PDA

View Full Version : Who really won this years GPU war.


Pages : [1] 2

ChrisRay
12-03-04, 05:58 AM
Not really us end users. By Crytek and other companies. Just consider the possibility of what you dont see. Upgrading/updating the engines. Just for pure performance figures. The Sm 3.0/Sm2.0 B Fiasco for instance. Anyone here have a hard time believing they implemented this out of good faith? The new demos for ATI hardware from Crytek. I mean you got to admit the companies that are designing these games and recieving all these funds from both IHVs have got to be laughing all the way to the bank.

circuitbreaker8
12-03-04, 06:08 AM
I did.

msxyz
12-03-04, 06:45 AM
You are right... 6 months upgrade cycles are forced upon us while we don't realize that most of our hardware potential is left untapped or wasted by inefficient coding.

And while lazy programmers rest on the fact that technology will eventually help overcome their inability to write good, small and efficient programs, we are left with very few 3d-engines exploiting the full potential of shaders 1.1/1.4, let alone of old DirectX 6-7 cards. But hardware vendors need software developers no more than developers need new hardware, though. It's a vicious circle.

Many people in the software industry should spend some time (as punishment!) coding for old machines like the Atari 2600, where you had exactly 80 clock cycles to generate enough data to fill an entire scanline. :) And many people always buying the latest hardware should quit listening to BS and put their money to a better use (ie charity).

The truth is that the whole new economy businnes is inflated like an hot air baloon and it will explode sooner or later. Better sooner than when it will be too late to save the whole sector. I'm now convinced that a couple of year of crisis may be what is needed to rethink the whole businnes model before it's too late.

saturnotaku
12-03-04, 06:51 AM
Not really us end users. By Crytek and other companies. Just consider the possibility of what you dont see. Upgrading/updating the engines. Just for pure performance figures. The Sm 3.0/Sm2.0 B Fiasco for instance. Anyone here have a hard time believing they implemented this out of good faith? The new demos for ATI hardware from Crytek. I mean you got to admit the companies that are designing these games and recieving all these funds from both IHVs have got to be laughing all the way to the bank.

If you take that out of the equation, both companies this year produced graphics cards that are more powerful than anything we've ever seen. Most people who purchased these new products have been able to run games old and new at a minimum of 1280x1024 resolution with at least 4x AA and 8x AF. It's not as if there was any AAA title this year that runs horribly on one IHV's card as opposed to the other.

While I agree on the fiasco business, I don't think the picture is nearly as bleak as you've painted it.

DivotMaker
12-03-04, 07:08 AM
While I agree on the fiasco business, I don't think the picture is nearly as bleak as you've painted it.

Touche'

subbo
12-03-04, 11:31 AM
The only truly BAD programming I've seen this year is NFSUG2 for the PC, drop all the details to minimum and try 1600x1200.. 30fps on a 6800GT and the game looks like something on a Voodoo1.

So if I cared for that game, I would be one angry camper.

JD-Scorpion
12-03-04, 11:39 AM
Not really us end users. By Crytek and other companies. Just consider the possibility of what you dont see. Upgrading/updating the engines. Just for pure performance figures. The Sm 3.0/Sm2.0 B Fiasco for instance. Anyone here have a hard time believing they implemented this out of good faith? The new demos for ATI hardware from Crytek. I mean you got to admit the companies that are designing these games and recieving all these funds from both IHVs have got to be laughing all the way to the bank.

I agree with you 100%!!

noko
12-03-04, 12:09 PM
I actually think Nvidia was the winner in designing something that could be made in sufficient quantity. Also considering it is a more complex part then what ATI is dishing out. ATI just lost alot of ground on the high end because most people wanting one couldn't get one. I am talking about the X800 XTPE here. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia made more FX5800's then ATI did XTPEs. In addition ATI didn't have a 6800GT level of card for the price. Also Nvidia has more AGP parts then ATI in which more customers at the moment in the Retail sector want, OEM maybe a different story. I think Nvidia did a very good come back in the end while ATI took more of a damage control stance.

