View Single Post
Old 02-16-03, 09:44 PM   #11
Registered User
Skynet's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 273
Send a message via ICQ to Skynet Send a message via AIM to Skynet
Thumbs down

Honestly, I've seen better stuff in a 64k demo.
Uh huh. So I guess we don't really need DX9 at all just code everything in a 64k boundry and that's all it takes.

You know, why doesn't everyone read FutureMark's white paper on 3DMark03 it explains a lot and answers many questions and concerns people are having.

AND GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS that it is for FUTURE GAMES not what is being played now. It's not that hard to understand. The reason the 8500 does better than expected on 3DMark03 is because it has more advanced shaders than a GeForce3, it's direct competitor at the time. That is not a rant or an opinion it is a FACT, why is that so hard to understand? The 8500 is most definitely slower and pretty much every game out there compared to a GeForce4 and most GeForce 3's, but it just so happens to have a better shader, no big deal. I'm not saying it will do well on a DX9 game because it won't it does not have the memory bandwidth to start with....

Face it people Nvidia is really hurting themselves with this slam of FutureMark. I used to really like Nvidia cards but lately they are really p!ssing me off. They need to stop making excuses and start getting a line of DX9 cards out there. WHERE IS THE GFX I STILL CAN'T buy one.

Looks like all of my system builds with DX9 cards are going to be ATI, not my fault.
Skynet is offline   Reply With Quote