Rumor of possible yield problems with the G71

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Matt2

FEAR 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF

X1900XTX------ 48 fps average/ 25fps minimum

48 fps? Now throw HDR into the mix and you have more than likely sucessfully brought your "future-proof" card to its knees.

So, again, the point that you completely missed is that NEW HDR games such as UT2007 and other HDR enabled games are not going to run very well on the X1900XTX with AA, max IQ settings and AF and at high resolutions. That thought is purely wishful thinking.

So when all those new games come out with HDR, X1900XT/X owners are likely going to have to choose between HDR+AA or high resolutions. For CRT owners who game high res, not a good tradeoff. What about those with high res LCDs??? Screwed.

By the time high res, max IQ and HDR+AA is possible, we're going to be looking at G80/R600 and the obsolecense of your "future-proof" card

First off, FEAR is an anomaly whose graphics do not justify it's exorbitant requirements. Even newer games coming out this year will most likely not run as poorly as FEAR. It's a badly coded game.

Second, if in fact the card cannot handle HDR+AA+Hi-res, for me I am sticking with the eye candy and lowering the res. Anyone on a CRT can do this. People on LCDs have a more difficult choice but that's their own fault for choosing this type of monitor that's not optimal for gaming.

 

[Munky]

Well, now that the thread has completely shifted the subject, I must comment re: HDR+AA

The feature in itself will not likely sway anyone to get the x1900 just based on the ability to do HDR+AA. Right now the x1900xt just happens to be a superior card to any other in terms of the overall features, price and performance. HDR with AA is only the icing on the cake. However, given 2 cards with everything else being equal, I would definitely pick the one that could do HDR with AA, not the one that couldnt. Moreover, HDR+AA IS the future: it's not a matter of "if" it will be used in all A-list games, but "when." And "when" may very well be after the x1900 has outlived its usefulness, but that applies to many new features. An HDR implementation that makes you give up AA is just as primitive as an AF implementation that only works with bilinear filtering - it looks good on paper as a checkbox feature until a superior, no compromise solution makes it look laughable.

I remember back when the SM3/HDR argument was being used in favor of the 6800 series cards, and I said back then that by the time HDR games will be popular and SM3 eye candy becomes the new standard, the 6 series will be too slow to run any of those features with playable framerates. And, in return, the SM3/HDR "supporters" threw me a list of about 20 upcoming games that will supposedly use SM3 or HDR, and some benchmarks of a 1-year old Farcry game, showing how "awesome" it looked at 1024x768 0x0x with HDR. And now when the situation is reversed, I see the same people supporting the very same argument they were so busy refuting last year. Hypocracy at its best :frown:

 

[Paratus]

Well put munky.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: munky
Well, now that the thread has completely shifted the subject, I must comment re: HDR+AA

The feature in itself will not likely sway anyone to get the x1900 just based on the ability to do HDR+AA. Right now the x1900xt just happens to be a superior card to any other in terms of the overall features, price and performance. HDR with AA is only the icing on the cake. However, given 2 cards with everything else being equal, I would definitely pick the one that could do HDR with AA, not the one that couldnt. Moreover, HDR+AA IS the future: it's not a matter of "if" it will be used in all A-list games, but "when." And "when" may very well be after the x1900 has outlived its usefulness, but that applies to many new features. An HDR implementation that makes you give up AA is just as primitive as an AF implementation that only works with bilinear filtering - it looks good on paper as a checkbox feature until a superior, no compromise solution makes it look laughable.

I remember back when the SM3/HDR argument was being used in favor of the 6800 series cards, and I said back then that by the time HDR games will be popular and SM3 eye candy becomes the new standard, the 6 series will be too slow to run any of those features with playable framerates. And, in return, the SM3/HDR "supporters" threw me a list of about 20 upcoming games that will supposedly use SM3 or HDR, and some benchmarks of a 1-year old Farcry game, showing how "awesome" it looked at 1024x768 0x0x with HDR. And now when the situation is reversed, I see the same people supporting the very same argument they were so busy refuting last year. Hypocracy at its best :frown:

If you knew how to spell hypocrisy I'd take your flamebait more seriously.