K007
12-03-04, 12:11 PM
The Vampire Bloodlines game is also badly done. Good game, but the HL2 Engine is badly used..if any it looks like crap sometimes.

lmetza
12-03-04, 12:54 PM
well nvidia got a headstart on SM3.0, also by checking out a x850 preview, the 6800 Ultra seems to keep up just nicely.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1733845,00.asp, now i see why nvidia wasnt goignto bother with an nv48 i guess, they probably know that the current 6800's can probably be pushed a bit farther with some enhancments in the drivers most likley (probably somethin they are working towards inthe 70.xx series).

Sgt_Pitt
12-03-04, 01:08 PM
If you take that out of the equation, both companies this year produced graphics cards that are more powerful than anything we've ever seen. Most people who purchased these new products have been able to run games old and new at a minimum of 1280x1024 resolution with at least 4x AA and 8x AF. It's not as if there was any AAA title this year that runs horribly on one IHV's card as opposed to the other.

While I agree on the fiasco business, I don't think the picture is nearly as bleak as you've painted it.


hrrmm take a look at EQ2, best looking, worst, sloppiest, unoptimized engine ive seen to date.

saturnotaku
12-03-04, 01:15 PM
hrrmm take a look at EQ2, best looking, worst, sloppiest, unoptimized engine ive seen to date.

But see, here's the thing - Everquest doesn't count. Never has, never will. (xmastong)

anzak
12-03-04, 01:17 PM
Not really us end users.
Thats the truth. These cards have been "available" for months yet we still suffer from heavily inflated prices, thats if you can find one in stock.

PSYCHODAD
12-03-04, 01:45 PM
If you take that out of the equation, both companies this year produced graphics cards that are more powerful than anything we've ever seen. Most people who purchased these new products have been able to run games old and new at a minimum of 1280x1024 resolution with at least 4x AA and 8x AF. It's not as if there was any AAA title this year that runs horribly on one IHV's card as opposed to the other.

While I agree on the fiasco business, I don't think the picture is nearly as bleak as you've painted it.

Ya, what he said! (snowlol)

jbirney
12-03-04, 01:49 PM
I agree 100% with you Chris!!!

bkswaney
12-03-04, 01:50 PM
I would say nvidia did with the 6800.
They packed so much into the 6800 its crazy.
Plus the turn around nvidia did from the FX.

If you look at the big picture and not just speed
nvidia wins hands down.
(snowlol)

Lfctony
12-03-04, 02:10 PM
I'd say advantage to Nvidia due to the popularity of the 6800GT.

jbirney
12-03-04, 02:53 PM
I would say nvidia did with the 6800.
They packed so much into the 6800 its crazy.
Plus the turn around nvidia did from the FX.

If you look at the big picture and not just speed
nvidia wins hands down.
(snowlol)

I think the best card this year bar none was the 6800 GT. It had the best profromance vrs cost. And it was actually availbe unlike some of the other cards. However I would not say NV won hands down. The three biggest games out show that the both ATI/NV are close (ATI wins HL2, NV wins Doom3, both Tie at Farcry) and you can not call one company faster in all. Factor in that ATI is the #1 supplier by volume, faster with PCIe adoption and has more OEM wins also goes against the hands down thing.

Buck Armstrong
12-03-04, 02:55 PM
I agree. Without any hard figures to back me up, I'd guess that the 6800 GT gave Nvidia the win. They were easier to get, allowed users to spend less but overclock to Ultra speeds, and hovered right around MSRP, while the Ultra only recently settled there, and the PE proved impossible to get unless you were willing to spend twice what it was worth.

Also, the Doom3 scores showed the second-tier GT just destroying ATIs parts, including even the flagship PE. Although most of us here probably agree that Doom3 scores don't mean so much, I think the average joe was very impressed, and the GT turned out to be the best bang for the buck.

ChrisRay
12-03-04, 03:27 PM
If you take that out of the equation, both companies this year produced graphics cards that are more powerful than anything we've ever seen. Most people who purchased these new products have been able to run games old and new at a minimum of 1280x1024 resolution with at least 4x AA and 8x AF. It's not as if there was any AAA title this year that runs horribly on one IHV's card as opposed to the other.

While I agree on the fiasco business, I don't think the picture is nearly as bleak as you've painted it.


