Ati Schoolz Nvidia

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Illuminati@4 May 2004 - 22:53
This thing happens every few months - ATI brings out cards which outperform nVidia's, nVidia bring out cards that outperform ATI's a couple of months later, the cycle repeats again a few couple of months after. It used to be every six months a few years back, but as with Moore's Law with today's processor technologies it's increasing in frequency than originally thought :)

And if I remember, this same bloody thread happened a few months ago as well by the same bloody person. :huh: See you again in a few months, adam :rolleyes:

---

In case you havnt noticed, these are next generation cards, marking a huge step up from the current models available today. They are new cores, R420 and NV40, and represent the latest basis for this years cards. These are not your average step up, and are worth reporting on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RGX+4 May 2004 - 18:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 4 May 2004 - 18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Illuminati@4 May 2004 - 22:53
This thing happens every few months - ATI brings out cards which outperform nVidia&#39;s, nVidia bring out cards that outperform ATI&#39;s a couple of months later, the cycle repeats again a few couple of months after.&nbsp; It used to be every six months a few years back, but as with Moore&#39;s Law with today&#39;s processor technologies it&#39;s increasing in frequency than originally thought :)

And if I remember, this same bloody thread happened a few months ago as well by the same bloody person. :huh: See you again in a few months, adam :rolleyes:

---

In case you havnt noticed, these are next generation cards, marking a huge step up from the current models available today. They are new cores, R420 and NV40, and represent the latest basis for this years cards. These are not your average step up, and are worth reporting on. [/b][/quote]
Exactly&#33; ;)

Conclusion xbitlabs.com

Quote:

---

So, the new RADEON X800 graphics processors from ATI Technologies demonstrated themselves as extremelly powerful rivals for the high-end of NVIDIA GeForce 6-series graphics products.

The top-of-the-line &#036;499 RADEON X800 XT appeared to be faster compared to its main competitor – the GeForce 6800 Ultra – in plethora of applications where it was pretty natual to expect – the games that broadly use complex geometry and loads of math-intensive pixel shaders. Additionally, the new graphics processors from ATI Technologies are also getting performance advantages over&nbsp; the rivalling NVIDIA’s solution when full-scene antialiasing and anisotropic filtering are switched on – that’s because of the new HyperZ HD technology that maximizes the efficiency of memory bandwidth utilization as well as because of high-performance anisotropic filtering method.

A little bit less speedy flavour of the R420 – the RADEON X800 PRO – that has only 12 pixel pipelines and clocked at lower speeds undoubtedly demonstrate an excellent performance rise over the previous generation RADEON 9800 XT and the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra hardware. But the final conclusion about this one should still be put on hold, as NVIDIA has not finalized specification of its &#036;399 product. This is a kind of funny, but the RADEON X800 PRO is expected to be available in retail instantly, making the process of choice at &#036;399 price-point pretty tricky, as the actual performance comparison with competing solution from NVIDIA is still to see the light of the day.

Regrettably for the Markham, Ontario-based company, due to some drawbacks with efficient texturing in the new VPUs from ATI, NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra manages to beat the rival in games where high fillrate and rapid texturing are important.

Furthermore, NVIDIA still has some more trumps in its hands. Firstly, the company’s GeForce 6800 Ultra GPU is able to calculate up to 32 Z/stencil values per pass, therefore, games that heavily use Z or stencil buffers for generation dynamic shadows will have loads of chances to run faster on NVIDIA’s hardware. Secondly, eventually game developers may implement Shaders 3.0 into their titles for the purposes of performance optimization, which will also boost the speed on NVIDIA’s latest hardware that supports the Shader Model 3.0, a capability that seems to be trimmed on the ATI’s RADEON X800 XT and X800 PRO.

Unfortunately for NVIDIA, right now there are no games that actually use the shaders 3.0 and there is also no DirectX 9.0c that will actually switch on the support for the SM 3.0. With that said, we should probably let the time to say its last word in the cruel battle between the R420 and the NV40 technologies, but based on current numbers achieved in benchmarks we believe that the RADEON X800 XT clearly packs the punch over the competitor in terms of performance in applications that use shaders 2.0/2.x and are available today.

---

NVIDIA down for the count (yet again, no?)

:lol: Poor nVidia
I wonder how long it&#39;ll be until they realise that they won&#39;t ever beat ATI lol

ATI IS THE BEST&#33; hands down

heres y its better than nvidia:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6095215/index.html

look at the comparison chart

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaiweiler@5 May 2004 - 01:43
:lol: Poor nVidia
I wonder how long it&#39;ll be until they realise that they won&#39;t ever beat ATI lol

---

ya realy wanna hope they dont give up and submit , the advance in graphics technology is pushed by these two trading blows

if nvidia gives up the push to be best , and ati gets basicaly 100% market share of the performance card world, forget newer stuff quick , and forget cheap prices

Trouble is people see reports like "version 62.11 drivers are broken so ignore those benchmarks" and forget that there is probably a small bug which, when fixed, will show that Nvidia is competing on just about the same level as Ati (better in some respects, poorer in others).

