAM and spare HD space, right Rollo?

 

[PCTweaker5]

Good points doom gun!

 

[BFG10K]

Its openGL, ati will suck at it. They always do.

Except they don't.

One vendor is not inherently faster than another vendor in one API or another. However one vendor is inherently faster than another vendor depending on the hardware functionality the API exposes. In the case of ATi it's whenever VS/PS2.0 functionality is exposed and it makes no difference if Direct3D or OpenGL is the API that is exposing it.

Good for them, and they finally got it to stop crashing every 5 minutes after FOUR DRIVER RELEASES.

I've never had a single problem with COD.

 

[BFG10K]

Good points doom gun!

That would be Quake III, sir!

 

[jim1976]

Again, I'm not reffering to someone in particular.
What you say is your opinion PCtweaker5, based on your way of defining a good gpu, which I respect.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Its openGL, ati will suck at it. They always do.

Except they don't.

One vendor is not inherently faster than another vendor in one API or another. However one vendor is inherently faster than another vendor depending on the hardware functionality the API exposes. In the case of ATi it's whenever VS/PS2.0 functionality is exposed and it makes no difference if Direct3D or OpenGL is the API that is exposing it.

Good for them, and they finally got it to stop crashing every 5 minutes after FOUR DRIVER RELEASES.

I've never had a single problem with COD.

Neither did I, my friend....

 

[PCTweaker5]

Originally posted by: jim1976
Again, I'm not reffering to someone in particular.
What you say is your opinion PCtweaker5, based on your way of defining a good gpu, which I respect.

Thanks Jim! You're a good man.

 

[PCTweaker5]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Good points doom gun!

That would be Quake III, sir!

But I thought doom had a gun called the BFG or something? Im pretty sure it did cause I had final doom and always used it on that scary ass level where the sky looks like bloody muscles lol.

 

[BFG10K]

But I thought doom had a gun called the BFG or something?

It did, as did Quake II. However only Quake III has the BFG10K.

 

[nRollo]

I mean it's not like you ever plan to run PS2 on it anway, right?

You got that one right anyway, my 9800Pro will never see a PS2 game. I'll likely have a nV40 or next gen Radeon before any come out. I would be sad indeed if I were forced to run Far Cry and HL2 at the framerates I've seen reported in the demos.

PS2 is indeed the "way of the future", just not for this generation of cards, IMO.

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

But I thought doom had a gun called the BFG or something?

It did, as did Quake II. However only Quake III has the BFG10K.

Actually, Q2 does have the BFG10K.

 

[BFG10K]

PS2 is indeed the "way of the future", just not for this generation of cards, IMO.

You can say exactly the same thing about spare RAM and HD space, i.e. "by the time I get a game that fills both up, my rig will be too slow to run it anyway".

So I guess using your logic spare RAM and HD space are also useless too and thus if I looked at your rig right now I should expect to find both of them completely filled up with none to spare.

Correct?

 

[BFG10K]

Actually, Q2 does have the BFG10K.

Hmmm, so it does.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
i'm not contradicting myself, you are having trouble understading plain english. i am not the one dismissing anything here, just pointing out the error made by those who do.

i understand perfectly. perhaps you should look to yourself prior to criticizing others? in case you're having difficulty, i'll explain what i meant by that: on one hand you claim it's not a "huge deal", implying there's not a great deal of significance in it, yet you turn right around and criticize the fact we're "dismissing it".

this is not the case at all. the entire point of this discussion revolves the degree in which ati's superior ps2 performance affect gaming overall, and it's relevance in the degree of "future proofing" this provides.

there are several prominent facts here:

a) ati has a superior method of processing ps2 shader instructions.
b) this superiory does not significantly affect the dominant number of dx7/8 games which the gaming market consists of.
c) you cannot point to one game currently on the market "unplayable" by either card
d) you cannot accurately predict the time or date in which either of these cards won't be able to adequately play any upcoming games, nor provide anything showing substantial IQ difference between ps1.1 and ps2 implementions at settings in which both parts can adequately run, or even when these upcoming games will ship, or how these games will perform on current parts once they do ship.

there are certainly other points which could be made, however imo those are enough. if you can argue any of the above statements with anything of substance i'd be happy to agree with you. what seems to be lost in all this bullshit is that we aren't arguing which card is more capable TODAY (i think it's rather obvious ati is superior in this regard), rather the relevance that today's drivers/hardware will have playing current as well as upcoming games comparative to next generation parts/pricing, etc. and what sacrifices will have to be made in IQ to obtain adequate performane in future titles, and the degree in which today's parts will remain viable, or "futureproof" in this regard.

i'm not contradicting myself, you are having trouble understading plain english. i am not the one dismissing anything here, just pointing out the error made by those who do.

