interesting.... that's not what this showed: http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=m...index&req=viewarticle&artid=182&page=3
look at page 4 of the article.
nvidia has since optimized the drivers for COD2 so that could explain the difference in the firing squad article. they said they used "extra" textures for the x800xl tests, but they dont say what texture settings they used for the GTX memory test. if it was automatic the game would have turned down quality for the 256meg card. i'm still getting the 512 over another GT for sli.
I stand by my previous post:
If you have a problem with him, take it up with the mods or post it in FI. Crapping in this thread with what is essentially a flame/troll against a particular poster is not constructive, and likely to simply antagonize people further. We don't need more of that.
Once you get a better idea of what Hardocp does, you can really start to appreicate their testing format. Their graphs not only show min fps but you can clearly see how often each card drops during the benchmarks. For example:
Card A = Hits 100fps often but just as often dips down to 25fps. Avg = 50.
Card B = Hits 100fps less times but also has much fewer dips down to 25fps. Avg = 50.
Taking an avegae of both cards will have them seem evenly matched but the graphs will tell the real story. Card B is a much better choice.
Also, Hardocp's max playable settings give you a clear idea of what each card can do in a real gaming scenario. I saw one poster claim that the fear screen shot wasn't apples to apples but does it matter if one card can't play the game properly with those settings??? IQ features are only good if you can use them. When I spend $600+ for a card, I'm not paying for theories. HDR + AA is prime example of that. Sorry but for me, it's not a playable option but just a "guess what I have that you don't!" feature. Hopefully Hardocp will add 1920x1200 resolution to their tests soon (as kyle stated) and make me a happy panda.
For 1920x1200 I had to look at hardocp's graphs to see which card is more consitant during play and then look at the Hexus.net review for 1920x1200 standard testing to see how each card would scale to that resolution. For me, the 7800GTX 512 is the clear winner.
Card A = Hits 100fps often but just as often dips down to 25fps. Avg = 50.
Card B = Hits 100fps less times but also has much fewer dips down to 25fps. Avg = 50.
Taking an avegae of both cards will have them seem evenly matched but the graphs will tell the real story. Card B is a much better choice.
Also, Hardocp's max playable settings give you a clear idea of what each card can do in a real gaming scenario. I saw one poster claim that the fear screen shot wasn't apples to apples but does it matter if one card can't play the game properly with those settings??? IQ features are only good if you can use them. When I spend $600+ for a card, I'm not paying for theories. HDR + AA is prime example of that. Sorry but for me, it's not a playable option but just a "guess what I have that you don't!" feature. Hopefully Hardocp will add 1920x1200 resolution to their tests soon (as kyle stated) and make me a happy panda.
For 1920x1200 I had to look at hardocp's graphs to see which card is more consitant during play and then look at the Hexus.net review for 1920x1200 standard testing to see how each card would scale to that resolution. For me, the 7800GTX 512 is the clear winner.
i like hardocp's method, they show the graph where you can see what the worst case scenario framerate is (much more important than average IMHO), and how often it drops. keep it up. remember when everyone thought that x800 series were better than 6800series in HL2 because they had higher averages? one of hardocp's graphs showed that when there weren't a lot things going on the screen, the x800xl fps was much higher than the 6800gt's (skewing the average) but when things got heavy the 6800gt was actually faster. average figures dont mean $hit, unless you enjoy staring at a wall.
That AMD article used the COD2 demo, and not the full version. Not sure if that makes a big difference or not with COD2, but the FEAR demo definitely ran worse than retail. Either way, the links I provided show almost the same result to the AMDZone one-- the x800XL 512mb card gets a good boost over it's 256mb little brother in COD2. A 30% increase according to FS.
The increase gained by the 512GTX isn't as good. In some cases, as shown by FS, it was actually slower than a 256GTX (they clocked the 512GTX down to 256GTX levels), and in some cases like COD2, it was about a 10% increase... which is not a big deal when we're talking about going from 26 to 28fps.
While I would love to have a 512GTX, the price for the performance just doesn't justify it over the GT SLI right now. The GT SLI costs $100 less (and even less if you find a FS/FT cheaper) right now, and performs better in most cases, but only by an average of about 10%. When the 512GTX drops to around $600, then I would say it is a better buy, even though the GT SLI will still have a little better peformance.
HardOCP's graphs are outstanding. But what they should do is have a bunch of these graphs at a variety of different resolutions/AA settings instead of choosing some "playable" settings. That would pretty much be the perfect video card review as far as I am concerned.
If that were the case, why wouldn't I just go out and buy an XT? Want to know why? Because I don't think it's worth $599 either just like I don't think the 512 GTX is worth the $750 it was going for last night (don't know if prices have changed today). In fact, I prefer nVidia products over ATi for several reasons:
1. Support for custom refresh rates built into the driver.
2. I prefer TRSSAA over AAA even if it takes a bigger hit.
3. Digital Vibrance.
4. Better OpenGL drivers that span across the entire product line.
5. Although not video related, their chipsets are obviously superior.
The 100% certified fanatic that I had a long time ago is just as meaningless as "100% certified nVidiot" that I've had as the caption for several months now.
