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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-02-03, 10:26 PM   #133
Bopple
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 208
Default

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2003q...h/index.x?pg=2

It's 2-3 frame differences which is around 30% gain with mixed mode.
Don't you think you stick to such a minor issue - kinda grasping at straws?
__________________
Handsome fighter never loses battle.

Last edited by Bopple; 10-02-03 at 10:30 PM.
Bopple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-03, 10:31 PM   #134
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

It has three sets of numbers for each card, DirectX 9.0, DirectX 8.1, and "FX". What do they mean by "FX"?

Quote:
Don't you think you stick to such a minor issue - kinda grasping at straws?
I don't follow you. I pointed out what I saw from the Valve HL2 prelim benchmarks. The numbers in that link you posted are from a different source. Where is the source describing that the Valve graphs were not scaled correctly?

Last edited by jimmyjames123; 10-02-03 at 10:36 PM.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-03, 10:43 PM   #135
Bopple
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
It has three sets of numbers for each card, DirectX 9.0, DirectX 8.1, and "FX". What do they mean by "FX"?
Don't you have any common sense? Then what else can "FX" possibly mean? A movie named "FX"? And if you are out of common sense, just read the article. There they say "FX codepath".

Quote:
I don't follow you. I pointed out what I saw from the Valve HL2 prelim benchmarks. The numbers in that link you posted are from a different source.
So what? What's the so much differences between them? The reason of your rant is just beyond me.
Quote:
Where is the source describing that the Valve graphs were not scaled correctly?
If you want the evidence, just look closely at the Valve presentation slide. The spacing is different. If you cannot see, then consult an opthalmologist.

Edit1) To clarify, i'm pointing at the spacing differences among the graphs.
Yes, it seems slower on Mixed mode on the exact slide which compares both directly.
Edit2) And what's so much deal of significance of that? That probably a simple mistake. I just don't get it what's a big deal here while we can find expected numeric bench results, not graph bars. And it's even at around 10 fps.
__________________
Handsome fighter never loses battle.

Last edited by Bopple; 10-02-03 at 10:52 PM.
Bopple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-03, 10:52 PM   #136
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
The "mixed mode" setting on HL2 from those preliminary benchmarks is a bit puzzling. Look at the results carefully.

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x?pg=2

The 5600 Ultra appears to LOSE 2-3fps (sadly, about 20%) when moving from DirectX 9.0 mode to the mixed mode (something that Beyond3d and other websites apparently didn't seem to catch?). And the 5200 Ultra only gains about 1-2 fps at most when moving from DirectX 9.0 mode to the mixed mode. The 5900 Ultra benefits much more from the move to mixed mode. Clearly there are some issues, probably relating to both hardware and software. However, it certainly doesn't seem that HL2's mixed mode is particularly well optimized for the FX cards, at least at the moment with the currently available drivers!
Who says partial precision mode has to be faster than full precision mode? It all depends on the number of shaders used, and the complexity of those shaders. Obviously the benchmark is intensive enough where there is no benefit from doing a mixed mode. The gfFX5600 has a weak shader architecture, having the same number of shaders as the gfFX5200.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-03, 12:49 AM   #137
cthellis
Hoopy frood
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123

On a side note, I'm sure that some people noticed that these preliminary benchmarks were done at 1024x768x32, with no AA and no AF. Anand got some negative flack from people for showing data using these settings (including that "new" set of HL2 data from an unnamed source), some of whom were perfectly content with the prelim HL2 numbers at similar settings. Go figure.
In all fairness, that HAD to happen to have time to actually test things, considering the reviewers didn't have unlimited time and total control to do it in. (Which is why you also saw some folks compiling results so they would closer resemble a typical testing suite.) There were any number of reviews that coming out at the same time which had a broad scope, so the information was out there as well. And no one should be putting 100% conviction on unreleased benchmarks. (Nor unreleased drivers, no unreleased hardware...)

There's much more expected from a reviewer with total power over the nature and direction of the testing.
cthellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-03, 04:25 AM   #138
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just who is this "mystery" source
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-03, 04:48 AM   #139
mikechai
Aegophile
 
mikechai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 700
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Just who is this "mystery" source
I'll bet a hundred dollars on a company start with "N"
__________________
P4 1.6A @ 2382 MHz | 149x16@1.625V | Asus P4S533 |
256MBx2 Samsung PC2700 | MSI GF2gts 32MB DDR
mikechai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-03, 08:10 AM   #140
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Don't you have any common sense? Then what else can "FX" possibly mean? A movie named "FX"? And if you are out of common sense, just read the article. There they say "FX codepath".
Why is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question without the hyperbole? Now I see what happened. Valve labeled the FX 5200 as DirectX 8.0 when they showed their DirectX 8 vs DirectX 9 data (and the other FX cards were labeled as 8.1).