However, you just want to splooge all over the fact that ATI finally figured out how to do things like HDR and SM3 a year and a half after nVidia pioneered the tech and play up minor differences in the cards like they're the difference between black and white and color tv.

What a crock. :roll:

AFAIK you're still using that X800GTO, what do you care what X1900s or 7800GTXs will do? You're using angle dependent AF, no EXR HDR, no Soft Stencil Shadows, no HDR+AA, no multicard, no SM3, no Transparency AA, and here you are bragging up the X1900XT like you built the thing.

:roll:

Give it a rest, we all know ATI finally came up with a good card. We don't need you to call us hypocrites if we don't kneel before your God sporting a fattie because they figured out how to add AA to the HDR.

Hey Munky- until the X1800 was released, why weren't you here telling us all we should be buying 7800GTXs? Are you a hypocrite because you didn't champion nVidia for for the year and a half their feature set was far more advanced than ATIs, and yet you were championing primitive ATI cards?

And now WE'RE hypocrites because ATI comes up with two lousy differences?!?

LOL- I think I see pretty clearly who the "hypocrite" is Munky- and it's not the guy who can spell it. How old are you anyway?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Well put munky.

No it wasn't.

He's doing the same thing he always does: making a defintion of what a card should be based on what the current ATI card is.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: munky
Well, now that the thread has completely shifted the subject, I must comment re: HDR+AA

The feature in itself will not likely sway anyone to get the x1900 just based on the ability to do HDR+AA. Right now the x1900xt just happens to be a superior card to any other in terms of the overall features, price and performance. HDR with AA is only the icing on the cake. However, given 2 cards with everything else being equal, I would definitely pick the one that could do HDR with AA, not the one that couldnt. Moreover, HDR+AA IS the future: it's not a matter of "if" it will be used in all A-list games, but "when." And "when" may very well be after the x1900 has outlived its usefulness, but that applies to many new features. An HDR implementation that makes you give up AA is just as primitive as an AF implementation that only works with bilinear filtering - it looks good on paper as a checkbox feature until a superior, no compromise solution makes it look laughable.

I remember back when the SM3/HDR argument was being used in favor of the 6800 series cards, and I said back then that by the time HDR games will be popular and SM3 eye candy becomes the new standard, the 6 series will be too slow to run any of those features with playable framerates. And, in return, the SM3/HDR "supporters" threw me a list of about 20 upcoming games that will supposedly use SM3 or HDR, and some benchmarks of a 1-year old Farcry game, showing how "awesome" it looked at 1024x768 0x0x with HDR. And now when the situation is reversed, I see the same people supporting the very same argument they were so busy refuting last year. Hypocracy at its best :frown:

If you knew how to spell hypocrisy I'd take your flamebait more seriously.

The hypocrite feels offended when his name isnt mentioned to begin with... what a coincidence

However, you just want to splooge all over the fact that ATI finally figured out how to do things like HDR and SM3 a year and a half after nVidia pioneered the tech and play up minor differences in the cards like they're the difference between black and white and color tv.

That's actually not what my post said. Might wanna take off those green-tinted glasses

What a crock. :roll:

AFAIK you're still using that X800GTO, what do you care what X1900s or 7800GTXs will do? You're using angle dependent AF, no EXR HDR, no Soft Stencil Shadows, no HDR+AA, no multicard, no SM3, no Transparency AA, and here you are bragging up the X1900XT like you built the thing.

Dont forget texture shimmering... I also dont have that :laugh:
And what does my post have to do with what card I use? Try a new argument for a change...

:roll:

Give it a rest, we all know ATI finally came up with a good card. We don't need you to call us hypocrites if we don't kneel before your God sporting a fattie because they figured out how to add AA to the HDR.

And I dont need you prophesizing the future, when you were obviously wrong about how important SM3 and HDR were gonna be, and how we should all wait for the gtx512.

Hey Munky- until the X1800 was released, why weren't you here telling us all we should be buying 7800GTXs?

That was your job, not mine

Are you a hypocrite because you didn't champion nVidia for for the year and a half their feature set was far more advanced than ATIs, and yet you were championing primitive ATI cards?

That feature set sure proved useful didnt it? In which games, and at what settings?

And now WE'RE hypocrites because ATI comes up with two lousy differences?!?

