Is the 5800 Ultra really the king?

[digitalwanderer]

This is NOT meant to be a flamefest, this is an honest question that I just thought of that I do NOT know the answer to and I would be very curious to know it.

Has the 5800 Ultra ever beat the 9700 Pro in benchmarks where both are using WHQL certified drivers? Or has it just been beating the 9700 Pro when it uses their "special performance review" driver set?

It IS an important distinction, as I think most understand the IQ degradation in the "performance review" set...but has anyone seen any benchmarks of the 5800 Ultra using a real set of drivers against the 9700 Pro using a real set of drivers?

Any productive input is appreciated, no nasty conspiracy theories or flames please. (<----HEY, I said please! )

[SurfMonkey]

The 5800 is a flop. To many things went wrong and too many things are still wrong.

If it had come out before the R300 it would have kicked ass, it's still faster than a GF4 and is still fast enough to cope with next gen stuff. But it just doesn't have what it takes, IMO.

Too much hype and way too much technology. IMO nvidia decided that they could push the barrier forward without waiting for DXx.x and believed that everyone would follow.

But as ATi has shown, just sticking to the current spec is the best way to go (F-buffer apart - can't see where that fits in yet!).

Nvidia bit off more than they could chew, realised it wasn't going to work out like they wanted, looked for a excuse and then made the sad mistake of believing their own marketing machine.

Oh well, there's always next time.

[digitalwanderer]

I know that, you know that, most of the people on this board know that...heck, I'd even wager that nVidia knows that.

What I'm asking is are there any HARD NUMBERS besides the 5800 Ultra on the 'review drivers' that show it beating the 9700 Pro in a head-to-head?

Seriously, I think it's a good/important/signifigant little point. If nVidia is going to be claiming, "they've regained the gaming crown", I'd really like to know what they're basing it on.

If they're basing it on the 'review drivers' numbers, fine and cheesy; if they're basing it on something else I'd like to hear/know about it before I give 'em my new official title....

[ReDeeMeR]

It could've been an ok card for 300USD

No one is going to buy that bs for 600 Euros here in europe, Nvidia is smoking some good stuff, hope they dont choke on it as we'll get stuck with only ATi then

[Solomon]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I know that, you know that, most of the people on this board know that...heck, I'd even wager that nVidia knows that.

What I'm asking is are there any HARD NUMBERS besides the 5800 Ultra on the 'review drivers' that show it beating the 9700 Pro in a head-to-head?

Seriously, I think it's a good/important/signifigant little point. If nVidia is going to be claiming, "they've regained the gaming crown", I'd really like to know what they're basing it on.

If they're basing it on the 'review drivers' numbers, fine and cheesy; if they're basing it on something else I'd like to hear/know about it before I give 'em my new official title....

The numbers show the FX 5800 Ultra smoking the ATi Radeon 9700 Pro in Tetris Baby!!!! Hehehehehehehe. I'm just waiting for the damn cards to show up in retail. I'm wondering if eVGA feels stupid now. They posted some time clock and guess what that clock expired 6 days ago! LOL... How do you feel eVGA? Hehehe.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

[scott123]

The 5800 is the king of disasters for Nvidia. I'm not sure what Nvidia plans next, but they need to re-focus, and start fresh.

Scott

[Sazar]

product = pretty good IMO for what it does.. unfortunately the marketing set it up to be something that eventually seems to have choked the enthusiasm of the customer base of the product...

[Moose]

Well, from the benches I've seen (with cheesy drivers) it wins slightly when there is no AA or AF on.

It wins slightly with AA and AF are on AS LONG AS IQ IS NOT MATCHED.

If you turn on AA and AF AND match quality it loses, very badly in some cases.

It wins slightly in DX9 with 12 or 16 bit drivers but it gets is ass handed to it when it is run with the 43.00 drivers.

So IMO, if the image quality is matched it loses pretty much across the board.

If you don't care how things look on the screen then it wins slightly.

Either way it is very loud, very hot and nowhere to be seen.

I'd hardly call that a win at all.

[SurfMonkey]

OK, I guess one to look at is that in plain DX7 to DX8 games. Played straight from install with no fancy FSAA or AF applied, then the GF FX wins the fight.

If, on the other hand, you count FSAA and AF as being indespensible in todays games then the GF FX loses big time.

So I would say that if you just wanted to play games and not stand around and look at the scenery then, yes the GF FX is the fastest card you can buy (and that maybe by clockspeed only ). Otherwise... who cares

[Grrrpoop]

Originally posted by SurfMonkey
So I would say that if you just wanted to play games and not stand around and look at the scenery then, yes the GF FX is the fastest card you can buy (and that maybe by clockspeed only ). Otherwise... who cares

I guess that's the real difference..

A m8 of mine is heavily into online gaming and has Q3 tweaked like I'd never seen b4, looked absolutely hideous but played like butter.

On the other hand I play with way more eyecandy on because I'm not some FPS nut. In games like Splinter Cell and Deus Ex you want as much eyecandy as possible as they're about immersion, especially DeusEx as it's FP.

I want a card that can give the fps with lots of eyecandy.. atm that doesn't seem to be an FX based card. I think nV35 might raise the nVidia IQ level a little tho, hopefully they'll take the criticism they're getting seriously (and not stick their heads up their ass like 3Dfx did when challenged about 16bit colour - people DO care about IQ!).

What I find most ironic about all this is the hardcore nVidiot reviewers on some publications touting the FX's 128bit precision above ATI's 96bit, completely ignoring the fact that at 128bit precision the FX's performance suffers noticeably. The claim that ATI only just supports DX9 looks a little shaky when to gain FPS they drop precision to 64bit, below the DX9 minimum of 96bit (yet ATI happily toodles along at it's "bare minimum" 96bit).

There's so much BS and bias flying around..

btw DigiWand, if someone posted a similar thread at Rage3D they'd get flamed all to hell, I'm amazed nobodies went off the deep end yet..

To answer the topic Q tho, I don't see the FX Ultra as King. But neither is the 9800 (or 9700).

I think the brand loyalty for each is strong enough for the weaknesses of each card to be forgiven and a purchase made.

Personally I think the FX is a pile of w*nk and I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, but I hate unecessary noise and heat; I didn't spend a pile of money on a CM case with low dB fans and a Rheo just to negate it all with a gfx card.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by Moose
Well, from the benches I've seen (with cheesy drivers) it wins slightly when there is no AA or AF on.

It wins slightly with AA and AF are on AS LONG AS IQ IS NOT MATCHED.

If you turn on AA and AF AND match quality it loses, very badly in some cases.

It wins slightly in DX9 with 12 or 16 bit drivers but it gets is ass handed to it when it is run with the 43.00 drivers.

So IMO, if the image quality is matched it loses pretty much across the board.

If you don't care how things look on the screen then it wins slightly.

Either way it is very loud, very hot and nowhere to be seen.

I'd hardly call that a win at all.

I'm not disagreeing with you on any of that...but on WHICH set of drivers is that based on is my big question?

They're pinning their "victory" on the 'review drivers' unless I'm badly mistaken, which means they ain't only not king but they cheated to try and usurp the title.

EDITED BITS: This got posted while I was posting

Originally posted by Grrrpoop
btw DigiWand, if someone posted a similar thread at Rage3D they'd get flamed all to hell, I'm amazed nobodies went off the deep end yet..

You'll get a chance to see how accurate that statement is, once a bit of other fun dies down there I'm gonna pose the same question over there to see the response.

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Has the 5800 Ultra ever beat the 9700 Pro in benchmarks where both are using WHQL certified drivers?

there have never been WHQL NV30 drivers....right?