However, rather than attack my what you perceive may be my preference for a hardware vendor, tell me why I'm wrong in stating that reviews do not show the whole picture in regards to performance between the two cards because they fail to benchmark with transparent AA/Adaptive AA and high quality filtering? The entire basis of my complaint is that if someone is going to spend that much money on either card, they aren't likely concerned much about it being future proof (hence why I disagree with BFG on 2048x1536 being a relevant resolution) since those type of people tend to upgrade every cycle anyhow. Also, in today's games after spending a large sum of money on either of those cards, you'd expect to run them with TRSSAA/AAA and HQ AF, not multisampling AA or in nVidia's case, quality AF that causes shimmer in some games. Furthermore, 4xTRSSAA/AAA is the best possible IQ a reviewer can use to benchmark the two cards because nVidia cards do not have a 6xTRSSAA mode built into the drivers. If we were discussing a midrange card, then sure, resolution and multisampling AA + lower quality AF would be big factors, but not as much for $600/$750 cards.
Huh? I have no problem with the 7800GTX 512MB - it's a great card, the best money can buy! I do still hold that it's too expensive, and that $700 is a joke for a single video card. $1400 for an SLI rig of video cards? No thank you!
With that said, I'd also say that a $599 X1800XT is overpriced too.
IMO the $300 7800GT is where it's at :thumbsup: . Every generation I'm all about best deal price for performance; last gen it was the 6800GT/X800XL; this gen the 7800GT is the clear winner IMO.
A 7800 GTX @ $350-400 ain't bad too
.I expect the 512mb to drop in price, give it a few weeks. Dont give in to price gougers.
5150 has a good point I think. Ever since I got my GTX (and the drivers actually worked for it I used AdaptiveAA. Why? Because it looks better. MUCH better in BF2, with all the fences, and such. I personally dont think a review is complete, without maxing out the cards graphically, which sadly is hardly ever done. I dont think someone buying a $750 card is going to use normal AA, unless they just dont know about the other settings, and are ignorant to them.
No it wasnt. It was $599 most places, including newegg. Once they sold out, then on their second, third, etc batch of cards they raised the price.
5150 has a good point I think. Ever since I got my GTX (and the drivers actually worked for it I used AdaptiveAA. Why? Because it looks better. MUCH better in BF2, with all the fences, and such. I personally dont think a review is complete, without maxing out the cards graphically, which sadly is hardly ever done. I dont think someone buying a $750 card is going to use normal AA, unless they just dont know about the other settings, and are ignorant to them.
No it wasnt. It was $599 most places, including newegg. Once they sold out, then on their second, third, etc batch of cards they raised the price.
Yes, AAA is Adaptive AA for ATi. NV's is Transparancey AA. Both greatly improve AA quality in certain things. I would REALLY like to see reviews use these.
I've currently got my new VP930b sitting next to my 19" Viewsonic PS790 CRT (which, I must say, looks REALLY sad now that I have a brand-new LCD monitor next to it; I didn't realize how bad the contrast had really gotten).
To me, the ATI AAA looks better at the 'same' setting (ie, 2xAAA versus 2xTRSSAA) on both displays. NVIDIA's 8xS is the best, but I would hope so, since it is taking more samples than 6xAA on the ATI cards. It does seem that being on a razor-sharp LCD makes the flaws in ATI's image stand out more, but IMO NVIDIA's TRSSAA still looks worse. For instance, in this shot, the "4xTRSSAA" has visibly more 'noise' in the overlapping chainlink than the "4xAD AA". On my CRT, the image is slightly less sharp, making the 'noise' less visible on both cards, but then the NVIDIA image just looks muddy.
videoclone
Golden Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 1,465
- 0
- 0
"nods" Yes you should love not hate!
I love everyone here! even if you are all using the Quote tab like madmen!This thread puts fire in the belly of most video card enthusiasts and for some makes them sick! ^___^ Go anandtech forums weeeeee.
Powermoloch
Lifer
- Jul 5, 2005
- 10,084
- 4
- 76
secretanchitman
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2001
- 9,352
- 23
- 91
but its the best of the best.
think about it. 7800GTX was like 500-600+ bucks the day/week it came out. now look at the prices. its below MSRP (i think).
its going to be the same way for the 512MB gtx. just give it a couple of weeks and it'll drop below 650 at least.
think about it. 7800GTX was like 500-600+ bucks the day/week it came out. now look at the prices. its below MSRP (i think).
its going to be the same way for the 512MB gtx. just give it a couple of weeks and it'll drop below 650 at least.
Why is the price so surprising? The 512MB 6800 Ultras started at over a grand each, and I remember that ZZF was sold out of their XFX cards (at a price of > $1100). I remember reading an article - perhaps it was an interview with a BFG representative - where, in the case of the 6800 Ultra 512MB, the manufacturers are now confident that $1000 cards will sell. I see the rapage at the high-end getting only worse as time goes on. I agree with the hitman though, the prices will likely drop to MSRP or below in a few weeks. The % price reduction may even be greater than the 7800GTX.
It's probably surprising to some people because they were listening to their local Nividia evangelist Rollo who kept going around telling everyone that the cards would be plentiful at launch and competitively priced.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter