PDA

View Full Version : Quake3 on NV hardware...


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

RobHague
01-02-04, 09:02 PM
I was just browsing around Toms Hardware when i decided to take another look at their big VGA charts. I didn't really look before but i was quite shocked when i saw the benchies for Quake3...

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-06.html

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=253936

Do my eyes decieve me or is a 5600 Ultra (FC) actually slapping around a 9800 Pro?? :rofl

DSC
01-02-04, 10:36 PM
It's also slapping around a 9800XT.......

:rofl :rolleyes: :confused:

nForceMan
01-02-04, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by RobHague
Do my eyes decieve me or is a 5600 Ultra (FC) actually slapping around a 9800 Pro?? :rofl

"Everyone knows it." <-- Quote form a FANatiC's "proof". :lol:
Radeons are inferior (http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031107/images/image014.gif) products. :rofl

Deathlike2
01-02-04, 11:29 PM
Can someone say ban?

What bothers me a bit that a FX5900U is equal to a FX5700U? Hm...

digitalwanderer
01-02-04, 11:55 PM
"But golly jeepers, it's Tom's Hardware Guide so it simply MUST be true!!!" :eek:

netviper13
01-03-04, 12:52 AM
And I'm sure a person's eyes could really detect an extra 20-30fps when the fps is already above 200...or not.

cthellis
01-03-04, 04:06 AM
You get that in a few tests, one way or the other. A 9600 non-Pro beating out a 5950 in Command & Conquer (http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-08.html)? (Not to mention scoring within 2fps of a 9800XT?) Those are the types of games where it's useless to bench at those resolutions--there's just no discrepency. When benches show the top 1/2 of ALL cards scoring within 2 fps of each other (a la Nascar) it's time to change the parameters. Just mention which ones scored right next to each other in the text and produce a chart that matters. (Or do a 2nd chart to show the variations.)

Just estupido. You are nuh-nuh-nuh-nawt seeing GPU comparisons there.

MUYA
01-03-04, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by Deathlike2
Can someone say ban?

What bothers me a bit that a FX5900U is equal to a FX5700U? Hm...

you should also llok at firingsquad's review of the 5700U where it also scored results near the 5900U, Brandon wa suprised that he rebenched agian and gain to see...and it is true

Q3 has been around for a long time, it doesn't have the refinements of newer Q3 based engines remeber that adds more effects etc thru maybe new pixel shading stuff.

5700U has 3 vertex shaders same as the amount of 5900u, the vertex shaders are only hampered on the 5700U by the 128 bit memory bus.

MUYA
01-03-04, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
"But golly jeepers, it's Tom's Hardware Guide so it simply MUST be true!!!" :eek:

Your sarcasm is noted but well, enough people still visit Tom's ;)

RobHague
01-03-04, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by cthellis
You get that in a few tests, one way or the other. A 9600 non-Pro beating out a 5950 in Command & Conquer (http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-08.html)? (Not to mention scoring within 2fps of a 9800XT?) Those are the types of games where it's useless to bench at those resolutions--there's just no discrepency. When benches show the top 1/2 of ALL cards scoring within 2 fps of each other (a la Nascar) it's time to change the parameters. Just mention which ones scored right next to each other in the text and produce a chart that matters. (Or do a 2nd chart to show the variations.)

Just estupido. You are nuh-nuh-nuh-nawt seeing GPU comparisons there.

