Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > Other Desktop Graphics Cards

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-19-02, 05:03 PM   #157
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Btw, jbirney, if you want to consider non-aniso, non-FSAA performance to be a problem of the GeForce3 at launch, then it is, by analogy, also a problem of the Radeon 9700 at launch.

That is, look at the non-aniso, non-FSAA benchmarks of the Radeon 9700. Compared to its more than doubling of memory bandwidth and fillrate over the GeForce4 Ti 4600, you would think that it would be able to more than double the performance of the Ti 4600.

Here's a quick example:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...on9700-08.html

In Aquanox, CPU limitations are clearly not the reason that it doesn't more than double the performance of the GeForce4 Ti 4600. After all, the 1600x1200 score is about half the 1024x768 score, which speaks of a heavy fillrate limitation.

Granted, you could claim that it's because the Radeon 9700 only supports one texture per pixel pipeline, but even if you factor in the performance difference between the Radeon 8500 and 9000, it doesn't make the 9700 more than double the performance of the GeForce4 Ti 4600.

Having said all this, I don't consider it a problem in the least. Anybody with a Radeon 9700 would be silly to run without aniso/FSAA. It was a similar scenario with the GeForce3.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 08:05 PM   #158
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

exactly what my thoughts are, from the article jbirney himself referenced, Anand had this to say about compatibility issues
Quote:
The only issue we had with the GeForce3 that we couldn't work around was that Mercedes-Benz Truck Racing would not run without missing textures. This forced us to remove it from our benchmark suite.
i understand what he's saying, nvidia isn't perfect. however, the arguement itself is weak, as even with lower performance than the gf2ultra, at low resolutions and 16bit color the GF3 was fast enough anyway

edit: since we have no benchmarks from the supposedly bad drivers(were those pre shipping drivers?) we don't know just how "bad" they were in terms of performance. hardware reviewers like to embellish their statements.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 09:32 PM   #159
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Guys Anandtech clearly stated in that article that NV did not allow benchmarks too be posted until a time that NV said it was ok to do so. The main reason why was performnace in all cases. Not just the 16 bit or low res.

Quote:
Had NVIDIA allowed reviewers to go live with benchmarks on February 27 to coincide with the GeForce3's technology launch, there would have been quite a bit of negative press regarding the GeForce3
Taken from his GF3 article:
Quote:
This is actually why NVIDIA is refraining from pushing forward with review samples of the GeForce3, since any review that would be published would generally paint the picture of the GeForce3 being no faster than the GeForce2 Ultra except in regards to FSAA performance.
Notice how he only says FSAA. He DID NOT SAY 16 bit or low res.

I know what you guys are saying but thats not the point. The point is that nV had isses in with performance with the very frist GF3 units and held back on benhmarks unitl they got bugs worked out. That was the last time NV had a major change with the core. The next major change with be the the nV30. I hope history does not repeat this time.....
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 09:41 PM   #160
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

jbirney, think for a moment.

The GeForce3 had lower fillrate and the same memory bandwidth as the GeForce2 Ultra. I think it's forgivable that the performance wasn't as high right away. Obviously, nVidia needed to make optimal use of the new features of the GeForce3 before that performance would come up, and it did.

As I posted before, the Radeon 9700 is in a similar situation. Without anisotropic filtering/FSAA, in some fillrate-limited scenarios, it's not performing as high as the raw fillrate and memory bandwidth would suggest.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 09:47 PM   #161
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Btw, jbirney, if you want to consider non-aniso, non-FSAA performance to be a problem of the GeForce3 at launch, then it is, by analogy, also a problem of the Radeon 9700 at launch.
Thats not the same thing. B3D R9700 review showed that as you increase the clock speed of the CPU the 16x12 scores increase that is a sign of being CPU limited.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 09:52 PM   #162
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
Thats not the same thing. B3D R9700 review showed that as you increase the clock speed of the CPU the 16x12 scores increase that is a sign of being CPU limited.
If the 16x12 score is about half that of the 1024x768 score, then it is not CPU-limited. That's what happened in Aquanox, where the Radeon 9700 is not doubling the GeForce4 Ti 4600's score as it should.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 09:53 PM   #163
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Chalnoth read what I have to say.

The GF3 Benchmarks were delayed by nV unitl they reached the level of perfoamance that nV wanted.

I am not talking about the no AA or 16 bit color case. I know why and for god shakes I agree with you. I never ever tired to make that point.

You missed my point that I wrote before:

Quote:
It was about four weeks from when Web sites gave the tech info on the GF3 before they were allowed to post benchmark scores.
Its only AFTER nV ALLOWED them to post scores did we see that it was slower in 16 bit and low res. And like you said its do the fact that nV did not have time to optimize. I am fine what that.