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
lol.. it was a fact acknowledged by ati, who even issued a "hot patch" to correct the problem.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
i know this, and that doesn't exactly jive with this statment:

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Good for them, and they finally got it to stop crashing every 5 minutes after FOUR DRIVER RELEASES.

Originally posted by: TheSnowmannow does it?

umm.. and your point? i don't see how you can argue one statement contradicts the other. you said it wasn't a problem. i stated ati acknowledged the problem, even going so far as to release a patch in between driver revision. acanthus stated it took several driver releases to correct an issue. i think your statements are the only one inaccurate here.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

PS2 is indeed the "way of the future", just not for this generation of cards, IMO.

You can say exactly the same thing about spare RAM and HD space, i.e. "by the time I get a game that fills both up, my rig will be too slow to run it anyway".

So I guess using your logic spare RAM and HD space are also useless too and thus if I looked at your rig right now I should expect to find both of them completely filled up with none to spare.

Correct?

that's a poor analogy. we can use more hd and ram TODAY with significant benefits. you're comparing capacity vs features, and apples to orange comparison.

the significance of ps2 shader capabilites between today's video cards in current games is not only harder to guage, but also subjective. further, defining the significance that today's performance will hold in future, upcoming times and predicting how long these current parts will adequately play those "future" games is even more of a stretch.

 

[nRollo]

So I guess using your logic spare RAM and HD space are also useless too and thus if I looked at your rig right now I should expect to find both of them completely filled up with none to spare.

You are correct, using my logic having RAM that exceeds the amount that can be used by your applications and empty hard drive space is of little value.

Let's say that Sweeney tells us Unreal 4, eta 2006, is going to have transparent boxes in the game the only cards with Feature X can render. Now, in 2004, is one card with Feature X more "valuable" than one without it? I guess that depends if you plan on having the card in 2006, and playing the game.

Since October 2002, all ATI owners have been pointing at better DX9 support. To what end? Here, 5 hours from March 2004, we have one game that I know of using PS2 shaders, and it's a reviled POS game.

Since Sept. 03 (Shady Days) we've been hearing about how PS2 shaders is the way of all future games. Six months, and many games, later- no PS2 in sight.

 

[kylebisme]

again, i don't have cod, but the hot patch corrected the issue very quickly and the "FOUR DRIVER RELEASES" bit was inacruate from what i have heard.

as for your points:
a) yes, ati's ps2.0 is far superior.
b) what the gaming market consists of is irrelvent to a topic about future potential.
c) regardless of the fact that no current games are unplayable on either hardware, see point "b".
d) my argument isn't about what your deem is adequate performace for upcoming games, or what you deam is substantial IQ difference between ps1.1 and ps2, or when any particular titles will ship; my argument is simply about point "a" which is fact and people should judge for themselves those things which are a matter of opinion.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
again, i don't have cod, but the hot patch corrected the issue very quickly and the "FOUR DRIVER RELEASES" bit was inacruate from what i have heard.

as for your points:
a) yes, ati's ps2.0 is far superior.

little bias showing thru again? far? that's not only debateable, but subjective.

b) what the gaming market consists of is irrelvent to a topic about future potential.

lmao.. umm.. that's like the dumbest point i've seen you make. games, both today and tomorrow (tho again, we can only guess to the perfomance until the games are actually available), are the only things relevant in how a video card performs.

c) regardless of the fact that no current games are unplayable on either hardware, see point "b".

dumb and dumberer?

d) my argument isn't about what your deem is adequate performace for upcoming games, or what you deam is substantial IQ difference between ps1.1 and ps2, or when any particular titles will ship; my argument is simply about point "a" which is fact and people should judge for themselves those things which are a matter of opinion.

so basically what you are saying is that you really have no point at all? that's interesting....

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Rollo

So I guess using your logic spare RAM and HD space are also useless too and thus if I looked at your rig right now I should expect to find both of them completely filled up with none to spare.

You are correct, using my logic having RAM that exceeds the amount that can be used by your applications and empty hard drive space is of little value.

Let's say that Sweeney tells us Unreal 4, eta 2006, is going to have transparent boxes in the game the only cards with Feature X can render. Now, in 2004, is one card with Feature X more "valuable" than one without it? I guess that depends if you plan on having the card in 2006, and playing the game.