True i guess, i didnt see those results. A 9800PRO beating an XT.... urrr :confused: right. But the fact that in the Q3TA benchies the 5600 Ultra even came CLOSE to the 9800pro smells odd to me. I guess its just heavily optimized for NV hardware and NV drivers are heavily optimized for it, shows what can be achived i guess. :)

I posted in a 5800U thread this too.....But its quite interesting. Its the aquamark3 result.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=254054

The 5800 Ultra is on-par with a 5950 Ultra, and gives the 9800 Pro a bashing too. Some whacky results coming out of this review. :) The X2 rolling demo showed some strange results as well, a 5900XT bettering a 9800XT. I think maybe TomsHardware should pull this and retest using different methods... :confused:

digitalwanderer
01-03-04, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by MUYA
Your sarcasm is noted but well, enough people still visit Tom's ;)
I can't help it if there's a lot of silly people out there Muya. ;)

reever2
01-03-04, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by nForceMan
"Everyone knows it." <-- Quote form a FANatiC's "proof". :lol:
Radeons are inferior (http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031107/images/image014.gif) products. :rofl

Ok, i'll bite.

Geforce's are Inferior (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/images/image019.gif) products

MUYA
01-03-04, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I can't help it if there's a lot of silly people out there Muya. ;)

hehehe...or the misinformed or bit of both??

...of which i am one coz i keep going there to get new stuff for me roundups :P

digitalwanderer
01-03-04, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by MUYA
hehehe...or the misinformed or bit of both??
Yeah, or else something even more innocent like they're trusting newbs who want "the straight skinny" from a "reputable hardware site". :rolleyes: (Yes, I used to read Tom's.)

It just irks me at times that THG can be so bloody biased and outright sloppy, I used to think they were the experts back in my puppy days.

digitalwanderer
01-03-04, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by reever2
Ok, i'll bite.

Geforce's are Inferior (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/images/image019.gif) products
Please don't bite, he's just waiting for someone to bite. :rolleyes:

MUYA
01-03-04, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Yeah, or else something even more innocent like they're trusting newbs who want "the straight skinny" from a "reputable hardware site". :rolleyes: (Yes, I used to read Tom's.)

It just irks me at times that THG can be so bloody biased and outright sloppy, I used to think they were the experts back in my puppy days.

well back then there were few websites out for did lay out the technical stuff....now nearly all websites do that :D

hehehehe :D

Soylent
01-03-04, 10:02 AM
And I'm sure a person's eyes could really detect an extra 20-30fps when the fps is already above 200...or not

None of the current monitors seem to go above 160 Hz in any resolution, but otherwise I don't see why you wouldn't as the difference between 140 and 160 FPS with vsync on is indeed quite noticable for example(it looks a bit smoother, like it better approximates motion-blur).

That famous misconception that humans can only see 30 or 60 or so frames per second is quite accurate in regards to movies that use motion-blur, but it is totally untrue for crisp, clear computer generated graphics. High framerates look like you added some motion-blur which is nice, allthough you stop seeing the "chopyness" at relatively low framerates.

LabRat
01-03-04, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Soylent
None of the current monitors seem to go above 160 Hz in any resolution, but otherwise I don't see why you wouldn't as the difference between 140 and 160 FPS with vsync on is indeed quite noticable for example(it looks a bit smoother, like it better approximates motion-blur).

That famous misconception that humans can only see 30 or 60 or so frames per second is quite accurate in regards to movies that use motion-blur, but it is totally untrue for crisp, clear computer generated graphics. High framerates look like you added some motion-blur which is nice, allthough you stop seeing the "chopyness" at relatively low framerates.

Any data to back this up? I'm not trying to bash you, but I've seen so many claims on this subject, and so far no one has provided any hard data. I suspect this would require capped steady framerates (say 60 fps, 100 fps, 140 fps, 180 fps) in a double blind test.

Soylent
01-03-04, 10:16 AM
Quake 3 is an excercise in plain old poly pushing when it is not CPU limited(i.e when using higher resolutions).

NV hardware is good at older games and other things that just eat lots of fill-rate, isn't this old news?

The benchmarks that I find interesting are newer games and things that can reasonably be expected to be representative of the performance you would get in future games.

Soylent
01-03-04, 10:30 AM
Any data to back this up? I'm not trying to bash you, but I've seen so many claims on this subject, and so far no one has provided any hard data. I suspect this would require capped steady framerates (say 60 fps, 100 fps, 140 fps, 180 fps) in a double blind test.

