Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-23-03, 07:48 PM   #157
saulin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 26
Default

See ya dude

BTW give the beta drivers a break. I'm sure the fog will be back as for trilinear filtering in UT 2K3 I did not see the difference in textures from the shot the other fellow posted and mine.

I guess what I'll do is get me some old dets like 43.x where trilinear filtering is on and compare image IQ and performance there. The problem is that I think only dets 44.03 and up support the FX. However someone with a GF4 could do that test.
saulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 08:08 PM   #158
saulin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 26
Default

Hellbinder before getting my card I read like 30 reviews and many ATI vs Nvidia talks.

Back then there were no DX9 benchmarks. And in some games the scores are so close like 2-3 fps difference. And in some cases the FX won in high resolutions like 1280x1024 and up by a lot when using FSAA and Aniso. And it was the other way arround in other games.


But in the end almost all reviews would say. well as we can see the FX is the faster card however it is priced at $499.

And You are right the ATI seems to have less performance hit in AA as I did see that in UT 2K3 when I tested the 9800 pro on my system.

However at least on these maps that are the default for the benchmark

dm-antalus dom-suntemple dm-phobos2 dm-inferno ctf-face3 ctf-citadel dm-asbestos

The FX won both with FSAA and AF and without FSAA and AF. I did use Cats 3.7

The Radeon won in 3DMark 2001 by 200 3Dmarks and lost in 3DMark 03 by 400 3Dmarks.

In emulators the ATI card had a few issues. Could be driver ralated or OpenGL related or maybe the graphics plugins used on the emulators don't have that great Radeon support.

In the end the FX was the faster card. The better card to get if money was not a problem.

Now that we have DX9 benchmarks things are different. But the FX is not done yet simply because there are no DX9 games out yet. Plus people will be playing DX8 games for a big while still. However Nvidia does need a new card to beat the Radeon 9800 pro at DX9. That is a fact.
saulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 08:36 PM   #159
hovz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 201
Default

since saulin is so confident his card is faster then a 9800pro at dx8, how about someone with a 9800 pro bench v saulin. of course ud have to use performance antialiasing v nvidias quality because they both perform bi linear. what do u guys say?
hovz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 08:47 PM   #160
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saulin
Sure these cards can do 12x and 16X FSAA. But really not many games would be playable with those settings.

Who says the be all end all of image quality is that games should be run with 12x or 16x AA?

4xAA (on an R300 card) looks fantastic and is more than playable at 1280x1024 in UT2003 and every game before it. The 4x on a Radeon is far better than 4x on an FX. I've owned both cards, I know.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 09:13 PM   #161
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by fivefeet8
I don't think the Fx cards have sucky Iq at all. THey may not be better than ATi IQ, but you can't say they suck either. All this time you've been trying to prove your points, I've been playing the game and the IQ is definately not sucky. Lack of Trilinear filtering does lose some detail from distant ground texture, but everything else looks fine.
Trilinear filtering has existed since like the Voodoo2! Having worse filtering than a 4 year old card is not "sucky IQ?"
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 09:30 PM   #162
saulin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Trilinear filtering has existed since like the Voodoo2! Having worse filtering than a 4 year old card is not "sucky IQ?"
Sorry but you are talking about one game here. Nvidia does use trilinear filtering dude. Just because UT 2K3 does not use it doesn't mean all games don't use it.

And if you call that sucky IQ then the Radeon is not far from being sucky as well since the IQ is almost identical.

BTW hovz read some reviews dude and you'll see what I mean. Newer reviews will include DX9 stuff and say well the Radeon is faster. But really the FX wins at most DX8 benchmarkks otherwise the reviwers would not have said it is the faster card for DX8.

This is getting boring you keep bringing the same old stuff guys. No trilinear, sucky IQ.

I personally like the performance and IQ I get out of my card for today's games. And I'm sure many FX 5900U owners do as well. Of course they are not happy with DX9 performance though.

Just give it up.

Yes the Radeon beats the FX in DX9 and yes the Radeon has better IQ. happy now?
saulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 09:46 PM   #163
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saulin
Sorry but you are talking about one game here. Nvidia does use trilinear filtering dude. Just because UT 2K3 does not use it doesn't mean all games don't use it.
We're talking about UT2003 Look at the title of this thread. And as stated before, 51.75 doesn't use trilinear in all D3D games.

Quote:
And if you call that sucky IQ then the Radeon is not far from being sucky as well since the IQ is almost identical.
No. Maybe if you use bilinear with your Radeon it looks identical. Trilinear does not exhibit the same artifacts as bilinear, sorry.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 10:06 PM   #164
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

They also need a card to beat the 9800pro in Dx8. Thats a Fact.

You need to look at some of the serious reviews from the major sites put out in the last 3 months. ATi wins 60-70% of all benchmarks put out in the last 90 days easy. That is before we even get to Dx9.

Ill get some links for you later.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-03, 10:10 PM   #165
saulin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 26
Default

mrsabidji I know that UT 2K3 runs faster on the FX. Don't even doubt it. I have tried both cards on my system and it doesn't just beat it. It beats it by a good percent in some maps.

Yes the Radeon gains ground with FSAA but it still gets beat.

I brought up that point cause he said that we should see which card gets better performance using the same AA and AF settings.

And no, I don't have to prove my card is faster than yours to enjoy my games. I just don't think the FX IQ is crap or the whole card itself is garbage like I heard along this discusion.
saulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 10:23 PM   #166
saulin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 26
Default

Dude here is a good review...

Is from July and it includes a bunch of DX8 stuff and don't tell me the FX 5900U does not win most benchmarks. Well not 3DMark but most of the gaming benchmarks. Also note that the FX wins the UT 2K3 benchmarks.


And "look" what the final vederict has to say...


Quote:
When you couple this with eVGA’s e-GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, a card which supports the exact same hardware features but also boasts a 500/900MHz clock frequency and sells for essentially the same price as the FX5900-VTD256, you can see why many enthusiasts have turned to it already. After all, hardware enthusiasts want cutting-edge hardware.
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...view/page4.asp

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDk2LDM=

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcy

Last edited by saulin; 09-23-03 at 10:45 PM.
saulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 10:32 PM   #167
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

It's time I put up my UT2003 results on my 9500. 1280x1024, 4xAA, 4x aniso. And to make it as even as possible, I have my aniso set to performance in the ATI control panel. Also, my card is clocked to a 350 core/310 (620) RAM.

I rest my case in terms of how this card can compete. It's slower on the maps where raw power is required, but on maps that can take full advantage of FSAA and aniso, well...it speaks for itself.

And if your results, saulin, are with a 5900 Ultra...well, I rest my case.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	results.jpg
Views:	108
Size:	74.3 KB
ID:	3260  
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-03, 10:43 PM   #168
hovz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 201
Default

can someone with a 9800 pro plz post hardcop benchmark utility results with 4x performance af and 4x aa
hovz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My UT2003 Tweak Guide DXnfiniteFX Gaming Central 48 10-31-02 12:59 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.