XFX GeForce 7900 GTX XXX

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The same card was compared here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1945659,00.asp and the results were different than Guru3D's so their results are hardly conclusive. Not to mention the XFX XXX model costs $580 which is $100+ more than an X1900 XTX. Gee Trollage looks to me you're advertising the XFX card!!!111!!!

If you feel the need to knock the review, I would first do a little exploring strictly for other reviews that utilize the same driver used in the Guru article. Then pass your judgement. Sounds fair, yes? I believe it was 84.43 that Guru used, and the review you linked to used 84.21's. Just compare the 7900 scores to other ones with previous drivers. Just ignore the ATI scores for now.

I doubt a driver revision would have as much of an impact on overall scores.

Hey that's so interesting.

Can you prove this single driver revision provides the performance difference seen between the results on both sites? I want hard evidence from a reputable source, not just idle speculation or excuses. Show me a driver comparison chart from a reputable site (like how FS typically compares Catalyst revisions) that show this performance delta.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker


I doubt a driver revision would have as much of an impact on overall scores.

Hey that's so interesting.

[/quote]


"Can you prove this single driver revision provides the performance difference seen between the results on both sites?"

I could do your research for you. I mean, you are the one knocking the results, not I. I think we all know who needs to prove, or disprove anything right about now.

"I want hard evidence from a reputable source, not just idle speculation or excuses."

Kind of like this idle speculation? ("I doubt a driver revision would have as much of an impact on overall scores.")

"Show me a driver comparison chart from a reputable site (like how FS typically compares Catalyst revisions) that show this performance delta."

Show you? I only suggested we should be on the lookout for other reviews utilizing the same driver Guru did. Now your acting all like I stated something for a fact. The review was posted, your knocking the reviews results, so you need, or want, to convince us that it is inaccurate. Not the other way around.

The results are there. You disagree with them and want us to believe you? Show us why. And don't do it 1/2 a$$ed.

[/quote]

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

I could do your research for you. I mean, you are the one knocking the results, not I. I think we all know who needs to prove, or disprove anything right about now.

So in another words, you have absolutely no credible proof to show that the drivers constitute the performance difference between the results obtained by Extremetech and Guru3D and you were talking out of your ass, I thought so.

Show you? I only suggested we should be on the lookout for other reviews utilizing the same driver Guru did. Now your acting all like I stated something for a fact. The review was posted, your knocking the reviews results, so you need, or want, to convince us that it is inaccurate. Not the other way around.

You tried to nullify Extremetech's results as being outdated by referencing a driver revision. I asked you to provide proof that the driver revision makes that much of a performance impact by linking me to a driver review from a reputable source. Now all you're doing is backpedaling. Typical nv troll..

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

I could do your research for you. I mean, you are the one knocking the results, not I. I think we all know who needs to prove, or disprove anything right about now.

So in another words, you have absolutely no proof to show that the drivers make any impact whatsoever between the results obtained by Extremetech and Guru3D and you were talking out of your ass, I thought so.

Show you? I only suggested we should be on the lookout for other reviews utilizing the same driver Guru did. Now your acting all like I stated something for a fact. The review was posted, your knocking the reviews results, so you need, or want, to convince us that it is inaccurate. Not the other way around.

You tried to nullify Extremetech's results as being outdated by referencing a driver revision. I asked you to provide proof that the driver revision makes that much of a performance impact by linking me to a driver review from a reputable source. Now all you're doing is backpedaling.

LOL, Joker, you seem to be missing the point here. You saw the Guru review just like I did. You referenced another review that had different results. I took note of driver differences and SUGGESTED that we look for other reviews that use the same drivers as Guru. You IMMEDIATELY think that I suddenly magically have proof of what? How can I have proof of anything before any of us start to look around?

I tried to nullify? Are you for real? Noting a different driver is cause for further investigation, not a cause to jump to a conclusion that I tried to nullify anything.

If you haven't noticed, I did not try to proclaim Guru's review as GOSPEL either. HELLO?
You need to just calm down when someone who makes sense irritates you. Like me.

I am backpedaling before I even get on the bike to look around the neighborhood eh?
Don't try to win arguments so quickly, try not to shoot from the hip so often.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

I could do your research for you. I mean, you are the one knocking the results, not I. I think we all know who needs to prove, or disprove anything right about now.

So in another words, you have absolutely no proof to show that the drivers make any impact whatsoever between the results obtained by Extremetech and Guru3D and you were talking out of your ass, I thought so.

Show you? I only suggested we should be on the lookout for other reviews utilizing the same driver Guru did. Now your acting all like I stated something for a fact. The review was posted, your knocking the reviews results, so you need, or want, to convince us that it is inaccurate. Not the other way around.

