NV and ATi both have successful launches this week

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

More companies than just ATI have had them Gstanfor, Nvidia included.

Not to anywhere near the same extent. nvidia realises that if you want success financially and mindshare amongst consumers you product has to be readily available.

7800GTX 512? 7900GT(X)'s? Of the 7900's launched the ones that weren't sold out were getting RMA'd with the floods of them that artifacted at stock frequencies. Of course, this was here in the states. Your experience in Australia may have been different.

EDIT: I agree with you about the most recent though: the 7900GS and the 7950GT. They did well with those.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

More companies than just ATI have had them Gstanfor, Nvidia included.

Not to anywhere near the same extent. nvidia realises that if you want success financially and mindshare amongst consumers you product has to be readily available.

7800GTX 512? 7900GT(X)'s? Of the 7900's launched the ones that weren't sold out were getting RMA'd with the floods of them that artifacted at stock frequencies. Of course, this was here in the states. Your experience in Australia may have been different.

EDIT: I agree with you about the most recent though: the 7900GS and the 7950GT. They did well with those.

That kind of true. But nVIDIA needs to adjust some price amongst their 7 series lineup.

But for what i know theyve been dominating the low/mid end with 7300GS/GT and 7600GS/GT where ATi fails to make any decent competition. (the X1800GTO was an attempt but economically, its not going to last due to the mid range card using R520 cores and 256bit PCBs). Not to mention the 7900GS for 199 dollars has sealed the deal for NV in the mid range.

But im waiting to see how the R560/R570 will turn out. Is this the end of ATi's bad run in the low/mid end?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

More companies than just ATI have had them Gstanfor, Nvidia included.

Not to anywhere near the same extent. nvidia realises that if you want success financially and mindshare amongst consumers you product has to be readily available.

I prefer nvidia, but even I can see your a bit blinded by bias. I know the other participant is as well (not you Josh), but really please be a little more real in here. Some of the things you say are a bit outlandish, and most frequent.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

More companies than just ATI have had them Gstanfor, Nvidia included.

Not to anywhere near the same extent. nvidia realises that if you want success financially and mindshare amongst consumers you product has to be readily available.

I prefer nvidia, but even I can see your a bit blinded by bias. I know the other participant is as well (not you Josh), but really please be a little more real in here. Some of the things you say are a bit outlandish, and most frequent.

GStanfor biased?? Well I never....???

 

[Gstanfor]

Just go back and compare the two comapnies from nv40 onward in this regard. nvidia may have had an occaional small splutter here and there, but that pales into insignificance compared to ATi's product launches, *especially* the g70/r480 era.

No, I happily stand by what I previously said. Sorry.

One of the big things that helped ati throughout the R300 era was that they were able to beat nvidia to market for the first time with R300. They were able to maintain this lead until about halfway through the nv4x/r4xx cycle. Then nvidia took the lead back, have so far kept it and will IMHO greatly extend it with G80.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: thilan29
...
GStanfor biased?? Well I never....???

It only appears that way since I spend 99% of my time dousing the anti-nvidia fires lit by the fanatics (yes, I know you love me for it.... )

 

[Ulfhednar]

You fanboys are hilarious.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
You fanboys are hilarious.

+1

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

I dont know why you just cant accept HQ AF being better. The HardOCP pics clearly show it. In a slower paced game like Oblivion, thats a rather large IQ difference. In a racing game or something else fast paced, it wouldnt matter as much. I full expect (just my opinion) that NV will have a check box feature like ATi, that upgrades AF quality. And have HDR+AA like ATi does. In a few months, this will likely all be a moot point. As of now, ATi's HQ AF clearly is better than NVs AF.

And my pictures clearly show that hardocp's comparison image is extremely exaggerated. (if anyone can give me a savegame of the location they used, i'll replicate their image on my machine). I've played with oblivion's built in HDR - it's craptacular, as is the bloom. I much prefer a user mod that provides HDR for any screenmode (not on in my shots) if I want to use HDR at all (frankly I don't think the game needs it).

No it doesnt. Your pic doesnt even show HQ AF. You're calling an in-game shot "extremely exaggerated."? The fact is, ATi has much better AF on angles. You can either admit that, or not. It wont change that its the truth.

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Stop using facts against Ackmed....it's just not fair.

