woowoo
very nice article, i actually sat through and read the whole thing. it was fun comparing the different af and aa levels for each card.
^would've been cool.
lol i love it
i hope alienware retails the actual mobos with dual pciE :'(
Hardware guy
clear
Last edited by SciManAl; 03-15-2006 at 04:13 AM.
.
While I am not saying that the conclusions of the article are wrong, I think people should be very wary of this sort of comparison, they are extremely subjective.
If you look at some of the comparisons they are not of the same frames (in the case of the AA comparisons look at the clouds, for the AF comparisons you can tell from the banner on the LHS), and in almost every case the lighting has changed, which can certainly account for a lot of the discrepancies. This suggests that the author has picked frames which illustrate his conclusions.
If you do your own comparison of the lower parts (where the grass is) of the AA images (not easy) you will see much more detail from the 6800 cards in the images with no FSAA, coming to about even in the Max FSAA images, exactly the opposite of the authors conclusion. The author has cropped the image in his animated comparison so you can't see the grass at the bottom of the picture. The only reason for cropping the images is to support his argument, yet clearly the 6800 has the advantage in some areas and the X800 has the advantage in others.
As for his CPU scaling evidence, I could rarely see any significant difference between the cards (with the obvious exception of the 9800XT getting beaten all round), though a marginal difference may have been observable if he had bothered to synchronise the time frames. That said, how come they were out of sync so much in the first place? And what was the timescale used? Was the whole test over in 5 seconds, or did it last several hours? We have no way of knowing because he doesn't tell us.
To summarise, the conclusions drawn are based on dubious visual comparisons rather than properly measured ones, and are often not even comparisons of like for like. Not one of the better articles, IMO.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
^would've been cool.
they werent out of sync, and that was the point. it shows how nvidia and ati process things differentlyOriginally posted by lynx@14 May 2004 - 15:34
While I am not saying that the conclusions of the article are wrong, I think people should be very wary of this sort of comparison, they are extremely subjective.
If you look at some of the comparisons they are not of the same frames (in the case of the AA comparisons look at the clouds, for the AF comparisons you can tell from the banner on the LHS), and in almost every case the lighting has changed, which can certainly account for a lot of the discrepancies. This suggests that the author has picked frames which illustrate his conclusions.
If you do your own comparison of the lower parts (where the grass is) of the AA images (not easy) you will see much more detail from the 6800 cards in the images with no FSAA, coming to about even in the Max FSAA images, exactly the opposite of the authors conclusion. The author has cropped the image in his animated comparison so you can't see the grass at the bottom of the picture. The only reason for cropping the images is to support his argument, yet clearly the 6800 has the advantage in some areas and the X800 has the advantage in others.
As for his CPU scaling evidence, I could rarely see any significant difference between the cards (with the obvious exception of the 9800XT getting beaten all round), though a marginal difference may have been observable if he had bothered to synchronise the time frames. That said, how come they were out of sync so much in the first place? And what was the timescale used? Was the whole test over in 5 seconds, or did it last several hours? We have no way of knowing because he doesn't tell us.
To summarise, the conclusions drawn are based on dubious visual comparisons rather than properly measured ones, and are often not even comparisons of like for like. Not one of the better articles, IMO.
@scimanAl: when did u decide to come back?
Hi-Definition
Yeah i knoticed that also, throws all those test out the door. I dont trust them, seeing the Radeon can only beat the ATI in frames per secound, in real tests.Originally posted by lynx@14 May 2004 - 12:34
While I am not saying that the conclusions of the article are wrong, I think people should be very wary of this sort of comparison, they are extremely subjective.
If you look at some of the comparisons they are not of the same frames (in the case of the AA comparisons look at the clouds, for the AF comparisons you can tell from the banner on the LHS), and in almost every case the lighting has changed, which can certainly account for a lot of the discrepancies. This suggests that the author has picked frames which illustrate his conclusions.
If you do your own comparison of the lower parts (where the grass is) of the AA images (not easy) you will see much more detail from the 6800 cards in the images with no FSAA, coming to about even in the Max FSAA images, exactly the opposite of the authors conclusion. The author has cropped the image in his animated comparison so you can't see the grass at the bottom of the picture. The only reason for cropping the images is to support his argument, yet clearly the 6800 has the advantage in some areas and the X800 has the advantage in others.
As for his CPU scaling evidence, I could rarely see any significant difference between the cards (with the obvious exception of the 9800XT getting beaten all round), though a marginal difference may have been observable if he had bothered to synchronise the time frames. That said, how come they were out of sync so much in the first place? And what was the timescale used? Was the whole test over in 5 seconds, or did it last several hours? We have no way of knowing because he doesn't tell us.
To summarise, the conclusions drawn are based on dubious visual comparisons rather than properly measured ones, and are often not even comparisons of like for like. Not one of the better articles, IMO.
^would've been cool.
you messed upOriginally posted by Agent Smith@14 May 2004 - 15:52
...the Radeon can only beat the ATI in frames per secound...
Hi-Definition
you messed upOriginally posted by atiVidia+14 May 2004 - 12:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atiVidia @ 14 May 2004 - 12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agent Smith@14 May 2004 - 15:52
...the Radeon can only beat the ATI in frames per secound...
second
I always do that.
^would've been cool.
Originally posted by Agent Smith+14 May 2004 - 15:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agent Smith @ 14 May 2004 - 15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>secondOriginally posted by atiVidia@14 May 2004 - 12:55
you messed upOriginally posted by Agent Smith@14 May 2004 - 15:52
...the Radeon can only beat the ATI in frames per secound...
I always do that. [/b]
no u messed up here:
<!--QuoteBegin-Agent Smith@14 May 2004 - 15:52
...the Radeon can only beat the ATI [/quote]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks