Looks Like Nv40 Aint All That Impressive!

[bigdawgfoxx]

Haha damn..ATI rules..

[3RA1N1AC]

while i'd definitely put games ahead of synthetic benchmarks, in terms of performance measurements... you know, it's pretty hard to say that these tests mean a lot, without mature NV40 drivers or next-generation games that rely on things that the NV40 might be good at doing.

as pretty as UT2004 and Need For Speed Underground are, neither of 'em are the sort of thing that you'd need to buy an NV40 for, when older cards already run 'em just fine.

these graphs are interesting, but you won't see a complete picture until the card is actually released, Nvidia's driver authors have a bit of time to work on it, and games come out that require features which older cards don't support very well. it's the same story every year with both Nvidia and ATI's products-- the pre-release measurements are one thing, but the difference is revealed by the games that come out afterwards.

just sayin'... try to keep the charts & graphs in perspective.

[atiVidia]

id like to find out who benched them lol cuz they look pretty false.


also, that looks like a prerelease card. the retail 6800u has a smaller hsf.


adam whered u get these benches? i will wait til xbitlabs does a benching to finalize my opinion.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@13 April 2004 - 19:37
while i'd definitely put games ahead of synthetic benchmarks, in terms of performance measurements... you know, it's pretty hard to say that these tests mean a lot, without mature NV40 drivers or next-generation games that rely on things that the NV40 might be good at doing.

as pretty as UT2004 and Need For Speed Underground are, neither of 'em are the sort of thing that you'd need to buy an NV40 for, when older cards already run 'em just fine.

these graphs are interesting, but you won't see a complete picture until the card is actually released, Nvidia's driver authors have a bit of time to work on it, and games come out that require features which older cards don't support very well. it's the same story every year with both Nvidia and ATI's products-- the pre-release measurements are one thing, but the difference is revealed by the games that come out afterwards.

just sayin'... try to keep the charts & graphs in perspective.

Well Mr. Brain, your arguement is valid.

Of course things must be put into perspective. But one thing is for sure: the results are not wonderful, driver issues included.

We are talking millions of dollars of research and development, and millions of dollars of marketing hype. We, the consumers in this marketplace should expect some claims that Nvidia's marketing department made to materialize in the form of benchmarks, for it is us enthusiasts who are the buyers in the market and they must know that we are not fools and are going to read [H]ardOCP and Anandtech before buying anything.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by atiVidia@13 April 2004 - 20:20
id like to find out who benched them lol cuz they look pretty false.


also, that looks like a prerelease card. the retail 6800u has a smaller hsf.


adam whered u get these benches? i will wait til xbitlabs does a benching to finalize my opinion.

news source

[3RA1N1AC]

i totally agree, ATI's pre-release tests for the past few years have pretty consistently shown improvements in contemporary games and synth-benches. Nvidia's pre-release results with the GF FX and apparently the NV40 on the other hand have been disappointing. with existing software, Nvidia's cards have failed to justify themselves. UT2004 is still relevant, absolutely, 'cause Epic (like id software) sell their engine to lots of companies... there'll no doubt be plenty more Unreal-based games in the future.

but i still prefer the "wait & see" attitude. upcoming games & game-engines are what really prove the worthiness of the latest high end cards, since what yer really looking for in a card is not only more speed but also new features that today's games aren't using.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@13 April 2004 - 20:38
i totally agree, ATI's pre-release tests for the past few years have pretty consistently shown improvements in contemporary games and synth-benches. Nvidia's pre-release results with the GF FX and apparently the NV40 on the other hand have been disappointing. with existing software, Nvidia's cards have failed to justify themselves. UT2004 is still relevant, absolutely, 'cause Epic (like id software) sell their engine to lots of companies... there'll no doubt be plenty more Unreal-based games in the future.

but i still prefer the "wait & see" attitude. upcoming games & game-engines are what really prove the worthiness of the latest high end cards, since what yer really looking for in a card is not only more speed but also new features that today's games aren't using.

Well let's wait and see.

Thanks for your input, Brainiac, I always enjoy reading your posts.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by atiVidia@13 April 2004 - 20:20
i will wait til xbitlabs does a benching to finalize my opinion.

Yes, those Russians at xbitlabs.com sure do some strenuous testing, don't they?

One thing that I really like about xbitlabs is their rather unorthodox testing methods...

[gungrave]

Image Resized
[img]http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_1_15_l.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>
its a brick

[Pitbul]

i just went to HardOCP.com where those benches supposedly came from, and it seems as tho they aren't there? hmm adamp2p, i suggest checking your sources before posting bullshit. Brent from HardOCP himself said the Nvidia NDA does go end till the 14'th at 12:01am which is still an hour away in the west, and he said they will possibly be posting something about the NV40 tomorow

so i think i'll reserve my judgement till they official post benches on there site.