You tried to nullify Extremetech's results as being outdated by referencing a driver revision. I asked you to provide proof that the driver revision makes that much of a performance impact by linking me to a driver review from a reputable source. Now all you're doing is backpedaling.

LOL, Joker, you seem to be missing the point here. You saw the Guru review just like I did. You referenced another review that had different results. I took note of driver differences and SUGGESTED that we look for other reviews that use the same drivers as Guru. You IMMEDIATELY think that I suddenly magically have proof of what? How can I have proof of anything before any of us start to look around?

I tried to nullify? Are you for real? Noting a different driver is cause for further investigation, not a cause to jump to a conclusion that I tried to nullify anything.

If you haven't noticed, I did not try to proclaim Guru's review as GOSPEL either. HELLO?
You need to just calm down when someone who makes sense irritates you. Like me.

I am backpedaling before I even get on the bike to look around the neighborhood eh?
Don't try to win arguments so quickly, try not to shoot from the hip so often.

It's clear what your motivation was: you tried to insinuate that the guru3d article was more relevant because of a driver revision:

If you feel the need to knock the review, I would first do a little exploring strictly for other reviews that utilize the same driver used in the Guru article

...

I believe it was 84.43 that Guru used, and the review you linked to used 84.21's

Seems pretty clear to me what you were trolling about, only now that you've been asked to provide credible proof, you're backing away from the claim as expected. nV trolls can rarely back up their bullshit with facts.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

You tried to nullify Extremetech's results as being outdated by referencing a driver revision. I asked you to provide proof that the driver revision makes that much of a performance impact by linking me to a driver review from a reputable source. Now all you're doing is backpedaling.

Want proof that a single driver revision can invoke a rather large performance increase?

Then why is it after so many game releases, there are new drivers out that help those games? Or just before?

As an Example, Galciv 2 crashes if you use drivers of a certain age. One revision after, to make the drivers recent enough to not crash. Boom. Instant performance boost. Cause you know, it doesn't crash anymore.

Typical nv troll..

He was very clear that we should look at the performance of other tests done with the same drivers. Not to discount the results because they are older drivers, but to not discount these results until you can... ANd I'll quote for you...

I would first do a little exploring strictly for other reviews that utilize the same driver used in the Guru article. Then pass your judgement.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

I could do your research for you. I mean, you are the one knocking the results, not I. I think we all know who needs to prove, or disprove anything right about now.

So in another words, you have absolutely no proof to show that the drivers make any impact whatsoever between the results obtained by Extremetech and Guru3D and you were talking out of your ass, I thought so.

Show you? I only suggested we should be on the lookout for other reviews utilizing the same driver Guru did. Now your acting all like I stated something for a fact. The review was posted, your knocking the reviews results, so you need, or want, to convince us that it is inaccurate. Not the other way around.

You tried to nullify Extremetech's results as being outdated by referencing a driver revision. I asked you to provide proof that the driver revision makes that much of a performance impact by linking me to a driver review from a reputable source. Now all you're doing is backpedaling.

LOL, Joker, you seem to be missing the point here. You saw the Guru review just like I did. You referenced another review that had different results. I took note of driver differences and SUGGESTED that we look for other reviews that use the same drivers as Guru. You IMMEDIATELY think that I suddenly magically have proof of what? How can I have proof of anything before any of us start to look around?

I tried to nullify? Are you for real? Noting a different driver is cause for further investigation, not a cause to jump to a conclusion that I tried to nullify anything.

If you haven't noticed, I did not try to proclaim Guru's review as GOSPEL either. HELLO?
You need to just calm down when someone who makes sense irritates you. Like me.

I am backpedaling before I even get on the bike to look around the neighborhood eh?
Don't try to win arguments so quickly, try not to shoot from the hip so often.

It's clear what your motivation was: you tried to insinuate that the guru3d article was more relevant because of a driver revision:

If you feel the need to knock the review, I would first do a little exploring strictly for other reviews that utilize the same driver used in the Guru article

...

I believe it was 84.43 that Guru used, and the review you linked to used 84.21's

Seems pretty clear to me what you were trolling about, only now that you were called on it to provide proof, you're backing away from the claim as expected. nV trolls can rarely back up their bullshit with facts.

You can twist it anyway you like. You are reading waaaay to much into my words. Flattering, but no thank you.
The only thing clear to you is that you have to damn well make sure you do your best to discredit my every word. That my friend is the only thing truly clear here. Anyway, take it to PM's. We've wasted enough space here arguing over nothing.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

You tried to nullify Extremetech's results as being outdated by referencing a driver revision. I asked you to provide proof that the driver revision makes that much of a performance impact by linking me to a driver review from a reputable source. Now all you're doing is backpedaling.

Want proof that a single driver revision can invoke a rather large performance increase?

Then why is it after so many game releases, there are new drivers out that help those games? Or just before?

As an Example, Galciv 2 crashes if you use drivers of a certain age. One revision after, to make the drivers recent enough to not crash. Boom. Instant performance boost. Cause you know, it doesn't crash anymore.

Typical nv troll..

He was very clear that we should look at the performance of other tests done with the same drivers. Not to discount the results because they are older drivers, but to not discount these results until you can... ANd I'll quote for you...

I would first do a little exploring strictly for other reviews that utilize the same driver used in the Guru article. Then pass your judgement.

I don't care about previous driver releases, I know full well what they did because comparisons were done between them by reputable sources. I gave him a simple request, give me proof from a credible source that this driver revision provides enough performance boost to explain the differences between the extremetech and guru3d article. Unless either one of you can do so, the extremetech article is just as valid as the guru3d test, driver revision or not.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

I don't care about previous driver releases, I know full well what they did because comparisons were done between them by reputable sources. I gave him a simple request, give me proof from a credible source that this driver revision provides enough performance boost to explain the differences between the extremetech and guru3d article. Unless either one of you can do so, the extremetech article is just as valid as the guru3d test, driver revision or not.

Wouldn't this mean we have to find, or at least wait for other reviews that try the 84.34 drivers? You could be asking for proof that may not exist yet Joker.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

I don't care about previous driver releases, I know full well what they did because comparisons were done between them by reputable sources. I gave him a simple request, give me proof from a credible source that this driver revision provides enough performance boost to explain the differences between the extremetech and guru3d article. Unless either one of you can do so, the extremetech article is just as valid as the guru3d test, driver revision or not.

Wouldn't this mean we have to find, or at least wait for other reviews that try the 84.34 drivers? You could be asking for proof that may not exist yet Joker.

So if the proof doesn't exist, then keep the idiotic speculation to yourself.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

I don't care about previous driver releases, I know full well what they did because comparisons were done between them by reputable sources. I gave him a simple request, give me proof from a credible source that this driver revision provides enough performance boost to explain the differences between the extremetech and guru3d article. Unless either one of you can do so, the extremetech article is just as valid as the guru3d test, driver revision or not.

Wouldn't this mean we have to find, or at least wait for other reviews that try the 84.34 drivers? You could be asking for proof that may not exist yet Joker.

So if the proof doesn't exist, then keep the bullshit to yourself.

""Nullify"
"Insinuate"
"Backpedal"
"and you were talking out of your ass"
"and bullsh!t"

All of this from you because I noticed different drivers. There is no excuse for this Joker. You are acting truly, and unequivically, ridiculous. It was quite clear to the others in here what I was talking about. Why not you? It's all in your imagination it would seem. Good Luck with that.

 

[Matt2]

tEh j0k3 is at it again. Everyone just stop wasting your breath.

Both companies have good cards. It all comes down to preference. You want the Navigator, I want the Escalade.

Gone are the days of one company owning the other. So all fanboys stop trying to shove your BS opinions down everyone else's throat.

 

[moonboy403]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

I don't care about previous driver releases, I know full well what they did because comparisons were done between them by reputable sources. I gave him a simple request, give me proof from a credible source that this driver revision provides enough performance boost to explain the differences between the extremetech and guru3d article. Unless either one of you can do so, the extremetech article is just as valid as the guru3d test, driver revision or not.

Wouldn't this mean we have to find, or at least wait for other reviews that try the 84.34 drivers? You could be asking for proof that may not exist yet Joker.

So if the proof doesn't exist, then keep the idiotic speculation to yourself.

you know driver can give a huge performance boost in games

ati previously released a driver which dramatically improved ati's performance on ogl games

then nvidia released a driver which, from what i remember, gave its cards a huge boost in fear when enabling aa

 

[Matt2]

stop trying to reason with him moonboy. ATI gives him an X1900XTX Crossfire when he reaches 3000 posts.

 

[Tig Ol Bitties]

Originally posted by: Matt2
tEh j0k3 is at it again. Everyone just stop wasting your breath.

Both companies have good cards. It all comes down to preference. You want the Navigator, I want the Escalade.

Gone are the days of one company owning the other. So all fanboys stop trying to shove your BS opinions down everyone else's throat.

Agreed.

Originally posted by: Matt2
stop trying to reason with him moonboy. ATI gives him an X1900XTX Crossfire when he reaches 3000 posts.

:shocked: :laugh: I may not have been here for long, but he sure does remind me of Rollo...:frown:

 

[Alaa]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
So if the proof doesn't exist, then keep the idiotic speculation to yourself.

u r the only idiot here..i think tht 84.25 was meant to do some improvements..so 84.34 shud be more of improvements..just shut up and keep ur idiotic mind to ur self

 

[DeathReborn]

Interesting review. It's definitely not a clear win for any maker right now.

