There should really be a seperate forum for the sponsored posters. This is getting out of hand. When I clicked on the link thinking I'd have 49 replies of useful information I was sorely disappointed.
So the HW ratio is 2:1 for NV. The error ratio is 3:1, it does not reflect the HW one. What's your point again?
My point is that numbers taken out of context or misinterpreted mean little very little.
2:1 is for all systems polled, including XP which is still the overwhelming majority of all systems at ~82% compared to ~17% for Vista (32/64 for both). 9.20% of that 17% run DX10 parts or 54.1% of Vista machines run DX10 cards.
8.05% of that 9.20% are NV parts or 87.5% of those DX10 cards in Vista are NV parts.
If you apply the 60/30 split to the remaining non-DX10 Vista parts, you'll get 16.96 (All Vista users) - 9.20 (All Vista+DX10) = 7.76%(x.60) =~4.65 Non-DX10 NV parts.
Add that 4.65 to the 8.05 NV DX10 parts= 12.70 (All NV Vista) and divide by 16.96 (All Vista) = 74.9% of all Vista systems are running NV cards. So yes, this definitely shows that if 75% of Vista Gaming Systems are running NV hardware, 30% failure rate is par for the course and is certainly better than any other FUD offered as evidence to the contrary.
59,907 out of 140,011 or 42.78% of Geforce 8800 parts are run in Vista. Now Compare that % to the total breakout again of XP and Vista of 82 and 17% respectively.
Again, this is all more compelling proof that the points Rollo presented cannot be simply discarded as fanboism or "paid advertisement." And don't get me wrong, I'm not one to normally agree with Rollo or his approach, but his conclusions are similar to ones I came to very quickly after reading the headline, even before reading similar echoed by DT in their own article.
Let me ask you this way. If I went from ATI DX9 to NV DX10 at the end of 2007 where is my comp accounted for? What bracket?Originally posted by: chizow
...
My point is that numbers taken out of context or misinterpreted mean little very little.
9.20% of that 17% run DX10 parts or 54.1% of Vista machines run DX10 cards.
8.05% of that 9.20% are NV parts or 87.5% of those DX10 cards in Vista are NV parts.
If you apply the 60/30 split to the remaining non-DX10 Vista parts, you'll get 16.96 (All Vista users) - 9.20 (All Vista+DX10) = 7.76%(x.60) =~4.65 Non-DX10 NV parts.
Add that 4.65 to the 8.05 NV DX10 parts= 12.70 (All NV Vista) and divide by 16.96 (All Vista) = 74.9% of all Vista systems are running NV cards. So yes, this definitely shows that if 75% of Vista Gaming Systems are running NV hardware, 30% failure rate is par for the course and is certainly better than any other FUD offered as evidence to the contrary.
59,907 out of 140,011 or 42.78% of Geforce 8800 parts are run in Vista. Now Compare that % to the total breakout again of XP and Vista of 82 and 17% respectively.
Again, this is all more compelling proof that the points Rollo presented cannot be simply discarded as fanboism or "paid advertisement." And don't get me wrong, I'm not one to normally agree with Rollo or his approach, but his conclusions are similar to ones I came to very quickly after reading the headline, even before reading similar echoed by DT in their own article.
Or there shouldnt be any at all. They all have an agenda. And only one company is doing it. To sway consumers in one direction, towards NV. The vast majority of the posts, are to credit NV, and discredit ATi. This isnt allowed on every forum, thankfully. I just ignored the paid mouth pieces anyways.
The extreme amount of spin and fanboyism on the arguments here is getting annoying. I have never owned a ATI card but I always try to suggest it over Nvidia if it suits people needs, and if it's a close equal, I recommend ATI because competition is good. My only fear is that some(2?) posters here are afraid of Nvidia retaliating against them by canceling their membership if post any stuff that can look like it's anti-Nvidia or pro-ATI, and that some other posters could be trying to get into the free hardware bandwagon by posting pro-Nvidia and anti-ATI stuff. And I don't even blame them, it's basic human tendency. I think Nvidia has ruined this forums by basically recruiting some of the good posters and by tempting others with free hardware.
wierd.......intel gma's arent having as many problems im sure they have some market share in them.
Please lock this thread now as its boring and fuck all to do with how the Forceware 174.74's are performing.
Instead its about who has the biggest fucking forehead you sad little nerds.
