Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA Legacy Graphics Cards

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-30-04, 12:56 PM   #97
Moose
Cheating is for losers!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 241
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaiNaM
i'm not sure why you're getting your panties all in a bunch... there are many cases where the fx series equals or betters the radeons; just not in DX9 shaders where ati excels.
You are absolutely correct, Nvidia cards are at their very best when no AA or AF is used and there are no screenshots to show image quality. They also seem to excel whenever Anandtech reviews them.

As far as methodology what methodology was used since none is listed?
Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 01:06 PM   #98
vampireuk
**** Holster
 
vampireuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The armoury
Posts: 2,813
Send a message via AIM to vampireuk
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

I can honestly say I don't care about image quality, I just want performance from my games.
__________________
I put children in microwaves.
vampireuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 01:28 PM   #99
CaiNaM
Registered User
 
CaiNaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 563
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose
You are absolutely correct, Nvidia cards are at their very best when no AA or AF is used and there are no screenshots to show image quality. They also seem to excel whenever Anandtech reviews them.

As far as methodology what methodology was used since none is listed?
dunno.. which is why i said there's not anything "necessarily" wrong with it.. but that wasn't the point.

the point was in many circumstances someone can point to a benchmark and say, "here's proof", and someone else points to a benchmark that contradicts it, making any one benchmark useless in the first place. different driver revisions, game revisions.. any number of things can skew a benchmark any number of ways. a number of benchmarks have "AA or AF is and screenshots to show image quality" that would paint a similar picture to anand's on the games tested.

if you look at ALL the info and the various benchmarks, one thing is clear and beyond argument (well, at least logical argument): despite nvidia's improvements in ps2.0 shader performace in later driver revisions, they are still clearly behind ati. the relevance could certainly be argued, as ps2.0 shader usage is still minimal, however in the cases where it is implemented, ati is clearly superior in both performance and quality overall (tho quality could be construed as subjective).

i mean... i've seen stuff and compared stuff myself, where at higher resolutions or higher aa settings, the nv performance is actually BETTER (tho this is not the overall case, most times they are neck and neck, excluding the ps2.0 issue). could be due to game coding, bandwidth requirements (where nv's overall higher core/memory clock provides more than ati), or whatever.. but again, that's the whole point of my saying there's no reason to get all up in arms over ONE benchmark, regardless of the results - it only shows one part of the equation, and under a specific circumstance at that. it means little by itself regardless....
CaiNaM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 01:40 PM   #100
Moose
Cheating is for losers!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 241
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by vampireuk
I can honestly say I don't care about image quality, I just want performance from my games.

I hope you aren't serious about that. Because if you are you should be playing at 320x240. No point in even buying a video card then.
Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 01:49 PM   #101
vampireuk
**** Holster
 
vampireuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The armoury
Posts: 2,813
Send a message via AIM to vampireuk
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose
I hope you aren't serious about that. Because if you are you should be playing at 320x240. No point in even buying a video card then.
I'm deadly serious, I don't care about AA and AF. Going ooooh and aaaah when playing a game isn't going to make you any better at it.

Also why should I be playing at 320x420? Or is that just one of these red herrings I've heard so much about.
__________________
I put children in microwaves.
vampireuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 01:53 PM   #102
CaiNaM
Registered User
 
CaiNaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 563
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

it's not an issue when competing against others - i tune "down" as my focus is on the other players, not the environment.. higher IQ can even be distracting.

i'd be lying tho if i said i didn't enjoy the "oooh's and aaaah's" when messing around or playing SP
CaiNaM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 02:53 PM   #103
Moose
Cheating is for losers!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 241
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by vampireuk
I'm deadly serious, I don't care about AA and AF. Going ooooh and aaaah when playing a game isn't going to make you any better at it.

Also why should I be playing at 320x420? Or is that just one of these red herrings I've heard so much about.
I'm just saying that you must care about IQ a bit or you would still be playing at ultra low resolutions to keep the FPS at the highest level possible.

I do care about IQ and I find jaggies extremely distracting. I usually adjust my graphic settings for max quality that allows me to keep about 40 FPS or so for online gaming. More FPS is a waste for my meager gaming abilities.

For most single player games I adjust for max quality.
Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 03:00 PM   #104
AthlonXP1800
Registered User
 
AthlonXP1800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,352
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaiNaM
Shadow maps type: Mixed Depth/2D maps
Hmmm I wonder why you got mixed depth and 2D maps on both NV and ATI, is the shadowing in the graphics option less than Very High?