Quote:
o what? What's the so much differences between them? The reason of your rant is just beyond me.
Obviously you must be confused when you interpret an observation to be a "rant".

Quote:
If you want the evidence, just look closely at the Valve presentation slide. The spacing is different. If you cannot see, then consult an opthalmologist.
That's a BS answer, and you know it. I was talking about the graphs that are all on the same page next to each other. Duh.

Last edited by jimmyjames123; 10-03-03 at 08:30 AM.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-03, 08:22 AM   #141
EMunEeE
Me
 
EMunEeE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 550
Send a message via AIM to EMunEeE
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by AnteP
the RV360 is using low k, NOT the R360
notice the V

if they were actually using low k I'd doubt they'd need such a big ass heatsink

for the record: the XT memory gets hot AS HELL
the heatsink on the back of the board will burn the skin off your fingers if you're not carefull I know from experience
not quite as hot as the 5800 Ultra but almost

I think they should have made the heatsink on the back a bit thicker and with fins
I bet some 3rd party manufacturer will do that, I hope so at least

and oh yeah, one more thing IceQ roxxors your boxxors =) very efficient and very silent
a XT with that cooling and a batter heatsink at the back and I'm ready to go

the good part is that IceQ can be bought as a standalone cooling set and fits just fine on the XT
WHHHATTTT....someone has proved Hellbinder wrong....LOL
__________________
EMunXT
ABIT AN8 Ultra (nForce4 Ultra) || AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ || 2GB OCZ Performance PC3200 DDR SDRAM || ATI All-in-Wonder Radeon X1800 XL 256MB || Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 || 120GB & 80GB Seagate HDs || Lite-On DVD Drive & DVD RW || Antec P160WF Case || Antec TruePower 2.0 430W PSU || Samsung 204T (20.1") & Hitachi CML174SX (17") LCDs

I'm black, I'm still sexy, my computer is now sexier though.
EMunEeE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-03, 10:33 AM   #142
Hanners
Elite Bastard
 
Hanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 984
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
Why is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question without the hyperbole? Now I see what happened. Valve labeled the FX 5200 as DirectX 8.0 when they showed their DirectX 8 vs DirectX 9 data (and the other FX cards were labeled as 8.1).
The reason for that is that even using the specific NV3x code path, the lower-end GeForceFX cards can't run DirectX 9 code fast enough, therefore Valve are treating them as DirectX 8 or 8.1 cards. They also advised to developers who didn't have the time and/or manpower to write a dedicated NV3x codepath to use DirectX 8 code for all GeForceFX boards.
__________________
Owner / Editor-in-Chief - Elite Bastards
Hanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-03, 11:40 AM   #143
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123

On a side note, I'm sure that some people noticed that these preliminary benchmarks were done at 1024x768x32, with no AA and no AF. Anand got some negative flack from people for showing data using these settings (including that "new" set of HL2 data from an unnamed source), some of whom were perfectly content with the prelim HL2 numbers at similar
settings. Go figure.
No your missing the point here. We dont care about the settings or the scores. We do care about HOW THE SCORES WERE ACHIVED. On the first one you had Anand, HardOCP, TechReport, Beyond3d that all had a chance to run the benchmarks in person to see the scores. They noted settings and any IQ issues. Thats find. Then Anand goes and releases numbers from a 2nd hand source with no info on what the IQ was, who the source was, ect. Dont you see the difference. 1st info verified by all the major review sites = good. 2nd/3rd hand info gave to him by an un-named source with no other info how it looked, IQ issues, etc = very bad.

I hope you can see the difference here.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-03, 11:53 AM   #144
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Sure, the 2nd hand info is questionable and should be taken with a grain of salt (although Anand claims that it is a reliable source). I was referring to some people on some other forums (like FM) who were severely criticizing Anand for benchmarking and showing data with that one particular setting. Yes it would be nice to see more resolutions and more settings, but he may have been crunched for time, who knows. Hopefully in part 2 of his review we will actually see some official NV drivers and some good IQ comparisons.
jimmyjames123 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.


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