Since October 2002, all ATI owners have been pointing at better DX9 support. To what end? Here, 5 hours from March 2004, we have one game that I know of using PS2 shaders, and it's a reviled POS game.

Since Sept. 03 (Shady Days) we've been hearing about how PS2 shaders is the way of all future games. Six months, and many games, later- no PS2 in sight.

So what does that mean Rollo? Because games don't utilize ps2 yet, havin greater performance from your competitor is useless?
And you say that by the time ps2 is used by the games, these cards won't have adequate performance to run them?
But you said that these things take time to happen.
So do you expect that from no ps2, games will jump immediately to HEAVY ps2? I don't think so.
These things take time to happen so current cards will take adequate advantage of ps2 in games of 2004.
Of course as the time passes and heavy shaders will be applied they will have problems, but thats what always happens,right?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
again, i don't have cod, but the hot patch corrected the issue very quickly and the "FOUR DRIVER RELEASES" bit was inacruate from what i have heard.

as for your points:
a) yes, ati's ps2.0 is far superior.

little bias showing thru again? far? that's not only debateable, but subjective.

ok, lets debate it:

Test # 9800 Pro 5900 Ultra 5900 Relative to 9800
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2 207 155 -25.1%
3 148 110 -25.7%
4 150 (N/A)
5 120 90 -25.0%
6 160 123 -23.1%
7 140 152 8.6%
8 109 (N/A)
9 103 61 -40.8%
10 236 163 -30.9%
11 201 141 -29.9%
12 132 89 -32.6%
13 85 64 -24.7%
14 87 81 - 6.9%
15 115 85 -26.1%
16 71 60 -15.5%
17 12 10 -16.7%
18 96 56 -41.7%
19 25 (N/A)
20 47 (N/A)
21 51 (N/A)
22 34 (N/A)
23 52 (N/A)


http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8193&start=20

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

b) what the gaming market consists of is irrelvent to a topic about future potential.

lmao.. umm.. that's like the dumbest point i've seen you make. games, both today and tomorrow (tho again, we can only guess to the perfomance until the games are actually available), are the only things relevant in how a video card performs.

i can't help it that you don't understand the fact that what the pefromace is in current games is obvious, and the topic is about logical speculation and not discussing what we already know.

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

c) regardless of the fact that no current games are unplayable on either hardware, see point "b".

dumb and dumberer?

denial? it's not just a river in Africa you know.

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

d) my argument isn't about what your deem is adequate performace for upcoming games, or what you deam is substantial IQ difference between ps1.1 and ps2, or when any particular titles will ship; my argument is simply about point "a" which is fact and people should judge for themselves those things which are a matter of opinion.

so basically what you are saying is that you really have no point at all? that's interesting....

no again, this is my point:

Test # 9800 Pro 5900 Ultra 5900 Relative to 9800
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2 207 155 -25.1%
3 148 110 -25.7%
4 150 (N/A)
5 120 90 -25.0%
6 160 123 -23.1%
7 140 152 8.6%
8 109 (N/A)
9 103 61 -40.8%
10 236 163 -30.9%
11 201 141 -29.9%
12 132 89 -32.6%
13 85 64 -24.7%
14 87 81 - 6.9%
15 115 85 -26.1%
16 71 60 -15.5%
17 12 10 -16.7%
18 96 56 -41.7%
19 25 (N/A)
20 47 (N/A)
21 51 (N/A)
22 34 (N/A)
23 52 (N/A)

do you care to debate these facts?

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: BFG10K

PS2 is indeed the "way of the future", just not for this generation of cards, IMO.

You can say exactly the same thing about spare RAM and HD space, i.e. "by the time I get a game that fills both up, my rig will be too slow to run it anyway".

So I guess using your logic spare RAM and HD space are also useless too and thus if I looked at your rig right now I should expect to find both of them completely filled up with none to spare.

Correct?

that's a poor analogy. we can use more hd and ram TODAY with significant benefits. you're comparing capacity vs features, and apples to orange comparison.

the significance of ps2 shader capabilites between today's video cards in current games is not only harder to guage, but also subjective. further, defining the significance that today's performance will hold in future, upcoming times and predicting how long these current parts will adequately play those "future" games is even more of a stretch.

But why bother taking a high end card if you don't care for those unsignificant(for you) differences in performance and image quality. From what you are saying I guess you can be satisfied with a mediocre card!!
As I said when you constantly buy a high end card YOU CARE for the little differences, otherwise you wouldn't have bought a high end card. Am I wrong?