Originally posted by marcocom
hovz wants to use that 256bit and get us up in the nose-bleed resolutions with full driver effects on.
want to talk about our hardware in terms of whether or not your 256bit solution is superior, then we strip ALL THE DRIVER LEVEL FEATURES like FSAA, AF and we let them rip. thats how benchmarking has always been done. fillrate. lowest mipmapping, no Vsync. old school. the way you would play it in a ladder match, to win.
ud be lucky to win half of them with the 9800 and this is a brand new architecture with new drivers and alot of ground and flexibility to explore.
or how about this, we just run the benchies and either of us can do whatever we want to the drivers to get the most speed, how about that... beat the FX in every bench?
marcocom u are now the most retarded poster on this forum. u spend 10 pages trying to argue how speed isnt important its image quality, now u tell me that ur geforce is faster when u make the image as low quality as possible? isnt this suppose to be the age of cinematic rendering? but your suggesting the card that sacrafices image quality but performs the fastest is now the best? if your payying 400 dollars didnt u say u want ur money to be invested in better image quality? not just winning bnechmarks? also i sugeest u read the hardcop review where they use nivida application v ati quality and see the 9800 pro smoke the nvidia card in every single benchmark except serious sam. but oh ya ur card is faster in agressive mode. damn nvidia sure spent ur money where u wanted it, a card that excells in low image quality settings. cinematic gaming at its best