Originally posted by: SickBeast
So this thing gets almost 12,000 3DMarks? That looks very good.
I only score around 9,000 with my 8800GTS 320mb, albeit with a slower CPU (Opteron 165 @ 2.5ghz).
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!! Introducing Anandtech's official Conspiracy Theorist!!!
Seriously taltamir, you have more unfounded theories than a cow has flies.
Can I just enlighten you on this particular theory of yours?
Nvidia needs to maintain some sort of control over their intellectual property in order to remain a major player. If they did intentionally make their drivers "not work" on competitors boards, it's because they have a right to do so. Nvidia was/is very wary of Intel and remains skeptical about allowing SLI on Intel based motherboards. Licensing SLI technology to Intel would probably reduce Nvidia's SLI chipset sales. Why would they want that? I'm not saying everything is rosie and great, and it would be nice if SLI could be run on any dual PCI-e slot motherboard no matter the chipset it has on it. But, it is what it is and unless you can change this yourself, there's no use crying about it. It's not really a big deal. If you want SLI, buy a board that supports it. It's not like Nvidia's chipsets are poor performers or anything. I have an ASUS P5N-E SLI with the 650i SLI chipset. I am probably going SLI very soon, and planned to from the beginning. So I made my motherboard purchase to fit my needs and bought what I needed to buy.
Lastly, don't lose sight of the fact that all you complain about is just giant companies doing business. Things are the way they are because they want to make the most money they can. And you can't be mad at them for that. You as a consumer have WAY more than enough choices of products to buy and fit your exact needs one way or the other.
Originally posted by: Zstream
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!! Introducing Anandtech's official Conspiracy Theorist!!!
Seriously taltamir, you have more unfounded theories than a cow has flies.
Can I just enlighten you on this particular theory of yours?
Nvidia needs to maintain some sort of control over their intellectual property in order to remain a major player. If they did intentionally make their drivers "not work" on competitors boards, it's because they have a right to do so. Nvidia was/is very wary of Intel and remains skeptical about allowing SLI on Intel based motherboards. Licensing SLI technology to Intel would probably reduce Nvidia's SLI chipset sales. Why would they want that? I'm not saying everything is rosie and great, and it would be nice if SLI could be run on any dual PCI-e slot motherboard no matter the chipset it has on it. But, it is what it is and unless you can change this yourself, there's no use crying about it. It's not really a big deal. If you want SLI, buy a board that supports it. It's not like Nvidia's chipsets are poor performers or anything. I have an ASUS P5N-E SLI with the 650i SLI chipset. I am probably going SLI very soon, and planned to from the beginning. So I made my motherboard purchase to fit my needs and bought what I needed to buy.
Lastly, don't lose sight of the fact that all you complain about is just giant companies doing business. Things are the way they are because they want to make the most money they can. And you can't be mad at them for that. You as a consumer have WAY more than enough choices of products to buy and fit your exact needs one way or the other.
You just said the exact same thing as what you quoted...
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!! Introducing Anandtech's official Conspiracy Theorist!!!
Seriously taltamir, you have more unfounded theories than a cow has flies.
Can I just enlighten you on this particular theory of yours?
Nvidia needs to maintain some sort of control over their intellectual property in order to remain a major player. If they did intentionally make their drivers "not work" on competitors boards, it's because they have a right to do so. Nvidia was/is very wary of Intel and remains skeptical about allowing SLI on Intel based motherboards. Licensing SLI technology to Intel would probably reduce Nvidia's SLI chipset sales. Why would they want that? I'm not saying everything is rosie and great, and it would be nice if SLI could be run on any dual PCI-e slot motherboard no matter the chipset it has on it. But, it is what it is and unless you can change this yourself, there's no use crying about it. It's not really a big deal. If you want SLI, buy a board that supports it. It's not like Nvidia's chipsets are poor performers or anything. I have an ASUS P5N-E SLI with the 650i SLI chipset. I am probably going SLI very soon, and planned to from the beginning. So I made my motherboard purchase to fit my needs and bought what I needed to buy.
Lastly, don't lose sight of the fact that all you complain about is just giant companies doing business. Things are the way they are because they want to make the most money they can. And you can't be mad at them for that. You as a consumer have WAY more than enough choices of products to buy and fit your exact needs one way or the other.
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!! Introducing Anandtech's official Conspiracy Theorist!!!
Seriously taltamir, you have more unfounded theories than a cow has flies.
Can I just enlighten you on this particular theory of yours?
