Looks Like Nv40 Aint All That Impressive!

Image Resized
[img]http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_5_11.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

Image Resized
[img]http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_6_8.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

Image Resized
[img]http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_6_8.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>


Image Resized
[img]http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_6_8.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

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'>

:lol:

Looks like ATi is still the KING! Can't wait for R420!

are those real benchmarks? could be fakes...although that pic of the card looks pretty promising...

too bad for nvidia :(

Image Resized
[img]http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_7_7_l.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

Image Resized
[img]http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_7_2.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

needs 2 molex...ouch
how come it takes all that extra power but doesnt give out any extra performance?! what is all that power being used for then? other then generating a lot of heat...
I'm trusting ATI will beat that by a large margin, ATI will always be the king of GFX IMO :rolleyes:
EDIT wow that last benchmark is amazing, the 6800 is below the 9800xt the whole way through....

Those are some BS benchmarks...look at the AA and AF settings...the 6800Ultra is on 4X and 8X...they put the 5950 on NONE to make it look BETTER then the 9800XT, and the 9800XT is set to 8X AA on some of them...thats crap they need to all be equally set..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@13 April 2004 - 19:11
Those are some BS benchmarks...look at the AA and AF settings...the 6800Ultra is on 4X and 8X...they put the 5950 on NONE to make it look BETTER then the 9800XT, and the 9800XT is set to 8X AA on some of them...thats crap they need to all be equally set..

---

These all have the same settings:

Image Resized
[img]http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_5_11.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@13 April 2004 - 22:11
Those are some BS benchmarks...look at the AA and AF settings...the 6800Ultra is on 4X and 8X...they put the 5950 on NONE to make it look BETTER then the 9800XT, and the 9800XT is set to 8X AA on some of them...thats crap they need to all be equally set..

---

i think they were showing what kinds of quality you can have for similar performance with each card. so the new one can have the best quality settings and the 5950 has the worst quality for them all to have same performance.

Well damn...the 5950U beats the 9800XT...thats wierd :huh: I know it does in some benchmarks..but with that high of RES and high AA and AF I would say the 9800XT would win hands down...

Dont look too impressive...that SUCKS for Nvidia...

What are the core and memory speeds for that card? And doesnt it have like double the pipelines...how can it be such a small performance increase?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@13 April 2004 - 22:27
how can it be such a small performance increase?

---

might be because the drivers havent been finalised for the new card :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@13 April 2004 - 19:27
Well damn...the 5950U beats the 9800XT...thats wierd :huh: I know it does in some benchmarks..but with that high of RES and high AA and AF I would say the 9800XT would win hands down...

Dont look too impressive...that SUCKS for Nvidia...

What are the core and memory speeds for that card? And doesnt it have like double the pipelines...how can it be such a small performance increase?

---

Well one thing that you need to keep in mind is the fact that it is well understood that Nvidia's algorithm for anti-aliasing is inferior to ATi's. Another thing that is well understood is Nvidia's image quality is considered by the enthusiast community to be inferior to ATi.

Thus faster frame rates at lower image quality does not equal better gameplay.

Haha damn..ATI rules.. :D

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. ;)

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

:)

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 :blink:

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.

I hate the way they've put them charts. A bar chart of averages would be much better to look at.

Guys guys guys.....check out these, dont rely on one set of benchmarks ;)


http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1708.5/

http://hardwareanalysis.com/images/a...arge/11077.gif

http://hardwareanalysis.com/images/a...arge/11078.gif

http://hardwareanalysis.com/images/a...arge/11091.gif


Personally, I think thats pretty damn impressive that in some cases its 50% faster than the 9800XT. We all know how graphics intensive far cry is and look at the FPS scores, pretty damn good. Looks like they have upped their image quality also.

(Warning 56kers, hi res picture)

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hirez.asp...a/images/33.png



MORE impressive in game benchmarks ;)


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia...ltra/page10.asp

Whilst its not a huge jump, the scores are still impressive, and considering it seems to run Far Cry at 1600x1200 with ease, I think it blows most current cards out of the water. Cant wait to see ATi's offering now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RGX@14 April 2004 - 07:25
Guys guys guys.....check out these, dont rely on one set of benchmarks ;)


http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1708.5/

http://hardwareanalysis.com/images/a...arge/11077.gif

http://hardwareanalysis.com/images/a...arge/11078.gif

http://hardwareanalysis.com/images/a...arge/11091.gif


Personally, I think thats pretty damn impressive that in some cases its 50% faster than the 9800XT. We all know how graphics intensive far cry is and look at the FPS scores, pretty damn good. Looks like they have upped their image quality also.

(Warning 56kers, hi res picture)

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hirez.asp...a/images/33.png



MORE impressive in game benchmarks ;)


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia...ltra/page10.asp

Whilst its not a huge jump, the scores are still impressive, and considering it seems to run Far Cry at 1600x1200 with ease, I think it blows most current cards out of the water. Cant wait to see ATi's offering now.

---

those are pretty impressive benchmarks :o

Oh and by the way, my prediction for Pixel Shader 3.0 taking a long time to be used? Wrong ;). Its already here, and rumours are that ATi doesnt support it.

Games that are going to be updated to use or already use Pixel Shader 3.0:


Lord of the Rings: Battle for middle Earth
Far Cry
Painkiller
Grafan
Driver 3
Madden 2005
Tigerwoods 2005
Splinter Cell X
Vampire Bloodlines
Stalker

If it turns out that the rumours are true and the X800 doesnt support it, I think ATi may be in a world of hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RGX@14 April 2004 - 09:54
Oh and by the way, my prediction for Pixel Shader 3.0 taking a long time to be used? Wrong ;). Its already here, and rumours are that ATi doesnt support it.

Games that are going to be updated to use or already use Pixel Shader 3.0:


Lord of the Rings: Battle for middle Earth
Far Cry
Painkiller
Grafan
Driver 3
Madden 2005
Tigerwoods 2005
Splinter Cell X
Vampire Bloodlines
Stalker

If it turns out that the rumours are true and the X800 doesnt support it, I think ATi may be in a world of hurt.

---

driver 3! yay, use to love that game, but got bored of those crap ps1 graphics lol. id get it for ps2, or compuer if i get a better graphics card...