I dont have time right now to provide other URLs that will also back up my point as I have to realse some code to the beta test team. But if you still need it I can provide more links that state the nV held up benchmark numbers until they felt it was good enough.

Sorry for the trouble.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 09:58 PM   #164
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

And the card just wasn't available until after benchmark numbers were available...

In other words..

So what?
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-02, 10:09 PM   #165
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
And the card just wasn't available until after benchmark numbers were available...

In other words..

So what?
It establish the fact that nV on their last major change of designs had driver issues which was the point I made a long time ago. I am not talking about a reboot or screen corruption I am talking about issues that warnted hold its public reviewing back until they were solved.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 10:41 PM   #166
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

And I'm trying to point out that driver issues that result in poor performance are inconsequential. It's the issues that result in incorrect rendering that are important, specifically if they are not fixed in a timely fashion. From everything I've heard from developers, nVidia is excellent in this regard (second only to Matrox...).

As a side note, I think it's kind of silly that people with nVidia graphics cards can already use NV30's features through software, while it is currently impossible to use the R300's features at all...

If you're attempting to say that because nVidia can't put out high-performing drivers at product launch, that the NV30 will be unable to outperform the R300, I just say I think you're way off base. Provided nVidia didn't screw up majorly, I don't see any way that the NV30 can underperform the R300.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-02, 07:16 AM   #167
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
And I'm trying to point out that driver issues that result in poor performance are inconsequential.
Too bad nV did not agree with you and hence the delayed it unitl they felt it was ready.

Quote:
If you're attempting to say that because nVidia can't put out high-performing drivers at product launch, that the NV30 will be unable to outperform the R300, I just say I think you're way off base. Provided nVidia didn't screw up majorly, I don't see any way that the NV30 can underperform the R300.
There is a differnce in high-performing drivers and having drivers so shoddy you hold back a reviews. I would never expect any IHV to release the first set of drivers and have it be completely optimized.

I was just trying to through caution out. The NV30 is a remarkable change from what nV has done in the pass. It will have issues as all new and even old video cards have. What would kill nV if it has the same driver issues that the oringal GF3 had an have the launch of the nV30 delayed like the GF3 was. I now nV driver team is good so the chance of this is probably small.

ATI should have done this with the 8500. The 8500 had horrible issues with its drivers when it was launched. It got ripped open as it should have (no smoothvision, no working hyper zII in opengl, its quake3 optimizations were forked up = cheating, poor perfromace in most games, ect). Now they got it fixed but they should have done what nV did with the GF3, held it back, get the driver bugs/issues worked out and then release the card.

BTW I do expect the NV30 to be faster in some/most cases. However I dont expect this to much faster. I also expect it to cost more money. The R9700 has already dropped to $303 for on-line prices. Thats amazing considering it just started to trickle into stores about 3/4 weeks ago. I dont remember a flagship card that has fallen in price so fast. And thats with out any real competition as the Gf4 is no match for the R9700.


Quote:
As a side note, I think it's kind of silly that people with nVidia graphics cards can already use NV30's features through software, while it is currently impossible to use the R300's features at all...
Funny thing is I can not find DX9 on any of MS download sites...so why do I want to play with software emulation again? How does that help me run my games? Yea I know for some people its a neat thing to do. But does the hardcore gamer, the ones that typical buy the $300+ cards care about software emulation of features?

Besides the R9700 does allow you to play around with Truform2 but its currenly limited to software emulation until DX9. So techincally it does Speaking of Truform, did you know UT2k3 supports it?
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-02, 01:49 PM   #168
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
Funny thing is I can not find DX9 on any of MS download sites...so why do I want to play with software emulation again? How does that help me run my games? Yea I know for some people its a neat thing to do. But does the hardcore gamer, the ones that typical buy the $300+ cards care about software emulation of features?

Besides the R9700 does allow you to play around with Truform2 but its currenly limited to software emulation until DX9. So techincally it does Speaking of Truform, did you know UT2k3 supports it?
It's more for developers. What I was speaking about specifically was OpenGL extensions.

As for Truform, I don't really care.
Chalnoth 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
R9700 Oficially Announced druga runda Other Desktop Graphics Cards 20 04-25-08 10:28 PM
Get a Radeon 9700 now or wait for the NV30? sancheuz Other Desktop Graphics Cards 88 02-19-03 04:40 PM
FalconNW and Voodoo under ATI 9700 spell!!! mizzer Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 09-20-02 07:53 PM
Radeon 9700 pics -=DVS=- Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 08-01-02 09:35 AM
Are there any comparisons of the GeForce4 Ti 4600 to the Radeon 9700 yet? john19055 NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 8 07-28-02 02:07 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 AM.


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