Next youll be telling me that leonardo De Vinci invented the Helicopter. go to the highly technical forum and talk your percentages there cos you're boring.
Instead its about who has the biggest fucking forehead you sad little nerds.
Next youll be telling me that leonardo De Vinci invented the Helicopter. go to the highly technical forum and talk your percentages there cos you're boring.
That is really funny to hear you say that BFG. When ATi broke games that were less then a year old you seemed to think it was completely acceptable because it was too old. What is different now?
surfsatwerk
Lifer
- Mar 6, 2008
- 10,110
- 5
- 81
I think we're all better off assuming 99% of all statistics on the internets are made up on the spot.
Regardless I think any reader is capable of looking at any of the articles and number quoted in this thread and come to the conclusion that we're not getting a complete picture to make any judgments with a 100% degree of certainty. It was kinda stupid for Microsoft to release partial numbers without any point of reference.
Regardless I think any reader is capable of looking at any of the articles and number quoted in this thread and come to the conclusion that we're not getting a complete picture to make any judgments with a 100% degree of certainty. It was kinda stupid for Microsoft to release partial numbers without any point of reference.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,005
- 126
Hey cool, me too, providing the driver supports my currently installed video card.
Although lately I must confess I?ve largely been ignoring nVidia?s leaked betas as they seem to cause more trouble than they?re worth.
At one stage I was running 20-30 benchmarks a month each time a new Catalyst driver was released on my 9700 Pro.
I take your point about some things breaking, getting fixed, and then breaking again. Like Descent 3 in Direct3D mode on my 9700 Pro, which used to stop working depending on the driver and then start working again later.
But I generally I found this sort of thing was a rarity, but to be fair it happened more on ATi than on nVidia.
Yep, I agree both vendors suck with their control panels. With nVidia I had similar issues where settings wouldn't stick, or even worse, appeared to stick but didn't actually set the value.
Another problem I had was when setting AA modes from nVidia?s tray other settings would change, like some of the optimizations which would magically decide to activate. Even worse was that some of them showed they were off in the control panel but Riva Tuner would be showing they were in fact enabled.
In a similar vein, there were at least two documented cases (i.e. the reviewers picked up on it) where nVidia drivers were not disabling optimizations when requested, one at the GF7?s launch and another quite recently on the same series.
For ATi I only ever installed the base driver and used ATi Tray Tools + Refresh Force to control the card.
The third party developers that work on their own time like Unwinder and Grestorn absolutely put both vendors to shame.
Your perspective is shared by myself. For me there?s a time for benchmarking/tweaking and a time for playing games. When I sit down to play games I expect to be able to play games and control panel problems interfere with my ability to do this.
Like I said earlier, both vendors? control panels are utter junk. :thumbsdown:
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,005
- 126
Yes they are. You don?t get to come in here and tell me my driver experiences are invalid or didn?t happen. Seriously, you don?t.
And what exactly are you doing? You?re even ignoring the chart because you somehow think GMA isn?t a factor when in reality it has the largest market share in Vista.
Wow, so many inaccuracies here, I don?t even know where to begin.
Perhaps a bullet list is best:
- I?ve complained about nVidia driver crashes frequently. I was posting up about them in November 2006 in the nVidia driver thread I linked to you repeatedly. In fact in this very thread I described three methods to get a BSOD on XP with current XP drivers without fail.
- Most of the early crashes weren?t constant, they were random. Like I?d decide to play a given game and would randomly either lock the system or stop responding and it had to be killed. I posted about this and nVidia apologists (not you, just in general) were up in arms, claiming it was a system issue. Funny how later nVidia drivers fixed my ?system issues?.
- Driver crashes aren?t the only measure of driver quality, though since we?re only talking about the crash chart I can see why you got the idea that?s all I was saying.
- nVidia hardware is vastly superior to ATi hardware on the high-end. But that has nothing to do with driver quality. Nothing at all.
My experiences were relevant at the time the cards were being used. Even today I can drop my X800 XL into my system and observe less issues than something like a 7800 GT.
And I believe your three year limit has marched on since it?s now 2008. So this year would you be happy if Quake 4, Serious Sam 2, Call of Duty 2 and Fear stopped working in the name of progress?
They didn?t, at least not in the way you?re saying. nVidia cards were broken since the GF 5xx series after a driver update with no changes to the OS, DirectX or game. Meanwhile ATi cards as high as the X19xx series still run the game fine, as do the latest versions of Intel GMA.
This isn?t a palletized texture issue; the author of the fix clearly states so.
Nope, all you?ll get out of me is that ATi?s unified parts have broken drivers that need to be fixed.
Again X19xx hardware and lower runs the game fine while nVidia?s broken all the way back to GF 5xxx. What you?ll also get out of me is that Intel has them both beaten in this respect.
And again it?s not a DirectX, certification or game issue as GMA and ATI <=X19xx have certified drivers and run the game without problems.
This is a strawman argument. I never claimed ATi?s drivers were flawless, nor did I ask for monthly releases not to fix things. Please don?t make up rubbish.
There is something to improve on. Every vendor has something to improve on because no drivers are perfect and because new games are constantly coming out.
So which would you rather have, regular monthly improvements or ?we?ll release it whenever we feel like it, but here are some beta scraps to fight over in the meantime?.
Official hotfixes, or taking your chances with leaked beta drivers or not getting a fix for months. Which would you prefer?
In Unreal 2 titles on GF 8xxx/9xxx hardware.
ATi cards haven?t been stuttering since launch, have they? AFAIK the hotfix is for 3D clocks dropping to 2D clocks momentarily and that?s been around only for the past few months.
This is unlike say nVidia?s Alt-Tab issue which started back in at least 2004 (if not earlier) and wasn?t fixed until 2007, after escalating to Vista no less.
And where?s my hotfix for Unreal 2 engine stuttering that?s been happening since Nov 06 on GF 8xxx hardware, most of which are TWIMTBP titles?
We have an admission from nVidia it?s a driver problem, plus a promise it?ll be fixed in 17x.xx drivers, but so far there?s no fix.
I'm not telling you your driver experiences are invalid or didn't happen when they *actually happen*, but how much experience do you have with ATI drivers and hardware in the last year? The last two? The last three? Oh right, you read about how glamourous they are on the internet. And I'm sure you still haven't touched Vista on your gaming rig. So exactly how are you going to make claims like "ATI has better drivers than NV and the Vista crash chart is just further evidence"?
No I provided very real data, as real as you're going to find for free short of a subpoena. Funniest thing is I just stumbled upon that survey because I knew some of the traditional numbers and axioms being thrown around, like 40% Intel chipsets and "GMA runs games fine" just didn't seem right in this instance. You should actually read the original story at CRN and at Ars to see many industry analysts came to similar conclusions without referencing any heavy statistics like the Valve survey.
I'm not ignoring Intel's contribution for the sake of ignoring it, I just don't think it has any significance and should be closer to 0% rather than 10%. We are talking about the same GMA that can't run Aero and is the center of a very real class action law suit? We've jumped through these hoops before, but unlike the "Essential Vista" complaints against NV, the filings against Microsoft have teeth.
If you believe the Vista Capable sticker on PCs with Intel chipsets, you'd be able to assume ~40% of Vista machines were at least running a semi-strenuous application with 3D Aero which might cause crashes. Except we know that many of these Intel PCs weren't even capable of running Aero (hence the lawsuit). And for games? Well we can see from the Steam survey that Gaming Machines simply do not use Intel integrated chipsets. So what exactly are these Intel chipsets doing that would cause them to crash? Texas Hold' Em? 3D Mahjongg? Internet Explorer? Excel? Outlook? There's simply no reason to compare Intel's video contributions because they really shouldn't be causing crashes at all.
Well I take that back then, you've got lower standards than I thought. Sorry but I'm not sure how you'd complain more about ugly textures in an 8 year old game more than show-stopping crashes and bugs. If a part or system can't run without constantly crashing I'm dismantling it and replacing it, simple as that.
You can't say that for any certainty since its been over a year since you used either of those parts. Hell in the very latest ATI patch notes there was a tidbit about fixing random crashes for X800 parts in current titles. Whatever experiences you may have remembered with your X800 will be very different than if you tried using it today. Just like old software, old hardware eventually runs its course and drops out of support.
If QW:ET, STALKER, Call of Duty 4 and Crysis all play without issue then of course I'd have no complaints. And they all do along with every single other game I've played through over the last year on my GTS and GTX. Crash-free. And in Vista 64 (since June/July). Amazing right?
Except you don't know for certain the driver change wasn't a result of a DirectX change or change in WHQL submission guidelines. Ben and Apoppin already did the homework on that one and outlined a plausible scenario with Microsoft documented changes to the DDraw library and updated WHQL candidacy guidelines. Even if DDraw calls shouldn't be an issue and its not a palletized texture issue like the MS white paper outlines, it really seems all too obvious that an API change caused the problem as the 3rd party fix alters the API .dll and directs the .exe to point to the altered library.
As long as you're (accurately) keeping track of the score, heh.
When's the last time you used GMA or run Thief/Thief 2 using an Intel onboard GPU? If you haven't I'd prefer you didn't make such statements as fact, given your past history making similar statements about ATI parts.
In any case, I've already stated my view of it. If MS tells NV they need to write drivers a certain way in order to run DX titles and obtain WHQL status and the overwhelming majority of games in that time frame or even based on the same engine don't exhibit any issues, you absolutely have to look at the offending application as the source of the problem. Otherwise there would be no benefit of having a standard API and unified driver packages which would need to be catered specifically to every single game.
You claimed ATI's drivers were better without any actual experience for over 3 years and claimed they were superior to NV's with monthly fixes without actually knowing if they fixed anything or not.
New games come out sure, but if all games follow DX guidelines, performance and compatibility shouldn't rely so heavily on driver updates. Also, NV has been exceptional with driver updates coinciding big releases, often releasing Beta drivers for specific games with cumulative updates in their WHQL. I counted up all the drivers I installed in Vista since September and there has been over 12 of them (163+). I don't consider any to be particularly better than another. They might not be monthly or WHQL but they run everything I've thrown at them, for weeks without crashing so I can't complain.
If there was something that actually needed fixing I'd prefer the official fixes of course. But if Beta drivers work I'd be satisfied with those as well. And unlike my experiences with ATI's drivers (and their leaked "Omegas"), NV's driver install packages actually work even for their leaked/hacked Betas where I don't have to worry about them imploding. But again, I haven't needed a hot fix for any of the titles I've played in the last year+ on my GTS/GTX.
Actually someone commented in a recent thread saying the ATI issue was fixed for them in a previous driver release, so I guess they've been around awhile and are varied in remedy. Just no one knew about it because it didn't have a 17 page thread dedicated to ATI Stuttering. Or maybe because no one is buying ATI cards? Or maybe because there's a vocal few who buy NV but will never truly be happy because for whatever reason, they'll always prefer ATI. Or maybe people who own ATI are less likely to vocalize their problems for whatever reason. Like the guy above, who said he'll recommend ATI even though he hasn't used any of their product in years for the sake of competition. That's like a cardiologist recommending a pacemaker he knows nothing about so that he'll have more options if he ever needs a transplant in the future. But anyways, I think my point is clear, that you have no basis for your claims that ATI's drivers are better than NV's without using both parts concurrently.
I have to disagree with you there. The Omega drivers have worked for me without fail on a 9600XT, X800XL, X800GTO2, X1800XL, and a comp I built for my friend with a 2900XT. Omegas drivers aren't "leaked"...they're like any optimized driver and is based on the original just with added features/optimizations (ie. IIRC Adaptive AA for X800 cards were first possible without registry tweaks with Omega drivers).
The one time I tried to install an nVidia 3rd party driver (XtremeG driver) when I had my 8800GTS 640 (it was in hopes of fixing some problem I had with Gothic 3 I think), it screwed up my Win XP installation and required a reinstall. I've never tried one since and have stuck to WHQL drivers from nVidia. Although lately there haven't really been any problems...when I first got the GTS 640 there were numerous issues (the most annoying of which was not being able to play Splinter Cell: Double Agent).
At least for me my experience with drivers has been much more positive with ATI.
Originally posted by: SniperDaws
Please lock this thread now as its boring and fuck all to do with how the Forceware 174.74's are performing.
Instead its about who has the biggest fucking forehead you sad little nerds.
Next youll be telling me that leonardo De Vinci invented the Helicopter. go to the highly technical forum and talk your percentages there cos you're boring.
QFT
sorry for my contribution to this thing getting off topic ... there's way too much non sense going on in here to really salvage it ... we could start like 3 other threads about all this stuff.
if anyone cares to carry on a part of this discussion, feel free to start a thread about it. for now, i don't think this one is doing anyone any good.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter