I have seen the future....

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Rollo

They don't work for ATi like you, so they think being able to see all the options available is a good thing rather than a possible layoff.......

And i usually have no problem with that on principle,and i would wait too if the release for both GPU's makers were only weeks apart,heck even up to 2 months apart,but wating 6+ months...No way in hell,as life is too short.


After all this time,the only way to make it up was if Fermi was consistently at least 25~30% faster across the board,not the much tighter race it looks like it's going to be....Even you have to be realistic about this.


And again,for what seems like the 100th time already,i don't work for ATI.

[Toss3]

Originally Posted by Revs

Rollo see what I mean with the arguments? I dislike his pro-ATi attitude as much as your pro-Nvidia one.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Still,they're comparing it to a 9800GTX + card,which not only has 128 shaders,but they also run at a higher clock speed,so it's probably more than 2X the floating point math ability regardless.


As for the future game argument and using even heavier physics workloads which the Ageia chip couldn't handle it,i'd say show me first once those games are released and let me decide for myself thanks....

You can have double the SPs all you want, it doesn't mean it is going to improve effiecentcy by alot. The G94(9600GT chip) is of the G9x line but is of a different design than the G92(8800GT/S/9800GT/X/+/GTS250). which is why with its 64SPs it is on par with teh G80 96SP part and doesn't always lag behind the cetain G92s by alot either. Also, depending on the 9600GT they used, it could have been a 700/1700 part(XFX XXX edition comes clocked that way)

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Toss3

Because some people don't own crystal balls? Besides there weren't really that many games that needed the performance of the 58/970-series when they were launched so many chose to stay with their previous-gen cards and see what the other camp had to offer before making a decision.

There still aren't any games that need either one even now....This isn't about what games need when you're considering buying the very highest end cards on the market,it's about who gets the highest benchmark results,plain and simple.


One brand released their cards far earlier than the other and they kick ass plain and simple,so comparisons are bound to be made between both brands,and the overall performance differences and if they were worth all the waiting.


It would be naive to think that this 6 month wait won't influence the final reviews on some hardware review sites.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

You can have double the SPs all you want, it doesn't mean it is going to improve effiecentcy by alot. The G94(9600GT chip) is of the G9x line but is of a different design than the G92(8800GT/S/9800GT/X/+/GTS250). which is why with its 64SPs it is on par with teh G80 96SP part and doesn't always lag behind the cetain G92s by alot either. Also, depending on the 9600GT they used, it could have been a 700/1700 part(XFX XXX edition comes clocked that way)

It's the SP's alone that are responsable for the calculations on physics workloads,and nothing else in the architecture is getting used,as those parts are designed to handle graphics anyhow(texture units,rops,etc).

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by shadow001

DX11 has only been out a few months,and up until now,only 1 GPU maker had DX11 cards on the market,and DX11 is a unified standard,controled by none other than microsoft,so they have the final say if you want to play games on the windows platform,not anyone else.


Unified standards always get more support and a faster rate of adoption than proprietary standards ever will basically,no matter how much Nvidia complains about it,since it doesn't make their hardware any more special than that of competitors in the end,and they don't like that,if nothing else from a marketing standpoint.


It's also why ATI decided to support Eyefinity,since it has nothing to do with direct X,and doesn't even require any special attention from developers at all,both in current games already released,or any future game releases either,so it bypasses all the issues that Nvidia is facing by trying to push PhysX as much as it can,and enhances overall gameplay,like the examples i mentioned with battlefield bad company 2 and making me a better player...

when there is no really competition they can do what ever they want, it goes to show ya monopolies do work, do I agree with it, no, but when there is no real alternative, you are stuck, you should be telling AMD to get off its ass instead of this.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Toss3

Rollo see what I mean with the arguments? I dislike his pro-ATi attitude as much as your pro-Nvidia one.

It's not so much being pro ATI,as stating the plain fact that Nvidia was horribly late with Fermi,and even they admit they were late too...But we'll see the official reviews in 2 days from now,so it's not long to wait anymore(finally).

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Razor1

when there is no really competition they can do what ever they want, it goes to show ya monopolies do work, do I agree with it, no, but when there is no real alternative, you are stuck, you should be telling AMD to get off its ass instead of this.