Nvidia needs to maintain some sort of control over their intellectual property in order to remain a major player. If they did intentionally make their drivers "not work" on competitors boards, it's because they have a right to do so. Nvidia was/is very wary of Intel and remains skeptical about allowing SLI on Intel based motherboards. Licensing SLI technology to Intel would probably reduce Nvidia's SLI chipset sales. Why would they want that? I'm not saying everything is rosie and great, and it would be nice if SLI could be run on any dual PCI-e slot motherboard no matter the chipset it has on it. But, it is what it is and unless you can change this yourself, there's no use crying about it. It's not really a big deal. If you want SLI, buy a board that supports it. It's not like Nvidia's chipsets are poor performers or anything. I have an ASUS P5N-E SLI with the 650i SLI chipset. I am probably going SLI very soon, and planned to from the beginning. So I made my motherboard purchase to fit my needs and bought what I needed to buy.
Lastly, don't lose sight of the fact that all you complain about is just giant companies doing business. Things are the way they are because they want to make the most money they can. And you can't be mad at them for that. You as a consumer have WAY more than enough choices of products to buy and fit your exact needs one way or the other.
whose side are you on ? consumer or company ?
Yeah well I just read a review of a GTX scoring under 10,000 on a high-end C2D rig. 12,000 *is* impressive and shows that this card *could* beat out the GTX, albeit only in certain instances (probably in UT3-based games, and maybe even in Crysis).Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
So this thing gets almost 12,000 3DMarks? That looks very good.
I only score around 9,000 with my 8800GTS 320mb, albeit with a slower CPU (Opteron 165 @ 2.5ghz).
I don't think 12000 is nearly good enough for the simple reason that AMD scores MUCH higher in 3DMark06 over G80, but didn't translate those high scores to actual games and usually did worse. The RV670 would need a score of about 16000 in 3DMark06 to be competitive with a comparable G80/92 getting a score of 13000 to 14000.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Yeah well I just read a review of a GTX scoring under 10,000 on a high-end C2D rig. 12,000 *is* impressive and shows that this card *could* beat out the GTX, albeit only in certain instances (probably in UT3-based games, and maybe even in Crysis).Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
So this thing gets almost 12,000 3DMarks? That looks very good.
I only score around 9,000 with my 8800GTS 320mb, albeit with a slower CPU (Opteron 165 @ 2.5ghz).
I don't think 12000 is nearly good enough for the simple reason that AMD scores MUCH higher in 3DMark06 over G80, but didn't translate those high scores to actual games and usually did worse. The RV670 would need a score of about 16000 in 3DMark06 to be competitive with a comparable G80/92 getting a score of 13000 to 14000.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Yeah well I just read a review of a GTX scoring under 10,000 on a high-end C2D rig. 12,000 *is* impressive and shows that this card *could* beat out the GTX, albeit only in certain instances (probably in UT3-based games, and maybe even in Crysis).Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
So this thing gets almost 12,000 3DMarks? That looks very good.
I only score around 9,000 with my 8800GTS 320mb, albeit with a slower CPU (Opteron 165 @ 2.5ghz).
I don't think 12000 is nearly good enough for the simple reason that AMD scores MUCH higher in 3DMark06 over G80, but didn't translate those high scores to actual games and usually did worse. The RV670 would need a score of about 16000 in 3DMark06 to be competitive with a comparable G80/92 getting a score of 13000 to 14000.
Nah, it really isn't considering 10,000 is very low for a GTX. 10,000 is just above a GTS score. But you know this already. 12000 on a R6xx core is nothing spectacular. That score on Nvidia is.
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Yeah well I just read a review of a GTX scoring under 10,000 on a high-end C2D rig. 12,000 *is* impressive and shows that this card *could* beat out the GTX, albeit only in certain instances (probably in UT3-based games, and maybe even in Crysis).Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
So this thing gets almost 12,000 3DMarks? That looks very good.
I only score around 9,000 with my 8800GTS 320mb, albeit with a slower CPU (Opteron 165 @ 2.5ghz).
I don't think 12000 is nearly good enough for the simple reason that AMD scores MUCH higher in 3DMark06 over G80, but didn't translate those high scores to actual games and usually did worse. The RV670 would need a score of about 16000 in 3DMark06 to be competitive with a comparable G80/92 getting a score of 13000 to 14000.
Nah, it really isn't considering 10,000 is very low for a GTX. 10,000 is just above a GTS score. But you know this already. 12000 on a R6xx core is nothing spectacular. That score on Nvidia is.
3dmark is worthless. the 2900 blew away 3dmark scores, but flopped in real word games (compared to the 800GTX). i don't know why people still look to it for comparisons, given that its scores do not reflect real world performance.