Except not. He accused me of starting a troll topic, and spreading misinformation. Nothing I have said is false, as far as I know in this thread. Its also not a troll topic. Certain people have trolled in it however. redbox got himself banned, perhaps he can act as an adult in the future. Its time for you and josh to get over that. Both are being ignored from here on out, unless they prove they can post on topic, stop trolling, insulting, and name calling.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I didnt say it wasnt an option.

Yeah you did, when you were telling everyone it's too slow to be used.

I said it was too slow for me to use in newish games, at my res of 1920x1200. I didnt make a blanket statement that it was "too slow to use". I also said it really shines in older games, where frames are not as much of an issue. Which your benchmarks support. You benched games that were 10 years old.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Having XT's in CF, HDR+AA was playable for me in Oblivion.

So did you try 8xS with SLI?

Not in Oblivion. I did in BF2, and it wasnt playable enough for me. Probably would have been if I lowered my res, but then thats not what I wanted to do.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

And many others here with even a single card.

Many others find 8xS playable with a single card. Or is that subjective again while HDR + AA is fact?

You can't have it both ways Ackmed.

Sure I can. Again, its not some blanket statement. Some parts of IQ is subjective I believe. When something is obviously better, such as HQ AF, thats not subjective. When pics clearly prove HQ AF is better, is much more clear, then its a fact. For someone who likes HDR, and who likes AA, having both enabled at the same time, is better than just one or the other. For someone who doesnt like either, then no its not going to be better to them.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

As I said several times, 1920x1200.

For me, 54fps is borderline for playable, if you're playing online.

54 FPS is borderline for playable? [/quote]

Yes, for a game such as Q4 which is where I got the numbers from. Thats a twitch shooter, and dips in frames can really hamper your game. For a slower game such as Oblivion, its more than enough for me. Keep in mind, that at only 1600x1200, and only with 2xTRAA and 4xAF. Imagine with 8xAA, and 16xAF. It would be a slide show, especially at 1920x1200. So you saying that Q4 is playable at 8xAA at 1600x1200, doesnt agree with their numbers.

Originally posted by: BFG10K
So I guess a X1950XT Crossfire with HDR + AA in Oblivion is unplayable since it only scores 51.6 FPS at your chosen resolution.

That means your X1900XT Crossfire rig is also unplayable, much less single card configurations, the fastest of which is only getting 31.1 FPS.

Also are you going to tell us 6xAA isn't usable like 8xAA since those scores already show 4xAA being unplayable?

Read up. I dont have to have 60fps+ in every game. Games are different, and the needed frames are different. Oblivion to me doesnt need nearly as many frames as Q4, or the like.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Older games it to me where 8xAA was only playable. You have the same opinion, not sure why you disagree.

Like I pointed out my next batch will have more 8xS benchmarks since I hadn't fully tested the 7900 GTX at the time I ran those.

Quake 4 and Doom 3 is playable at 1600x1200 and Half-Life 2 is playable at 1760x1320. Also other games like Vampire Bloodlines that I don't benchmark are playable at 1600x1200.

Nobody's denying 8xS takes a big performance hit; the point is that it's far more usable than you would lead us to believe.

Also 6xAA can take quite a hefty performance hit over 4xAA in some cases, though obviously not as much as 8xS over 4x.

Once again, Im not leading you to believe anything. I said several times, its not playable for me. I didnt say for you, your friend, or your neighboor. Your numbers show that 8x takes about a 50% hit. Thats rather large. If you're getting 50fps in a game at 4x, adding 8x would put it at or around 25fps. Depending on the game, no thats not playable to me. Your numbers show that in newer games (which is what Ive been saying) 8x is not that playable. Even a link from someone else trying to say it was playable, has only two games tested at 8x (best playable settings), one of those was with Q and not HQ settings. And it was at 1600x1200, not my res of 1920x1200.

Since some people are trying to put words in my mouth, Ill say it again. 8x looks better than anything ATi has to offer. I hope ATi adpots it sometimes soon. The hit it takes made it unplayable for me in any of my newer games. 8x to me reallt shines in older games, or newer games based off of an older engine. Likewise, HQ AF looks better than anything NV has to offer, and I too hope they adopt it. Just as I hope NV adpots having HDR+AA at the same time in games such as Oblivion. Personally, I think NV's new card will do both, so all of this will be moot. And NV will still have better "looking" AA with 8x, which may or may not be playable for people in newer games.