Mine all options at maximum with Shadowing at Very High, I got depth maps

****** D3D9 Render Stats ******
Driver description: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
Full stats: HAL (pure hw vp): NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
Hardware acceleration: Yes
Full scene AA: Disabled
Projective EMBM: enabled
Detail textures: Yes
Z Buffer Locking: Yes
Use multitexture mode: Yes (8 texture(s))
Use bumpmapping : Yes (DOT3)
Use paletted textures : No
Current Resolution: 1024x768x32 Full Screen
Maximum Resolution: 1920x1080
Maximum Texture size: 4096x4096 (Max Aspect: 4096)
Texture filtering type: TRILINEAR
Use 32 bits textures
Gamma control: Hardware
Vertex Shaders version 2.0
Pixel Shaders version 2.0
Use Hardware Shaders for NV3x GPUs
Pixel shaders usage: PS.2.0 and PS.1.1
Vertex shaders usage: VS.2.0 and VS.1.1
Shadow maps type: Depth maps
Stencil shadows type: Two sided
*****************************************
__________________
Intel Core i7 3770K, Corsair H80 liquid cooler with Noctua S12-1200 fan, ASUS P8Z77V with UEFI 2104, 16GB Samsung Green 30nm DDR3-RAM, Pioneer BDR-S09XLT 16x Blu-ray writer, Corsair AX850 PSU, Western Digital 2TB SATA3 hard drive, CanonScan LiDE 210 scanner, Microsoft Internet Keyboard, Microsoft Touch Explorer mouse, 32inch Sharp LC32LE600 LED TV, EVGA Geforce GTX 670 SC 4GB with Geforce 370.50 driver, 50Mb broadband Virgin Media VMDG480 Super Hub, Aspire Xplorer Midi Tower, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit.
AthlonXP1800 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-04, 03:04 PM   #105
vampireuk
**** Holster
 
vampireuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The armoury
Posts: 2,813
Send a message via AIM to vampireuk
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose
I'm just saying that you must care about IQ a bit or you would still be playing at ultra low resolutions to keep the FPS at the highest level possible.
I play at a higher resolution because it is a lot harder to play online with a small resolution.
__________________
I put children in microwaves.
vampireuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 03:25 PM   #106
CaiNaM
Registered User
 
CaiNaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 563
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by AthlonXP1800
Hmmm I wonder why you got mixed depth and 2D maps on both NV and ATI, is the shadowing in the graphics option less than Very High?

Mine all options at maximum with Shadowing at Very High, I got depth maps
hmm.. i dunno.. just looked on my ati rig, and it shows the mixed depth, while all setting ins the vid "advanced" options are set to "very hight", with medium af and trilinear filtering....
CaiNaM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 06:46 PM   #107
quik_2_win
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppy
...PC800 offers 3.2 GB/s...where you get "acceptable" performance.
While that may hold true in theory, articles from the time indicate much lower 'actual' throughput. Perhaps a latency issue? Here is a good read on the subject-http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,186,00.asp
Essentially, with the same P4 CPU (2.0Ghz), the author was able to add 1000 points to his 3DM score, and increase Q3 FPS by more than 10% by running (now legacy also) PC1066 as opposed to PC800. I stand corrected on my bandwidth estimate, however my point was to stress the limiting factor of his platform in relation to his gaming experience instead of expecting a vanilla 5900 to make his aging hardware perform to his (obviously overzealous) expectations.
quik_2_win is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-04, 09:40 PM   #108
ragejg
nV News Alumni
 
ragejg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Finger Lakes of Hell, NY
Posts: 5,399
Send a message via AIM to ragejg
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games



/me looks @ my kt266a with a 5900 stuffed in it...








__________________

2010-2011 Reviews: GTX 570 | GTX 580 | GTS 450 | GTX 460 | GTX 465
Pre-2010 Reviews: 6600 GT | XMS 4400 DDR | SilenX Cooler | 6800 | 5900 XT | Personal Cinema | 5900 NU


______________________________________________
Phenom II x6 1090t @ 4.0 ghz | Asus M498TD-EVO Am3 SLI nForce 980a | 2x EVGA GTX 560 SLI | 2x4gb DDR3-1333 | Antec EarthWatts EA650 PSU | 60gb Mushkin Calisto Enhanced Sandforce SSD | 2x WD2500KS RAID 0 | Sunbeam Tuniq 3 case | 24" Asus 19x10 LED LCD | 26" Panasonic 720p TV | Sidewinder X5 mouse | Logitech MX5500 & Revolution mouse | Altec Lansing 5.1 THX-Certified audio | Win 7 Ultimate | desk | couch


ragejg 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
Far Cry 3 preview and E3 presentation footage News Archived News Items 0 06-06-12 10:30 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 AM.


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