So, when Ati is ahead, they're lousy differences. And when Nv is ahead, it's called a "far more advanced" feature set. Quoted for posterity...

LOL- I think I see pretty clearly who the "hypocrite" is Munky- and it's not the guy who can spell it. How old are you anyway?

No, apparently you dont see who the hypocrite is. But at least you can spell...:roll:

 

[Matt2]

There is definately hipocrisy that goes both ways.

I like the X1900XT/X for it's "different" approach...

... however...

I still think we're going to see a much bigger performance gain from the G71 if the specs are anywhere near the truth.

X1900XT/X provides in many cases only a marginal increase across the board with a few exceptions where it really outshines the current generation of cards. I think Nvidia's more "traditional" approach to G71 is going to give it a steady advantage over the X1900XT/X.

The real determining factor in who wins the Refresh War is whether Nvidia can deliver the G71 in quantity and at a decent price.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: munky
So, when Ati is ahead, they're lousy differences. And when Nv is ahead, it's called a "far more advanced" feature set. Interesting...

I dont know about that one munky, that's a bit of a stretch. The feature set between the X1800/1900 and the 7800 series are much closer than X800 vs 6800/7800.

Hey guys, just so you know, I buy Oakley sunglasses as often as I buy compter hardware.

I've got some Oakley Juliet sunglasses with fire (red) lenses that I'll sell to you munky...

Oh and Rollo... for you... I have the same Juliet frames with emerald (green) lenses that you can have for a small price...

:beer:

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: munky
So, when Ati is ahead, they're lousy differences. And when Nv is ahead, it's called a "far more advanced" feature set. Interesting...

I dont know about that one munky, that's a bit of a stretch. The feature set between the X1800/1900 and the 7800 series are much closer than X800 vs 6800/7800.

Hey guys, just so you know, I buy Oakley sunglasses as often as I buy compter hardware.

I've got some Oakley Juliet sunglasses with fire (red) lenses that I'll sell to you munky...

Oh and Rollo... for you... I have the same Juliet frames with emerald (green) lenses that you can have for a small price...

:beer:

Got any oakleys with red and green tinted lens for those of us that like both companies?

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: munky
So, when Ati is ahead, they're lousy differences. And when Nv is ahead, it's called a "far more advanced" feature set. Interesting...

I dont know about that one munky, that's a bit of a stretch. The feature set between the X1800/1900 and the 7800 series are much closer than X800 vs 6800/7800.

Hey guys, just so you know, I buy Oakley sunglasses as often as I buy compter hardware.

I've got some Oakley Juliet sunglasses with fire (red) lenses that I'll sell to you munky...

Oh and Rollo... for you... I have the same Juliet frames with emerald (green) lenses that you can have for a small price...

:beer:

Got any oakleys with red and green tinted lens for those of us that like both companies?

hehe... no, but I have some Oakley half jackets with the interchangable lenses. You can have one eye green and one eye red...

Now that I think about it, that would look really awkward to see on the streets

EDIT: typo. Late. Work in morning. :thumbsdown:

 

[Cookie Monster]

THIS is why we need a third competitor.. or even a fourth. S3 needs to get its act together by actually focusing on the AA department instead of using a series of hacks to implement SSAA as their default AA.

If S3 can pull it off we get three colors to fight over. Blue, Green and Red.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
THIS is why we need a third competitor.. or even a fourth. S3 needs to get its act together by actually focusing on the AA department instead of using a series of hacks to implement SSAA as their default AA.

If S3 can pull it off we get three colors to fight over. Blue, Green and Red.

I've got ice blue juliets too!!

Seriously though, I dont think we'll ever see a third competitor in the graphics arena again.

Nvidia and ATI are just too big and have too much money for any other company to keep up.

 

[Ronin]

Screw S3. Go XGI!

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: Rollo
I applauded the nV40 for giving developers the tools to bring displacement mapping, EXR HDR, soft stencil shadows, and geometry instancing into the world so we could have games that play them years earlier than we would have if this were left up to ATI.

Parhelia "gave" us DM and ATI has had GI since 9700P. NV did give us FP blending first. I'm not sure about soft shadows. I believe NV helped SSs with PCF in terms of performance, but I think SSs are still available on R300-R520, in which case PCF/Fetch4 isn't required.