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Those GTs have an awesome rebate.
http://www.ncix.com/products/i...ure=BFG%20Technologies
:laugh:
it was on a 680i mobo, I think it was an asus striker extreme. One of the XPS models I believe.Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Yeah well I just read a review of a GTX scoring under 10,000 on a high-end C2D rig. 12,000 *is* impressive and shows that this card *could* beat out the GTX, albeit only in certain instances (probably in UT3-based games, and maybe even in Crysis).Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
So this thing gets almost 12,000 3DMarks? That looks very good.
I only score around 9,000 with my 8800GTS 320mb, albeit with a slower CPU (Opteron 165 @ 2.5ghz).
I don't think 12000 is nearly good enough for the simple reason that AMD scores MUCH higher in 3DMark06 over G80, but didn't translate those high scores to actual games and usually did worse. The RV670 would need a score of about 16000 in 3DMark06 to be competitive with a comparable G80/92 getting a score of 13000 to 14000.
Nah, it really isn't considering 10,000 is very low for a GTX. 10,000 is just above a GTS score. But you know this already. 12000 on a R6xx core is nothing spectacular. That score on Nvidia is.
3dmark is worthless. the 2900 blew away 3dmark scores, but flopped in real word games (compared to the 800GTX). i don't know why people still look to it for comparisons, given that its scores do not reflect real world performance.
Nvidia's new flagship does over 100fpsOriginally posted by: swtethan
I cant say where I saw this... but the new ati flagship does 90fps in crysis :X
Well it's worthless when it doesn't tell what kind of performer some card is in games. 3dMark's engine shouldn't be compared to regular game engines so directly. 3dMark renders everytime the same thing and there ain't option for "suprising" render situations like in regular game engines. This "fixed path" engine structure works pretty well with R600-structure.Originally posted by: Zstream
That is incorrect, 3dmark is a benchmark. The benchmark should be compared to a properly coded 3d engine. If designers took as much time as futuremark does, then the FPS on all cards would see a huge performance increase and possibly a lead by ATI.
Originally posted by: Zstream
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Yeah well I just read a review of a GTX scoring under 10,000 on a high-end C2D rig. 12,000 *is* impressive and shows that this card *could* beat out the GTX, albeit only in certain instances (probably in UT3-based games, and maybe even in Crysis).Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SickBeast
So this thing gets almost 12,000 3DMarks? That looks very good.
I only score around 9,000 with my 8800GTS 320mb, albeit with a slower CPU (Opteron 165 @ 2.5ghz).
I don't think 12000 is nearly good enough for the simple reason that AMD scores MUCH higher in 3DMark06 over G80, but didn't translate those high scores to actual games and usually did worse. The RV670 would need a score of about 16000 in 3DMark06 to be competitive with a comparable G80/92 getting a score of 13000 to 14000.
Nah, it really isn't considering 10,000 is very low for a GTX. 10,000 is just above a GTS score. But you know this already. 12000 on a R6xx core is nothing spectacular. That score on Nvidia is.
3dmark is worthless. the 2900 blew away 3dmark scores, but flopped in real word games (compared to the 800GTX). i don't know why people still look to it for comparisons, given that its scores do not reflect real world performance.
That is incorrect, 3dmark is a benchmark. The benchmark should be compared to a properly coded 3d engine. If designers took as much time as futuremark does, then the FPS on all cards would see a huge performance increase and possibly a lead by ATI.
Originally posted by: Rusin
Nvidia's new flagship does over 100fpsOriginally posted by: swtethan
I cant say where I saw this... but the new ati flagship does 90fps in crysis :X
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!! Introducing Anandtech's official Conspiracy Theorist!!!
Seriously taltamir, you have more unfounded theories than a cow has flies.
Can I just enlighten you on this particular theory of yours?
Nvidia needs to maintain some sort of control over their intellectual property in order to remain a major player. If they did intentionally make their drivers "not work" on competitors boards, it's because they have a right to do so. Nvidia was/is very wary of Intel and remains skeptical about allowing SLI on Intel based motherboards. Licensing SLI technology to Intel would probably reduce Nvidia's SLI chipset sales. Why would they want that? I'm not saying everything is rosie and great, and it would be nice if SLI could be run on any dual PCI-e slot motherboard no matter the chipset it has on it. But, it is what it is and unless you can change this yourself, there's no use crying about it. It's not really a big deal. If you want SLI, buy a board that supports it. It's not like Nvidia's chipsets are poor performers or anything. I have an ASUS P5N-E SLI with the 650i SLI chipset. I am probably going SLI very soon, and planned to from the beginning. So I made my motherboard purchase to fit my needs and bought what I needed to buy.