I havent been online since Sunday. Was out of town, and in a hotel Tuesday night. No PC with me. Have been very busy, and not been online at all since Sunday. I will be out of town a lot coming up pretty soon, starting Oct. 10th. For about 3 months actually. So I didnt "fade to black", I havent been online. Dont beleive me? Go check HardOCP forums, or B3D forums. I havent posted there, or even been there since Sunday. I hate bumping old threads, I felt the need to corrected a few things.

 

[Gstanfor]

HQ AF or not nvidia's AF routines are still very good, (probably the best manhattan AF filtering algorithm ever developed) and can compete extremely well with anything ATi can throw at it.

You can say what you like, ackmed, I'll just let the images I posted do the talking...

 

[Ackmed]

You didnt post any comparison images. You posted yours, and thats it. Yes NV and ATi's AF looks very similar to each others, without HQ AF enabled. Or on a flat surface where HQ AF doesnt excel. NVs AF simply cant compete with ATi's HQ AF in some settings. Which is plainly obvious in this pic, and others that have been posted.

 

[Gstanfor]

As I've said before ackmed, someone post a savegame of the exact location hardocp used and I'll happily produce a comparison pictrure for you. Before you discovered that picture, the fanatics used to love the paved cobblestone bridges for supposedly showing up a lack of AF quality. I've included an example of that also. It's no great mystery where most of my images were taken in the game, but if anyone wants to compare them, I'll happily make any savegames available that I haven't already (nobody has asked me to as of yet).

Oh, and with the exception of the circular courtyard picture, the images if provided could hardly be categorized as lacking angles - unless , of course, you happen to be a fanatic...

I also find it rather amusing that someone who spends alh his time singing the praises of ATi's HDR+AA wouldn't have a copy of the premier showcase application to hand... (yes, I can remember your last excuse why you couldn't possibly compare pictures with me...)

 

[josh6079]

He accused me of starting a troll topic, and spreading misinformation.

You did. Misinforming others about what somone DIDN'T do through PM's falls under that constitution.

Nothing I have said is false...

Except for this, "...redbox also PM'd me more insults..."

...as far as I know in this thread.

Your original claim of, "NV cant do it, and it sure cant do 8xAA in any sort of playable frames" was in this thread as well as false.

Certain people have trolled in it however.

It's interesting that you yourself are carrying on a discussion that doesn't pertain to this thread, and, therefore are contributing a certain amount of the trolling. You arguing about AA/AF has little to do with the types of launches that ATI and Nvidia recently did.

redbox got himself banned, perhaps he can act as an adult in the future.

And what, lie about you sending insulting PM's to him? Is that an "adult" thing to do?

Its time for you and josh to get over that. Both are being ignored from here on out

It seems convenient that you ignore the one person that hasn't hardly argued with you in the past--in fact never had untill you lied--yet continue to argue with people who you've always disagreed with like Wreckage, Crusader, and Gstanfor.

...unless they prove they can post on topic...

Like you have?

...stop trolling...

I didn't say that Nvidia can't do things that they can do.

...insulting, and name calling.

When have I called you any name in these forums?

 

[Madellga]

Here the 7950 is available everywhere, the X1950 is not.

I can only get a X1950 bulk and it is overpriced at the moment.

I would like to have the cooler available for my X1900 as an aftersales component....

 

[Madellga]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Why not compare the X1900XT 256MB version to the 7950GT? What should it be compared to? Its cheaper, and faster than the 7950GT overall. Someone should at least look at the option of buying a XT, instead of the GT.

1. Yes, there is a silent 7950GT. Didnt see that coming, very good for people in the market for a totally silent card.
2. Yes the 7950GT uses less power. Does it really matter? I suppose for the same people who want a silent card, for an HTPC. To me, it wouldnt make a bit of difference. Heat? The XT exhausts the air out of the case. No 7950GT does that, its all kept inside the case. Hot air out = good.
3. Powercolor also has a lifetime warranty. Not that it matters to me, overclocking voids all warranties, but eVGA's I believe.
4. Not so easy. As we've seen in the last launch, that didnt work well for lots of people. eVGA actually stopped it, restarted it, and had a mess on their hands.