I was saying we need to reward nVidia for bringing features like this to market, because without that, no games.

Er, games still, tho maybe not as pretty.

Big roll eyes to your ad-hom of linkgoron, especially considering the shaky arguments (strawmen and contradictions) in your preceding and subsequent posts.

Anyway, yeah, HDR is currently niche (HDR+AA, moreso), but there are more than two games that pimp it. HW.fr lists five "HDR" games in their X1900XT(X) review (words French, graphs universal--look for the inevitable English translation at BeHardware.com): HL2 (& CSS & DoD), Far Cry, SS2, SC:CT, and AoE3. ATI can apply AA to HDR in four of those, NV in two. In the two cases where we can compare HDR+AA, ATI & NV are pretty even in HL2 (both use the same methods), and ATI whups NV in AoE3 (ATI uses FX10 + MSAA, NV uses FP16 + SSAA). FC and SS2 show an almost halving of framerate when adding MSAA to FP16 HDR at 16x12 and 19x12. (This could be b/c the cards hit a bandwidth wall. Still, dialing down the res should net playable framerates at 10x7 and maybe 12x10. The question becomes, is HDR nice enough to warrant dropping screen res that far?) SC:CT doesn't allow for AA with HDR, but I'm not sure if there's a technical reason for it (also, it renders HDR with FX16 for ATI and FP16 for NV). In AoE3, adding AA to HDR costs ATI 10% (FX10 + MSAA), but it costs NV almost half their framerate (FP16 + SSAA are fillrate and bandwidth vampires).

So HDR + AA doesn't look that out there, especially when using ATI's new (and so far exclusive) FX10 mode. Dunno how the lower precision affects the "HD" part of HDR, though apparently you can achieve FP16-equivalent range with lower-precision formats and some creativity (albeit with some limits--see nAo's and DeanoC's posts in B3D's console section). We'll see how HDR is implemented on PS3, but you have to think something along the lines of FX10 or HL2's "dynamic range" solution will be preferable to bandwidth-sapping, ROP-consuming FP16 blending on a part with a 128-bit memory bus.

I'd like to see an IQ summary and comparison in these HDR titles, and five seem like enough for a decent article. I'd be interested in comparison shots w and wo HDR and--where applicable--b/w ATI and NV's different precisions and AA modes. SC:CT showed a noticable difference b/w "HDR" on ATI and NV, but I don't think SS2 or AoE3 showed the same.

Ugh, it'd also be nice to have a mod trim the absurd amount of flaming in this thread, namely the whole BouZouki cluster@#$%. While I didn't really appreciate the tone of B's first post, it didn't seem that different from Rollo's second--which got a similarly virulent response. Wonder why....

Anyway, I'm a fan of <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.hardware.fr/articles/605-17/radeon-x1900-xtx-x1900-xt-x1900-
<b">rossfire-test.html">HW.fr's performance summary</a> because it's nice to occasionally see the forest rather than only trees. It's helpful for those looking to game at 16x12 or 19x12, anyway. I suppose the next step would be to find a way to dynamically normalize those scores relative to price--dynamic in that as prices change, so does price/performance, which is probably a simpler and therefore stronger purchase determinant than minimum desired performance. IOW, ppl are probably more likely to seek the best bang for their buck rather than explicitly check which card offers the framerates they want in the games they'll play, which is more SLI/XFire money-is-no-object territory (it's equally valid, just probably applicable to fewer people).

Edit: Holy @#$%, Rollo, if you were a mod you'd have to strike that entire reply of yours to munky. Along with most of BouZuoki's and some of Ronin's posts. You hear that, omnipresent and overworked AT mod? Get crackin'! And post something funny while you're at it.

 

[Ronin]

It's the freedom of NOT being a mod that allows us to post the way we do. You think I post like that on the nVIDIA forums (yes, I moderate them)? Hell no.

 

[Pete]

Not funny enough! Maybe something like this above a nuked post:

Shut yo mouth!
But I'm talkin' bout fanboys.
Then we can dig it.