I fail to understand why they insist on comparing Ati&#39;s newest card running with Ati&#39;s newest drivers against Nvidia&#39;s newest card running with out of date drivers, it just doesn&#39;t make sense.

Certainly, Nvidia should be criticised for not getting their drivers right in time for the launch of the new card, but Ati had some time to seek out those bugs while their own product was still under wraps. Don&#39;t assume that there are no bugs in Ati&#39;s drivers, it may be that they just haven&#39;t been found yet, but then again Ati haven&#39;t made the leap forward into PS 3.0, that too could explain the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx@4 May 2004 - 18:30
Trouble is people see reports like "version 62.11 drivers are broken so ignore those benchmarks" and forget that there is probably a small bug which, when fixed, will show that Nvidia is competing on just about the same level as Ati (better in some respects, poorer in others).

I fail to understand why they insist on comparing Ati&#39;s newest card running with Ati&#39;s newest drivers against Nvidia&#39;s newest card running with out of date drivers, it just doesn&#39;t make sense.

Certainly, Nvidia should be criticised for not getting their drivers right in time for the launch of the new card, but Ati had some time to seek out those bugs while their own product was still under wraps. Don&#39;t assume that there are no bugs in Ati&#39;s drivers, it may be that they just haven&#39;t been found yet, but then again Ati haven&#39;t made the leap forward into PS 3.0, that too could explain the difference.

---

Excuse me, but what did you just say?

About Shader Model 3.0? Do you know HOW LONG it takes MICROSOFT to deliver products out of BETA? Obviously not&#33; Pixel Shader 3.0 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SINGLE GAME OR BY MICROSOFT (and probably will not be until late this summer or early fall and by then ATI can get ahead and develop a new solution that could easily outperform the 6800 series.) Obviously you have not done your reading on the topic. The 6800 Series is all NVIDIA has on their horizon until late next year. In other words, ATI has (yet) ANOTHER opportunity to best NVIDIA.

The real issue is performance in TODAYS games. I offer you an anecdote along the same train of thought:

It&#39;s great to hear about a beautiful woman but bedding her is an entirely different story.

A good marketing team is one that truly believes that their product is superior. It appears to me (I don&#39;t know about you) that Nvidia believes that their product will be superior in future games. That&#39;s just like a woman telling me that she looks okay today, but after her nosejob and breast augmentation she&#39;ll be even better. I just don&#39;t see the world that way.

:lol: >_<

I actually meant that Nvidia have moved forward to enabling PS 3.0 support which could explain why they&#39;ve got bugs in their drivers.

But the other thing is that PS 3.0 needs hardware support which Ati simply haven&#39;t developed, so if you go out and buy an Ati card now will you be going out to but another in a few months time? At &#036;400-500 a time I don&#39;t think that&#39;s very likely, but if the improvements which PS 3.0 supposedly give it will be Ati who are in the shade.

To use your analogy, Nvidia are making sure they look pretty good today AND tomorrow. Ati can do the same for today, but they want more money from you to make sure they look ok tomorrow.

Still, if you&#39;ve got that much money to burn I suppose it doesn&#39;t matter to you, the rest of us have to live in the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx@4 May 2004 - 18:59
I actually meant that Nvidia have moved forward to enabling PS 3.0 support which could explain why they&#39;ve got bugs in their drivers.

But the other thing is that PS 3.0 needs hardware support which Ati simply haven&#39;t developed, so if you go out and buy an Ati card now will you be going out to but another in a few months time? At &#036;400-500 a time I don&#39;t think that&#39;s very likely, but if the improvements which PS 3.0 supposedly give it will be Ati who are in the shade.

To use your analogy, Nvidia are making sure they look pretty good today AND tomorrow. Ati can do the same for today, but they want more money from you to make sure they look ok tomorrow.

Still, if you&#39;ve got that much money to burn I suppose it doesn&#39;t matter to you, the rest of us have to live in the real world.

---

Most hard-core gamers DO NOT live in the real world, we live in a virtual world, and we influence the hardware industry with our loud voices.

Most of us have a job and can afford to spend &#036;500-1000 dollars a year on VPUs. How can we rationalize this? Well let us think for a moment. If I spend 3 hours a day gaming, that adds up to 1095 hours of gaming per year, and at that rate it is less than three dollars a day that we spend to quench our thirst for the highest performance VPU money can buy. That shows that what you define "the real world" to be may not be mine.

"Who needs beautiful women?" They all have the same machinery, right? A Pus*y is a pus*y, right? For you, maybe, but for me, NO&#33;
You have fun with your big legged woman, and I&#39;ll stick with "high performance women," okay?

More is better than less. Better is better that worse. More power is better than less power. It doesn&#39;t get simpler than that.

You stick with your Yugo while I drive a Ferrari, okay?