But as you said, there are several reasons to getr a 7950GT for some people. Also like you said, I wouldnt be one of them. The X1900XT 256MB is cheaper, faster, and has better IQ. Its also louder, uses more watts, and runs hotter. The easy choice to me would be the XT. Even the X1900XTX is right around $300. About the same price, or cheaper than the 7950GT.

No, big mistake to recommend a 256MB card at this moment. You know the 512MB makes a lot of difference when setting up high quality, top AA and AF. Newer games show that very easily.

 

[Madellga]

Originally posted by: Ike0069

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Why not compare the X1900XT 256MB version to the 7950GT? What should it be compared to? Its cheaper, and faster than the 7950GT overall. Someone should at least look at the option of buying a XT, instead of the GT.

Compare it to the 7900GT. The only reason one should go with a 7950 GT over the less expensive 7900GT is if they wanted a 512 card. So if they're looking at the 7950, I'm assuming they want a 512 card. That's my only point there.

I definitely agree that the X1900XT 256 is the absolute best deal out right now for $200+ cards. The problem is that some people want a card with 512 MB RAM right now, so that rules the 256 version out.

One more point on warranty. While PowerColor does offer a lifetime warranty, their cards are priced much higher than the BBATI and Sapphire cards. I'm not debating the merits of a lifetime warranty, just stating that PC's lifetime warranty is kind of a joke considering the price premium their cards carry.

Funny, in Europe Powercolor is the cheapest one, 10 bucks less than Sapphire.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
As I've said before ackmed, someone post a savegame of the exact location hardocp used and I'll happily produce a comparison pictrure for you. Before you discovered that picture, the fanatics used to love the paved cobblestone bridges for supposedly showing up a lack of AF quality. I've included an example of that also. It's no great mystery where most of my images were taken in the game, but if anyone wants to compare them, I'll happily make any savegames available that I haven't already (nobody has asked me to as of yet).

Oh, and with the exception of the circular courtyard picture, the images if provided could hardly be categorized as lacking angles - unless , of course, you happen to be a fanatic...

I also find it rather amusing that someone who spends alh his time singing the praises of ATi's HDR+AA wouldn't have a copy of the premier showcase application to hand... (yes, I can remember your last excuse why you couldn't possibly compare pictures with me...)

My own comparison backs up what Ackmed says about ATI's angle-independent AF vs. NV's AF. Pretty noticable in a direct comparison. That being said, I prefer NV's AA.

These are some screens I posted a few months back when I had a GX2 and an XTX in my possession at the same time:

http://home.mindspring.com/~caffeinated/

 

[BFG10K]

I said it was too slow for me to use in newish games, at my res of 1920x1200.

And likewise ATi's HDR+AA is too slow for you using the definitions of playable you apply to 8xS.

You benched games that were 10 years old.

I also benched games that were only about three years old.

Sure I can.

No you can't because you're defining playable around the features of your favourite vendor, not around framerate. That's referred to as bias.

You told us 8xS wasn't playable because it scored a certain framerate but then turned around and told us HDR+AA was playable despite scoring an even lower framerate.

When something is obviously better, such as HQ AF, thats not subjective.

Likewise nVidia's xS modes are obviously better than pure MSAA. That's not subjective.

When pics clearly prove HQ AF is better, is much more clear, then its a fact.

Pics clearly prove xS modes are better than pure MSAA.

Yes, for a game such as Q4 which is where I got the numbers from. Thats a twitch shooter, and dips in frames can really hamper your game.

Just like HDR+AA can really hamper your game in a twitch shooter like Far Cry yet I don't recall you ever complaining about it. In fact you're still claiming said feature is playable on single cards when it isn't even playable on X1950 Crossfire according to your standards.

Click.

50.4 FPS on a Crossfire X1950 system. I guess you'd have to admit HDR+AA is an unusable feature in this twitch shooter since not even two of ATi's fastest cards can run it acceptably?

For a slower game such as Oblivion, its more than enough for me.

I play mostly single player where eye candy is often more important than a high framerate.

Once again, Im not leading you to believe anything. I said several times, its not playable for me.

That isn't the problem. The problem is how your definition of playable changes depending on whether we're discussing nVidia or ATi.

Your numbers show that in newer games (which is what Ive been saying) 8x is not that playable.

My numbers also show HDR+AA in newer games is not even playable on Crossfire systems, much less single ATi cards like you claimed it was.

So when can we expect you to admit that ATi's HDR+AA is too slow and unusable for you?