*nuke*

 

[Gstanfor]

So HDR + AA doesn't look that out there, especially when using ATI's new (and so far exclusive) FX10 mode

This is the most amusing part of the whole "ATi has HDR and AA" argument to me. Where are the ATi precision trolls now - its less than FP32 (ATi like to trumpet that r5xx feature FP32 throughou the entire pipeline...), its less than FP24, the previous "golden standard according to ATi and the fanATics, its less than FP16 (nVidia/S3's partial precision, and not good enough/not part of the DX9 specs according to ATi and the fanATics), its even less precision than the FX12 mode found in nV30! It isn't an industry defined standard that has trickled down to consumers either.

Of course now that ATi's latest and greatest GPu uses it none of that matters to the fanATics...

 

[nRollo]

Munky on advanced features April, 2005

I'm not saying sm3 is bad to have, but I would not pay $50-100 more for a video card just to have it.
As far as visual features go (like HDR and soft shadows), I've already mentioned it before that most if not all of them can be done using sm2 if the developer choses to do so. And having HDR at the expense of AA doesn't seem like a good trade off.

So back then Munky didn't think it was worth $50 more to have SLI, Soft stencil shadows, HDR, SM3.

Now, some of us are supposedly "hypocrites" because we don't think HDR+AA and a method of AF nVidia used to do makes X1900s the only card to have. :roll:

Like I said, I know who the hypocrite is, and it's not the guy who can spell it.

These ATI fanboys that are telling the world "Your card is bad without angle independent AF and HDR AA" after spending the last year and a half saying multicard, soft stencil shadows, HDR, SM3, transparency AA were "not necessary" are the one who need to learn what hypocrite means. (not to mention how to spell it)

Like I said, they define what's necessary in a card as what ATI is producing at the moment, and that's all that matters.

When I said angle independent AF was important on nV30s, I was told it didn't matter. Now it's the whole reason to buy a card. :roll:

When nVidia had better transparency AA on EVERY game, it didn't matter. Now AA+HDR on two games is the reason to buy a card. :roll:

It's pretty sad when you think about it.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
THIS is why we need a third competitor.. or even a fourth. S3 needs to get its act together by actually focusing on the AA department instead of using a series of hacks to implement SSAA as their default AA.

If S3 can pull it off we get three colors to fight over. Blue, Green and Red.

Perhaps if Intel pulled it's thumbs out of it's ass it could create a worthwhile product in the Video Chip market. I agree wholeheartedly that more competition is needed as if anything it should help drive prices lower.

One of Matrox, S3, Intel, Via & SiS need to jump in and become that long needed 3rd party. Perhaps a petition with say 50,000 signatures would give them the kickstart they need to join in.


Edit: Just a bit of on topic stuff. I'll wait for a concrete source of information before believing yield problems, no matter how plausible, lol.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Pete
Parhelia "gave" us DM and ATI has had GI since 9700P. NV did give us FP blending first.

I'll retract if you're saying that developers could do the form of displacement mapping touted as a new feature in SM3, and geometry instancing as done on a nV40 with other cards prior to it's existence and post links to back you.

I'm not sure about soft shadows. I believe NV helped SSs with PCF in terms of performance, but I think SSs are still available on R300-R520, in which case PCF/Fetch4 isn't required.

AFAIK soft stencil shadows began with nV40s, again link me and I'll retract.

You'll have to do better than just saying this stuff: I don't care about ATIs driver workarounds that would have had to be custom coded and no one did.

I was saying we need to reward nVidia for bringing features like this to market, because without that, no games.

Er, games still, tho maybe not as pretty.

That's my whole point though isn't it? You know as well as I that every "new" feature in every game you play this year was made possible by the nV40, not some BS SM2b workaround ATI cobbled while scrambling to catch up for the last year. (and for sure not because of the Parhelia)

Big roll eyes to your ad-hom of linkgoron, especially considering the shaky arguments (strawmen and contradictions) in your preceding and subsequent posts.

I'd call my arguments better than yours so far. I flat out don't believe the Parhelia's displacement mapping is the same as what's made available in the SM3 feature set, I don't care if SM2b can emulate instancing because I only remember one game where the developer bothered to do the patch, and I don't believe any hardware prior to the nV40 could do soft stencil shadows at all.