Lastly, don't lose sight of the fact that all you complain about is just giant companies doing business. Things are the way they are because they want to make the most money they can. And you can't be mad at them for that. You as a consumer have WAY more than enough choices of products to buy and fit your exact needs one way or the other.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!! Introducing Anandtech's official Conspiracy Theorist!!!
Seriously taltamir, you have more unfounded theories than a cow has flies.
Can I just enlighten you on this particular theory of yours?
Nvidia needs to maintain some sort of control over their intellectual property in order to remain a major player. If they did intentionally make their drivers "not work" on competitors boards, it's because they have a right to do so. Nvidia was/is very wary of Intel and remains skeptical about allowing SLI on Intel based motherboards. Licensing SLI technology to Intel would probably reduce Nvidia's SLI chipset sales. Why would they want that? I'm not saying everything is rosie and great, and it would be nice if SLI could be run on any dual PCI-e slot motherboard no matter the chipset it has on it. But, it is what it is and unless you can change this yourself, there's no use crying about it. It's not really a big deal. If you want SLI, buy a board that supports it. It's not like Nvidia's chipsets are poor performers or anything. I have an ASUS P5N-E SLI with the 650i SLI chipset. I am probably going SLI very soon, and planned to from the beginning. So I made my motherboard purchase to fit my needs and bought what I needed to buy.
Lastly, don't lose sight of the fact that all you complain about is just giant companies doing business. Things are the way they are because they want to make the most money they can. And you can't be mad at them for that. You as a consumer have WAY more than enough choices of products to buy and fit your exact needs one way or the other.
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995@taltamir: Dell, alienware, voodoopc, or somebody recently demonstrated a 680i mobo with xfire 2900xt's. I'm pretty sure that I saw the article on AT but it is possible (gasp) that it was toms. They used a custom bios to enable xfire on the sli mobo and simply shipped the unit that way to show that it could be done.
That is because amd, in an effort sell more cards. Opened up crossfire for intel boards.
Nvidia on the other hand made their drivers more aggressive in NOT working on the competitors board... they actually spent time money and effort making their software incompatible so that they can sell more hardware... just like apple.
Both decisions have market place justifications.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!! Introducing Anandtech's official Conspiracy Theorist!!!
Seriously taltamir, you have more unfounded theories than a cow has flies.
Can I just enlighten you on this particular theory of yours?
Nvidia needs to maintain some sort of control over their intellectual property in order to remain a major player. If they did intentionally make their drivers "not work" on competitors boards, it's because they have a right to do so. Nvidia was/is very wary of Intel and remains skeptical about allowing SLI on Intel based motherboards. Licensing SLI technology to Intel would probably reduce Nvidia's SLI chipset sales. Why would they want that? I'm not saying everything is rosie and great, and it would be nice if SLI could be run on any dual PCI-e slot motherboard no matter the chipset it has on it. But, it is what it is and unless you can change this yourself, there's no use crying about it. It's not really a big deal. If you want SLI, buy a board that supports it. It's not like Nvidia's chipsets are poor performers or anything. I have an ASUS P5N-E SLI with the 650i SLI chipset. I am probably going SLI very soon, and planned to from the beginning. So I made my motherboard purchase to fit my needs and bought what I needed to buy.
Lastly, don't lose sight of the fact that all you complain about is just giant companies doing business. Things are the way they are because they want to make the most money they can. And you can't be mad at them for that. You as a consumer have WAY more than enough choices of products to buy and fit your exact needs one way or the other.
How is this even disagreeing with me? Ofcourse they have a right to do that, it is why I said it is a valid business move... and where exactly is the conspiracy theory? It worked, they locked it out using drivers to sell more, so now it doesn't work. This is just like every other company does.
I said sun, you said big ball of fire in the sky. Prefaced with a suggestion that I might be insane.
ronn: thank you for the vote of sanity (ie, saying I am not a crazy conspiracy theorist)...
Heck the term is misused anyways... conspiracy = when people conspire, aka when people get together and coordinate their moves... the derogatory remarks towards it are well justified because people concoct crazy conspiracy theories, like how we never landed on the moon, the kennedy assassination, 9-11, etc...
But there are many "real" conspiracies... for example when the big ram manufacturers created a price fixing cartel they were engaging in a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy theory until it was proven in court and the members were fined for their anti competitive behaviour. It just wasn't an INSANE conspiracy theory like the notion that the us government caused 9-11.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: Zstream
You just said the exact same thing as what you quoted...
Sure I did. Thanks for stopping by my friend.