Wow, anyone see Ace's high polygon benchmarks?

[Hawk]

The Radeon kicked some major @$$!!! I wonder if it's very valid? I hope so! =)

http://www.aceshardware.com/board/general/read.php?message_id=20008422

 

[RoboTECH]

yep, I saw it. Let's wait a bit b4 we put all our eggs in that basket, but WOW!!!!!! if it is real, then we REALLY can see what the best 'future-proof' card is out there, eh?

 

[oldfart]

I saw it too. I posted a thread on the general board HERE. I posted my results:

I ran these demos on my system and got:
Demo 1: 48.5
Quavar: 62.6
NV15: 13.3<----wh00t!
This is with my Radeon @ 183/183

With Radeon @ 200/200 I get
Demo 1: 51.7
Quavar: 65.1
NV15: 13.6

Strange that Quavar is the higher than DM1??

My system:
PIII 550 @ 733
256 meg ram
Radeon 64
Win98 SE

Anyone else ran a test?

 

[fodd3r]

well i wouldn't be so skeptical. those marks are likely right on the money. proof? remember the village mark where there is a lot of over draw the radeon worked through it rather nicely. case and point, ati has a good card, on their hands... if they continue to improve their drivers as they are now, they'll be on top in a few product cycles.

as for their drivers sucking i think not. at least unlike nvidia they don't have hardware incompatibilities ie. your hardware doesn't work... can't be fixed. second i've seen bigger driver problems on nvidia boards than ati. just me but i've never heard a single complaint out of any one i know PERSONALLY that uses an ati card. me thinks this is nvidia's amazing lying... i mean marketing department at work.

 

[fodd3r]

well i wouldn't be so skeptical. those marks are likely right on the money. proof? remember the village mark where there is a lot of over draw the radeon worked through it rather nicely. case and point, ati has a good card, on their hands... if they continue to improve their drivers as they are now, they'll be on top in a few product cycles.

as for their drivers sucking i think not. at least unlike nvidia they don't have hardware incompatibilities ie. your hardware doesn't work... can't be fixed. second i've seen bigger driver problems on nvidia boards than ati. just me but i've never heard a single complaint out of any one i know PERSONALLY that uses an ati card. me thinks this is nvidia's amazing lying... i mean marketing department at work.

 

[lsd]

those scores are BS.
old fart should be getting ~80FPS, but he's not.
Further more the V5 6k ...is benchmarked...someone explain that..

 

[Specialist]

If you want to believe

<< General Lee D. Mented >>


go a head,i would wait for a major review like from anandtech or pcworld or something,

 

[Hawk]

Anand is biased...did you see the Geforce 2 Ultra review? He does 32 bit color up till 1024, and then stops. Why? Probably cause the Radeon beats (or is very close) to the Ultra at 1600x1200x32 bit and he didn't want to show people that.

 

[dawks]

Anand is probably the least biased most nuetral writer on the net. Thats why, his site, IMO, is the most popular hardware site on the net.
As for the GeForce Ultra Review, you must have been sleeping...
Geforce Doing 58 FPS at 1600x1200x32bit
Found here
-------------------
You'll notice the GeForce2 Ultra taking the Radeon to school and back with a 56.8% performance margin.
Not to mention the fact that the RAM on the GF2 Ultra video card, even at 460MHz (230MHz DDR) is still limiting the chip horribly.