Anyway, yeah, HDR is currently niche (HDR+AA, moreso), but there are more than two games that pimp it. HW.fr lists five "HDR" games in their X1900XT(X) review (words French, graphs universal--look for the inevitable English translation at BeHardware.com): HL2 (& CSS & DoD), Far Cry, SS2, SC:CT, and AoE3. ATI can apply AA to HDR in four of those, NV in two. In the two cases where we can compare HDR+AA, ATI & NV are pretty even in HL2 (both use the same methods), and ATI whups NV in AoE3 (ATI uses FX10 + MSAA, NV uses FP16 + SSAA). FC and SS2 show an almost halving of framerate when adding MSAA to FP16 HDR at 16x12 and 19x12. (This could be b/c the cards hit a bandwidth wall. Still, dialing down the res should net playable framerates at 10x7 and maybe 12x10. The question becomes, is HDR nice enough to warrant dropping screen res that far?) SC:CT doesn't allow for AA with HDR, but I'm not sure if there's a technical reason for it (also, it renders HDR with FX16 for ATI and FP16 for NV). In AoE3, adding AA to HDR costs ATI 10% (FX10 + MSAA), but it costs NV almost half their framerate (FP16 + SSAA are fillrate and bandwidth vampires).

This is a really long way to say HDR +AA is an issue on one good two year old game, and one bargain bin game. (SS2 is nice silly fun for little kids, but it's hardly the sort of thing guys considering a $500 card are going to say "OMFG! AA+HDR in Serious Sam2! When I release a bomb toting parrot at a buck toothed viking while doing a bad Schwarzenegger impersonation, it will look better!".
If you think anyone will be playing UT2007 with HDR +AA, heh, I sort of doubt it.

I'd like to see an IQ summary and comparison in these HDR titles, and five seem like enough for a decent article. I'd be interested in comparison shots w and wo HDR and--where applicable--b/w ATI and NV's different precisions and AA modes. SC:CT showed a noticable difference b/w "HDR" on ATI and NV, but I don't think SS2 or AoE3 showed the same.

I'd like to see this as well.

Ugh, it'd also be nice to have a mod trim the absurd amount of flaming in this thread, namely the whole BouZouki cluster@#$%. While I didn't really appreciate the tone of B's first post, it didn't seem that different from Rollo's second--which got a similarly virulent response. Wonder why....

No excuses for what I said to Bouzouki, he came into the thread flinging insults and flames for no reason. I merely pointed out it was immature.

Edit: Holy @#$%, Rollo, if you were a mod you'd have to strike that entire reply of yours to munky. Along with most of BouZuoki's and some of Ronin's posts. You hear that, omnipresent and overworked AT mod? Get crackin'! And post something funny while you're at it.

I'm not a mod, nor do I play one on tv.

The man who calls others hypocrites for not acknowledging the rare as Bigfoot and useful as a floppy disk HDR+AA after spending a year and a half saying the many advantages of nVidia during that time needed to be called on it.

 

[route66]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Munky on advanced features April, 2005

I'm not saying sm3 is bad to have, but I would not pay $50-100 more for a video card just to have it.

So back then Munky didn't think it was worth $50 more to have SLI, Soft stencil shadows, HDR, SM3.

Except, if you compare the price difference between an X1900 and 512GTX - you're paying more money for less features. So, nice try.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: route66

Originally posted by: Rollo
Munky on advanced features April, 2005

I'm not saying sm3 is bad to have, but I would not pay $50-100 more for a video card just to have it.

So back then Munky didn't think it was worth $50 more to have SLI, Soft stencil shadows, HDR, SM3.

Except, if you compare the price difference between an X1900 and 512GTX - you're paying more money for less features. So, nice try.

Except, no one had mentioned the 512 GTX at all. So, nice try.

:roll:

Since my point seemed to escape you Route 66, let me try to explain:

In 2005, Munky was saying the long list of nVidia specific features was not worth $50 to have.

These days, he's saying two ATI specific features, on of which is only implemented in two games, is worth buying a $500+ card.

No one is comparing cards here, I'm just saying that when ATI is behind by 4-5 features, Munky doesn't care. When ATI is ahead by two features, we're hypocrites for not pimping them like him.