Joker, Extelleron (are they the same person?) you throw your toys out of the pram when someone posts about you posting card reviews yet here you are foing the same thing. Grow up and quit your moaning.

 

[Sable]

Christ on a bike children.

No nvidia sucks
No ati sucks
Prove they do
Prove they don't
You work for AEG and nvidia
You work for AEG and ATI

 

[framerateuk]

Originally posted by: Sable
Christ on a bike children.

No nvidia sucks
No ati sucks
Prove they do
Prove they don't
You work for AEG and nvidia
You work for AEG and ATI

My thoughts exactally.

 

[Live]

ForceWare 84 Series [email]Roundup@www.ngohq.com[/email]
Since nobody in this thread seems to want to do anything ill just link to a relevant test of the different drivers. For those to lazy to read: no the 84.43 does not give any performance improvements except for the latest tombraider just like it is supposed to.

From the Release Notes (v84.43) you clearly see that the only thing changed is the tombraider stuff. Granted not all changes gets listed but the above test show no other benefits either for performance or IQ.

Issues Resolved in Version 84.43
The following are changes made and issues resolved since driver version 84.25:
?Added SLI profile for Tomb Raider: Legend
Issues Resolved in Version 84.25
The following are changes made and issues resolved since driver version 84.21:
?General compatibility fixes
Issues Resolved in Version 84.21
The following are changes made and issues resolved since driver version 84.20:
?Version 84.21 is WHQL certified.
Issues Resolved in Version 84.20
The following are changes made and issues resolved since driver version 84.12:
?Added support for the following products:
? GeForce 7900 GTX/GT (PCI-E)
? GeForce 7600 GT (PCI-E)
? GeForce 6800 GS (AGP)
?GeForce 6800, Windows XP: Fixed?Hanger textures in space maps are
not rendered in Star Wars Battlefront 2.
?Windows XP: Increased performance when playing F.E.A.R with
antialiasing enabled.

And to those that say that drivers can give huge performance increases: this is true but not without you hearing about it from both ATI and Nvidia and dozens of review sites and forums.
Have you seen anything on the 84.43 improving performance a lot? No didn't think so...

 

[Munky]

Your thread is wrong. This is the fastest card on the market.

Also, what kind of huge performance improvement do you expect from drivers on a 2 year old architecture? Unless there's been a bug in the drivers all along, the performance is about as good as it's ever gonna get for the 7-series cards, unless of course it comes at the expense of IQ.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Live
ForceWare 84 Series [email]Roundup@www.ngohq.com[/email]
Since nobody in this thread seems to want to do anything ill just link to a relevant test of the different drivers. For those to lazy to read: no the 84.43 does not give any performance improvements except for the latest tombraider just like it is supposed to.

From the Release Notes (v84.43) you clearly see that the only thing changed is the tombraider stuff. Granted not all changes gets listed but the above test show no other benefits either for performance or IQ.

Issues Resolved in Version 84.43
The following are changes made and issues resolved since driver version 84.25:
?Added SLI profile for Tomb Raider: Legend
Issues Resolved in Version 84.25
The following are changes made and issues resolved since driver version 84.21:
?General compatibility fixes
Issues Resolved in Version 84.21
The following are changes made and issues resolved since driver version 84.20:
?Version 84.21 is WHQL certified.
Issues Resolved in Version 84.20
The following are changes made and issues resolved since driver version 84.12:
?Added support for the following products:
? GeForce 7900 GTX/GT (PCI-E)
? GeForce 7600 GT (PCI-E)
? GeForce 6800 GS (AGP)
?GeForce 6800, Windows XP: Fixed?Hanger textures in space maps are
not rendered in Star Wars Battlefront 2.
?Windows XP: Increased performance when playing F.E.A.R with
antialiasing enabled.

And to those that say that drivers can give huge performance increases: this is true but not without you hearing about it from both ATI and Nvidia and dozens of review sites and forums.
Have you seen anything on the 84.43 improving performance a lot? No didn't think so...

3DMark2005, HL2: Lost Coast, Quake 4. While your link is very much appreciated and exceeds my attempts at finding anything on this subject, it is not very extensive as you can see. One synthetic, and 2 games. I suppose we can use these 2 games as a cross reference, but it does not show XFX GeForce 7900GTX XXX, so would it be fair to extrapolate? I dunno.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
LMAO. Who's going to actually look at the video card box between those two models?

They've got it at the correct level though. I'm sure all the heterosexual males eyes are going from Play Hard to XFX Box to Play Hard.

 

[Alaa]

i read be4 @nvnews tht one of these drivers carried some improvements for oblivion..

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
LMAO. Who's going to actually look at the video card box between those two models?

They've got it at the correct level though. I'm sure all the heterosexual males eyes are going from Play Hard to XFX Box to Play Hard.

Nope. My eyes are just going from one model to the other.