 

[BassBomb]

BFG

im pretty sure Ackmed said his playable FPS standards were for playing online

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
BFG

im pretty sure Ackmed said his playable FPS standards were for playing online

Majority of online play really depends on your internet connection the most. This can vary among user from user.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Stop using facts against Ackmed....it's just not fair.

Except not. He accused me of starting a troll topic, and spreading misinformation. Nothing I have said is false, as far as I know in this thread. Its also not a troll topic. Certain people have trolled in it however. redbox got himself banned, perhaps he can act as an adult in the future. Its time for you and josh to get over that. Both are being ignored from here on out, unless they prove they can post on topic, stop trolling, insulting, and name calling.

So you are going to ignore Josh because he's right? Yeah, that sounds mature.

 

[BFG10K]

im pretty sure Ackmed said his playable FPS standards were for playing online

Fine - in that case he'll have no trouble admitting ATi's HDR+AA is useless for online play

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
As I've said before ackmed, someone post a savegame of the exact location hardocp used and I'll happily produce a comparison pictrure for you. Before you discovered that picture, the fanatics used to love the paved cobblestone bridges for supposedly showing up a lack of AF quality. I've included an example of that also. It's no great mystery where most of my images were taken in the game, but if anyone wants to compare them, I'll happily make any savegames available that I haven't already (nobody has asked me to as of yet).

Oh, and with the exception of the circular courtyard picture, the images if provided could hardly be categorized as lacking angles - unless , of course, you happen to be a fanatic...

I also find it rather amusing that someone who spends alh his time singing the praises of ATi's HDR+AA wouldn't have a copy of the premier showcase application to hand... (yes, I can remember your last excuse why you couldn't possibly compare pictures with me...)

How are we supposed to know the exact location of HardOCP's pic? Why do you need to take one? They've supplied comparison pics. The facts are the facts, ATis AF looks better. Get over it.

I have also said RPG's were not my bag. I got Oblivion because of all the hype. I played it for around 30 hours, and did enjoy it. Got over it, and got rid of it. Its not an excuse, I simply dont have the game. Im sure you can find many others that do have it.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I said it was too slow for me to use in newish games, at my res of 1920x1200.

And likewise ATi's HDR+AA is too slow for you using the definitions of playable you apply to 8xS.

Wrong. As I have said many times before, different games need different fps. Ive said in Oblivion I dont need 60fps+. In an online twitch shooter such as Q4, 30fps just isnt good enough.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

You benched games that were 10 years old.

I also benched games that were only about three years old.

Yes, you did. You posted the link, with 10+ year old games getting playable frames at 8xAA. Which supports my claim that older games is where 8xAA really shines. And your link also agrees with me that newer games doesnt do well with 8xAA for playable frames.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Sure I can.

No you can't because you're defining playable around the features of your favourite vendor, not around framerate. That's referred to as bias.

You told us 8xS wasn't playable because it scored a certain framerate but then turned around and told us HDR+AA was playable despite scoring an even lower framerate.

Its not bias, its a different type of game. Its being realistic. I need more frames in online play, than solo play. Thats pretty simple to understand. I dont know why you cant grasp this. One again, a slower game such as Oblivion, doesnt need nearly as many frames for me to be "playable", than Q4 or the like. Feel free to show me one review that has 8xAA in Q4 with 50+ frames.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

When something is obviously better, such as HQ AF, thats not subjective.

Likewise nVidia's xS modes are obviously better than pure MSAA. That's not subjective.

And Ive said that. I said NV has the better AA with 8xAA. Do you argue, just to argue? You're agreeing with me on many points, yet feel the need to try and argue about it.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

When pics clearly prove HQ AF is better, is much more clear, then its a fact.

Pics clearly prove xS modes are better than pure MSAA.

Duh? Again, Ive said NVs 8xAA looks better than anything ATi has to offer.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Yes, for a game such as Q4 which is where I got the numbers from. Thats a twitch shooter, and dips in frames can really hamper your game.

Just like HDR+AA can really hamper your game in a twitch shooter like Far Cry yet I don't recall you ever complaining about it. In fact you're still claiming said feature is playable on single cards when it isn't even playable on X1950 Crossfire according to your standards.