Oh I agree. I think this year has been great for end users as far as products go. I just dont think we're the ones who benefited from this year as much as say the Devs. I mean looking at Far Cry. It didnt need these optimisations at all (hell they're nice to have. But were hardly needed ;) )

Imagine if that money was spent elsewhere. Perhaps to fixing drivers ect? The cardsare wonderful. So wonderful in fact they didnt need all this hand tuning to run great on either hardware, Or did they need games already released to have their engines modified to run even better :) So yes. The devs are the ones profiting the most.


(xmassign2

vasileiou
12-03-04, 03:29 PM
Who Really Won this years GPU war ??

My dog of course (snowlol)

Cota
12-03-04, 04:31 PM
I think the best card this year bar none was the 6800 GT. It had the best profromance vrs cost. And it was actually availbe unlike some of the other cards. However I would not say NV won hands down. The three biggest games out show that the both ATI/NV are close (ATI wins HL2, NV wins Doom3, both Tie at Farcry) and you can not call one company faster in all. Factor in that ATI is the #1 supplier by volume, faster with PCIe adoption and has more OEM wins also goes against the hands down thing.

I think nvidia still has the lead in oem wins but very slightly.

More than ever I'd say this round is very much a tie.

No matter what family you choose either nv4x or r4xx you won't be dissapointed.

Edge
12-03-04, 04:46 PM
I donno, I thought this was one of the better years in 3d graphics. Sure, the hardware isn't being used as much as it could be, but how long does it normally take for new technologies to really be used? Look at the Geforce 3: a year after it's release, there was what, 5 games that even used pixel shaders? Hell, the Xbox had 4 times as many games that used the capabilities of the Geforce 3 :rolleyes: . I'd say it's actually impressive that engines even have anything that takes advantage of new technologies like HDR/SM3 or 3dc. Remember, maybe 10% of PC users even have cards that can take advantage of most of these new rendering features, so it's a miracle they even support us at all. Sure, in the end we have more tech demos than games that use these high-end features, but for now we can just set all our games to 4xAA/lvl16aniso while we wait for games to come out that bring our cards to their knees. Better than buying a new videocard and finding out it's outdated the day you get it.

Plus, now that the high-end cards are more availible, you can usually get a decent deal on them if you look around (like Best Buy's recent sale that they had on 6800 cards with Farcry and Half-life 2 for $250 total). And the 6600gt looks to be a great mid-range card for the price, once it become more availible we may see cards that have extremely powerful capabilities actually being put into mainstream computers (no more of this "onboard Intel video and no AGP port" crap). And PC developers have ALWAYS been inefficient, for example you need a DX9 class card to enable the light-bending effects in games like Doom 3 and Half-life 2, and yet I saw the exact same effect in Dino Crisis for the PS1...

Just remember: companies are ALWAYS only out for your money. As far as video cards go, I'd say this market is fairly tame compared to others. Try buying diamonds, now THERE'S a corrupted market...

ynnek
12-03-04, 05:14 PM
And PC developers have ALWAYS been inefficient, for example you need a DX9 class card to enable the light-bending effects in games like Doom 3 and Half-life 2, and yet I saw the exact same effect in Dino Crisis for the PS1...



whaa? your gonna have to show some screen shots..

Pantherman
12-03-04, 09:05 PM
I don't know if there was really a clear "winner" in this year's graphic wars. Certainly Nvidia has made up a lot of ground from the disastrous "FX" series. The 6800 Ultra is a worthy competitor to ATI's X800 XT PE. If there's a loser here, it's the consumer as these high-end cards remain very elusive. The X800 XT PE is particularly tough to find as I haven't seen ANY on store shelves. Almost all go to OEMs like Dell. The 6800 GT is fairly available now, and it's the best buy out there. The X800 Pro is still a great card but lags behind the 6800 GT in most benchmarks.

All-in-all, it's been a great year for graphics. Even the mid-range market is covered very well with the upcoming 6600 GT. ATI is left with the old 9800 Pro at this level. Even that former high-end card can't really compete.

This year has seen Nvidia make a strong comeback. Even the most die-hard ATI fanboy has to admit it. ATI is not done, however as the X850 XT PE will be out soon. But then there's SLI. Imagine the power of TWO GeForce 6800 Ultras. ATI could never compete with that solution.