I don't feel stuck to begin with,as the current games that use GPU physics,use them to relatively small degrees,that adds to the game that little extra sure,but it isn't a mind blowing difference that makes the game itself 2X better than using CPU based physics either....That's my point.


I view adding features in game like getting punched in the face or getting kicked in the balls...You'll know it happened within a couple of seconds,as it's quite obvious,and that's the impression i got when i started playing games with 3 displays....It sticks out like a sore thumb and enhanced the overall game in a big way.


So i'm hoping that there's an upcoming PhysX game supporting a much higher amount of GPU calculated physics compared to current games supporting it....Something so obvious that you notice it in seconds,not have to look around to notice smaller differences here and there.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by shadow001

I don't feel stuck to begin with,as the current games that use GPU physics,use them to relatively small degrees,that adds to the game that little extra sure,but it isn't a mind blowing difference that makes the game itself 2X better than using CPU based physics either....That's my point.


I view adding features in game like getting punched in the face or getting kicked in the balls...You'll know it happened within a couple of seconds,as it's quite obvious,and that's the impression i got when i started playing games with 3 displays....It sticks out like a sore thumb and enhanced the overall game in a big way.


So i'm hoping that there's an upcoming PhysX game supporting a much higher amount of GPU calculated physics compared to current games supporting it....Something so obvious that you notice it in seconds,not have to look around to notice smaller differences here and there.

The people that want it, its not all about you man, I'm not focusing on a off party type thing, its the whole enchilada, if I was talking about you great, so you have to upgrade to a new graphics card to get 3 monitors, well nV can do it with the gt280 series too, anyone with SLi configs, there is always positives and negatives to a choice, who makes them its thier choice. But you personal preference is not everyones.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Razor1

The people that want it, its not all about you man, I'm not focusing on a off party type thing, its the whole enchilada, if I was talking about you great, so you have to upgrade to a new graphics card to get 3 monitors, well nV can do it with the gt280 series too, anyone with SLi configs, there is always positives and negatives to a choice, who makes them its thier choice. But you personal preference is not everyones.

Maybe i'm just jaded and much harder to impress,as for me,3D graphics in my home system started in 1997 when i bought a pair of Voodoo 2 cards in SLI,and have owned about 20 different video cards since then,heard a lot of marketing from 3Dfx,power VR,matrox,ATI,Nvidia,Intel,S3,and exactly how long a lot of the new technology actually took to find it's way into shipping games,and it was years in some cases.


So i'm pretty immune to the whole marketing angle,no matter who it comes from,and these last few years,take a "Show me first" attitude,and the show better be a good one basically,so i'm not speaking for everyone nor is it my intention too,but that's what it takes to convince me that something is worth having in my system.


What decided going for the HD5970 cards,apart from Eyefinity,was that Nvidia didn't show up to the fight in the first place,so it kinda narrowed down the decision making process too.

[Razor1]

well no compitition thank you for making my point

I actually started off with a number nine 128 in 94 or 95, wasn't a 3d accelerator though. Didn't have them back then, also games weren't using them, it was a nice thing to play with programming wise though.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Razor1

well no compitition thank you for making my point

I actually started off with a number nine 128 in 94 or 95, wasn't a 3d accelerator though. Didn't have them back then, also games weren't using them, it was a nice thing to play with programming wise though.

Brings back an old memory,as one of the first games that i played back then that could be 3D accelerated was Quake 2 in OpenGL,and the visual differences between software rendering and running with the voodoo 2 cards,even though it was only 1024*768 resolution in 16 bit color and bilinear filtered,was mind blowing to say the least.


It's those sort of experiences that i still remember even 13 years later.....Now we're debating between performance figures at 2560*1600 resolutions,32 bit colour,anisotropic filttering at 16X,high resolution textures,and using 8X antialising and DX9/DX10/DX11 modes(supporting far more features than in the early days),and deciding who rules and which one sucks as a video card for gaming....Go figure..


Feels like the largest gains for video cards in terms visual eyecandy are already behind us,and improvements overall are smaller to notice as time goes on....It's little things here and there that add up for the most part.