I did a test with a friend in Half-life by setting fps_max to the refresh rate and forcing the refresh rate to 140 Hz and 160 Hz and both of us could guess the correct refresh rate out of the 2 without knowing in advance what the refresh rate was almost every time after having looked at both a few times(i.e taking turns setting the refresh-rate for each other and seeing if we could tell).

But I can't offer harder evidence than anecdotal I'm afraid. But if you got a good monitor and a game that can comfortably run at your refresh rate even at 160 Hz on your hardware you can easily try it. Be aware though that high mouse sensitivity and turning quite slowly introduces discrete jerks every few frames that correspond to the smallest movement the mouse can detect and it looks as though the frame-rate is quite low :eek:.

|JuiceZ|
01-03-04, 11:41 AM
Everyone knows the Q3 engine was developement mainly on NV hardware and has always ran faster on their platform. That being said, I still beg to differ how accurate those benchies are though. But isn't this why ppl were trying to get away from using q3 as a vauable video card benchmark in the first place?

-=DVS=-
01-03-04, 01:35 PM
Isn't Quake 3 a OpenGl game from era of DX7 ? we all know FX line is uber DX7 cards :D :rolleyes:
All better todays games are either DX8.1 or Dx9 if lucky :p

RobHague
01-03-04, 02:20 PM
What about AquaMark3 though? Thats supposed to use DX9 is it not - how come the 5800 Ultra (the "failure") seems to beat out the 9800pro in that too. Its level with the 5950 (which i thought was supposed to have vastly improved shader performance?).

Anyways, looks like any die-hard Quake3 fans (you know who you are ;)) should think twice. If a 5600 FC really can outpace a 9800pro in that game then going for a top end graphics card for top performance seems a waste. I used to know a few people that only owned PC's because of Quake3 lol....Although i didnt see if tomshardware did any tests on Q3TA with AA/AF?? But even then - a lot of "hard-core" quake3 players tend to strip the game down to get the MAX FPS out of it...:)

The Baron
01-03-04, 02:30 PM
AM3 may be a case of insane cheating. I haven't seen a thorough investigation with refrast images.

Q3A is a few things. One, it's probably CPU limited at the highest-end NV cards. Two, crazy clockspeed advantage on the NV3x cards comes to bear. Three, NVIDIA has a better GL driver (no, that's not a myth).

Razor04
01-03-04, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by RobHague
What about AquaMark3 though? Thats supposed to use DX9 is it not - how come the 5800 Ultra (the "failure") seems to beat out the 9800pro in that too. Its level with the 5950 (which i thought was supposed to have vastly improved shader performance?).

Anyways, looks like any die-hard Quake3 fans (you know who you are ;)) should think twice. If a 5600 FC really can outpace a 9800pro in that game then going for a top end graphics card for top performance seems a waste. I used to know a few people that only owned PC's because of Quake3 lol....Although i didnt see if tomshardware did any tests on Q3TA with AA/AF?? But even then - a lot of "hard-core" quake3 players tend to strip the game down to get the MAX FPS out of it...:)
iirc AM3 only has something like 5 DX9 class shaders...so they won't be a huge problem for NV's hardware. We also know that in the past NV has cheated...remember all the lighting issues? Before someone brings up the ATI fog thing in AM3 it is a hardware issue...not a cheat...it has no impact on what is rendered. There is a thread about it over at B3D if anyone wants to dig up the full technical explanation.

Q3...I know it is a popular game but when you are at 200+ FPS does it matter how fast one card is to another? No one will notice the difference. About the 5600 outdoing a 9800 Pro... We know that the NV cards are great at DX8 and OGL and that the ATI cards are great at DX9 and decent to pretty good at everthing else (Note: this is an extreme generalization). Like you said though...it comes down to what you play more than anything else. If all you are playing is Q3 games then a 5600 is great...but if you play Q3 and also want to play the next gen stuff too then a 9800 Pro is a much more balanced choice.