Does that make more sense Route66? If it doesn't, could we get your mom or dad involved? I'd be happy to explain again, as I am your friend.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Munky on advanced features April, 2005

I'm not saying sm3 is bad to have, but I would not pay $50-100 more for a video card just to have it.
As far as visual features go (like HDR and soft shadows), I've already mentioned it before that most if not all of them can be done using sm2 if the developer choses to do so. And having HDR at the expense of AA doesn't seem like a good trade off.

So back then Munky didn't think it was worth $50 more to have SLI, Soft stencil shadows, HDR, SM3.

Now, some of us are supposedly "hypocrites" because we don't think HDR+AA and a method of AF nVidia used to do makes X1900s the only card to have. :roll:

Like I said, I know who the hypocrite is, and it's not the guy who can spell it.

These ATI fanboys that are telling the world "Your card is bad without angle independent AF and HDR AA" after spending the last year and a half saying multicard, soft stencil shadows, HDR, SM3, transparency AA were "not necessary" are the one who need to learn what hypocrite means. (not to mention how to spell it)

Like I said, they define what's necessary in a card as what ATI is producing at the moment, and that's all that matters.

When I said angle independent AF was important on nV30s, I was told it didn't matter. Now it's the whole reason to buy a card. :roll:

When nVidia had better transparency AA on EVERY game, it didn't matter. Now AA+HDR on two games is the reason to buy a card. :roll:

It's pretty sad when you think about it.

Nice try there, might wanna try harder next time. That quote was dated 04/25/2005 10:58 AM, well before the introduction of the 7 series, and at that time the fastest Nv card (6800u) was slower than the x850xt pe. So, apparently, you prefer to have more features at the expense of more speed. Then when the x1800 came out and was slower than the gtx512 but with newer features, you were pimping the gtx512, and conveniently flip-flopped to the speed argument at the expense of features. Now that your favorite company is lagging behind in both speed and features, I suggest you go hide under some rock before embarrasing yourself even further. And since we're digging up dirt from the past, let's see what Rollo had to say about the features in April 2005:Text

The rest of us know there have been three games so far, and will likely be more, where SM3/and the nV40 feature set make it the card to have

Well, it's been less than a year later, so explain to me how exactly the nv40 is the card to have? You should stick to reading the feature lists off the Nv marketing slides, because predicting the future is not your strong point. :laugh:

Oh, and for the record, I DO have transparency AA on my gto, and it didnt cost me a penny extra. Lets see you try and enable it on your "far more advanced" nv40...

And while you're busy derailing this thread, little do you realize that now for the second time in history Nv is lagging a whole generation behind in gpu architecture. The first time was when they came out with an outdated, last century 4x2 design nv30 to compete with a newer 8x1 design r300 - BIG MISTAKE. They caught on to the absurdity, and a year later released the nv40, with a more sensible 16x1 design to compete with Ati's 16x1 design. Now, Ati is once again moving forward with increased emphasis on shaders, while Nv is still stuck on the "pipe" idea. You can continue deluting yourself and others that pipes still matter. But the r580 has 48 shaders and 16 TMUs, the Xenos on the xbox360 also has 48 shaders and 16 TMUs, and the r600 and the g80 will also have more shaders than TMU. This isnt 2001, Quake3 is not the new big thing, and texture units are not the decisive advantage in vga cards. I dont care if you dont believe me, but I'm stating this for future reference in case you decide to do something stupid like try to dig up more dirt from the past 6 months from now.

*edited for the spelling police

 

[route66]

Hahaha, good one!
My point still stands - you pay less for more features.

PS - why start the personal insults against me?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: munky
Nice try there, might wanna try harder next time. That quote was dated 04/25/2005 10:58 AM, well before the introduction of the 7 series, and at that time the fastest Nv card (6800u) was slower than the x850xt pe.

I don't have to try harder Munky. I exposed your nature quite clearly.
On 4/25/2005, you were saying the features of the nV40 weren't worth $50.. The nV40 offered SM3, HDR, SLI, and Soft Stencil shadows at that time over primitive ATI parts. Four features. Now you say two features, one of which is used in only two games should make us join your "pimp the X1900" crusade.

You have no game Munky.