First off, the ability to do HDR+AA in Farcry came out long after the game did. Cards were much faster. Do you recall me saying that HDR+AA was playable for me at 1920x1200? Nope, you dont. Dont act as if I did. I also never said that HDR+AA was playable with a single card at my res. Again, dont put words in my mouth. Also, Farcry is not a twitch shooter. Unlike Q4, Farcrys solo game was actually good. I didnt play Farcrys multi after it first came out, because it was broken, and not very good. While Q4s multi is much better, but lacks a good single player game. Of course, that is all my opinion.

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Click.

50.4 FPS on a Crossfire X1950 system. I guess you'd have to admit HDR+AA is an unusable feature in this twitch shooter since not even two of ATi's fastest cards can run it acceptably?

When did I say Farcry with HDR+AA was playable to me at 1920x1200? Feel free to give a link. 50fps is very close to being playable. It would also help to know where that was benched at in the game.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

For a slower game such as Oblivion, its more than enough for me.

I play mostly single player where eye candy is often more important than a high framerate.

And thats your choice. I play a pretty even balance of both. I really like Tomb Raider Legends, Flatout 2, HL2 EP1, and a few more single player games. I could see Flatout 2 and EP1 being playable with 8xAA, so long as you have at least a GX2. I dont know about at 1920x1200, but maybe. I play mostly BF2 however, and some other online games. As I said before, it depends on the game, if I need 30fps, or closer to 60fps. Online play, frames are king over IQ. If you can get IQ and great frames, thats even better.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Once again, Im not leading you to believe anything. I said several times, its not playable for me.

That isn't the problem. The problem is how your definition of playable changes depending on whether we're discussing nVidia or ATi.

No, it depends on what game Im playing. I feel like Ive said that several times now... Also, I said the last NV setup I had was 7800GTXs in SLI. Im sure if I had 7900GTXs in SLI, I could get a few more games playable for me at 8xAA.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Your numbers show that in newer games (which is what Ive been saying) 8x is not that playable.

My numbers also show HDR+AA in newer games is not even playable on Crossfire systems, much less single ATi cards like you claimed it was.

So when can we expect you to admit that ATi's HDR+AA is too slow and unusable for you?

Did you have a CF setup? I dont think I saw it in your link. Also, I dont recall saying I got playable settings with HDR+AA in games with a single card, care to show me a link? And again, its not just me saying this, reviews that use "playable settings", say the same thing. So does FS in their HDR+AA article awhile back.

Right now, it probably would be too slow for me to use HDR+AA in Oblivion. I sold my master card, so Im on a single X1900XT right now. I dont have Oblivion, but I imagine it would be too slow now. And for the last time, it depends on the game. Oblivion is a slower paced game, and doesnt need a lot of frames to be playable to me. Same goes for "Call of Juarez", a new western shooter, that ATi can do HDR+AA, where NV cannnot. Its a slower paced game as well. It also has multi player, but I have no tried that demo. It was playable for me with HDR+AA at 1920x1200 with CF, I have not tried it again since I sold my master card.

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: BassBomb
BFG

im pretty sure Ackmed said his playable FPS standards were for playing online

Majority of online play really depends on your internet connection the most. This can vary among user from user.

Yes, and frames. I would rather be at 300 ping, and 60 frames. Than 40 ping, and 20fps. Both impact gameplay in a large way.

Bassbomb was correct. Different games require different frames to me. BFG10K claimed that Q4 was playable at 8xAA (and I think 1600x1200). A review dropped (that does "best playable") that had Q4 was not playable to them at 8xAA and 1600x1200.

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Stop using facts against Ackmed....it's just not fair.

Except not. He accused me of starting a troll topic, and spreading misinformation. Nothing I have said is false, as far as I know in this thread. Its also not a troll topic. Certain people have trolled in it however. redbox got himself banned, perhaps he can act as an adult in the future. Its time for you and josh to get over that. Both are being ignored from here on out, unless they prove they can post on topic, stop trolling, insulting, and name calling.

So you are going to ignore Josh because he's right? Yeah, that sounds mature.

Except hes not. He alleged that I started a troll topic, and was spreading misinformation. This thread was neither. I praised both NV, and ATi. They both had good launches. In fact, the X1950XTX is down to $420 already, a week later. Instead of price gouging, prices have gone down. Thats good no matter how you look at it.

Im ignoring him, because hes trolling. I told him when he can post on topic, and get over the fact it was his pals fault who got banned, I would ignore him. I am being mature by ignoring him, its taking the high road. Im not going to respond to name calling, and insults any longer. Ive been advised by a mod to ignore it, so I am.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

im pretty sure Ackmed said his playable FPS standards were for playing online

Fine - in that case he'll have no trouble admitting ATi's HDR+AA is useless for online play

That depends on the game, and res. *If* Oblivion had an online mod, 30fps would still be fine, as would most any slow paced RPG I would guess. If Q4 had HDR+AA, I doubt I would use it. Because any dip, stutter, or anything of the sort in frames at a bad time, could be a death for you. I have no problem saying that frames are of a higher importance than IQ for fast paced online games. Once again, thats my opinion.

 

[josh6079]

Except hes not.

Really? Prove that redbox sent you insulting PM's.

He alleged that I started a troll topic...

Seeing how you have accused many others of trolling within this topic--yourself included--I don't see how this isn't. Starting a thread about successful launches when a previous thread established that a good amount of people thought otherwise would be considered flamebait.

...and was spreading misinformation.

You have. Simple as that. Get over it.

This thread was neither. I praised both NV, and ATi.

By saying that Nvidia's 8xAA was better but useless?

By turning around and saying that ATI's HDR+AA is better and not useless?

By saying that Far Cry isn't a twitch shooter after doing nothing but shooting the single
player bots and never experiencing online play?

By claiming that your previous 7800GTX SLI wasn't substantial enough to handle 8xAA when I myself had two 7800GT's in SLI that handled it perfrectly?

You've praised both, but defended ATI when it's performance hit with a twich shooter HDR+AA game was worse than Nvidia's twich shooter 8xAA game.

They both had good launches. In fact, the X1950XTX is down to $420 already, a week later.

Except it's been out for about a month, not a week. Only the same person who mislabeld AEG's "Crisis Management" as their coporate playbook and thought that HRC is better than AEG could see that the X1950XTX's paper launch with nonexistent WHQL drivers as a "good launch".

Instead of price gouging, prices have gone down. Thats good no matter how you look at it.

I would expect that to happen with something that has been for sale yet nowhere to be found on the market for the first few weeks of it's "launch".

Im ignoring him, because hes trolling.

Your discussion about Nvidia's unplayable 8xAA at "x" frames but ATI's playable HDR+AA at "x-y" frames isn't? What does that have to do with ATI's and Nvidia's recent launches Ackmed?

I told him when he can post on topic...

You have posted more off topic material than I in this thread because you are arguing with everyone. I've only met one other person who has gone on forever trying to convince the world that they are wrong and he was right.

...and get over the fact it was his pals fault who got banned...

When did I say it wasn't his fault? You can't get over the fact that I caught you pulling a Rollo--spreading misinformation.

I would ignore him. I am being mature by ignoring him, its taking the high road.

Yes, you're the oh great wise one who thinks all who disagree are simply wrong. "high" is indeed the perfect description to give yourself. You're giving yourself a compliment, and too much credit for someone who has been ignoring the issue because you can not prove it. It's as simple as that. If you could, you would and be done with it.

Im not going to respond to name calling, and insults any longer. Ive been advised by a mod to ignore it, so I am.

Again, where have I called you a name? All I've done is disagree with your claim of redbox's PM's being insulting while giving evidence to support that claim. I've also disagreed with your claim of two 7800GTX's not being able to handle 8xAA since mine were 8 pipelines short of your setup.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
How are we supposed to know the exact location of HardOCP's pic? Why do you need to take one? They've supplied comparison pics. The facts are the facts, ATis AF looks better. Get over it.

I have also said RPG's were not my bag. I got Oblivion because of all the hype. I played it for around 30 hours, and did enjoy it. Got over it, and got rid of it. Its not an excuse, I simply dont have the game. Im sure you can find many others that do have it.

I don't believe that hardocp's comparison picture accurately portrayed the capablilities of nvidia's AF system at settings most people would use in that game (the size of the screenshot for starters). That is why I'd like a save of that location so I can produce a screenshot representative of what an enthusiast with highend hardware, concerned about about IQ would see on their own screen.

You (and a heck of a lot of other people on this forum and others) are WAY, WAY to willing to just blindly accept what a review or article tells you about a particular topic. I don't believe anything other than my own firsthand experiences. YOu might just as well be a flock of sheep - don't think for yourselves - just follow the shepherd/pied/piper.