Ati Back on top again

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: McCartney
I'm gonna repeat this. I don't believe those benchmarks we've seen on the grey background are honest. There is no CPU benchmark in the score which leads me to believe some scale tipping is taking place.

We'll see if this thing can even beat the 8800 ULTRA--As far as I'm concerned nothing like what I've seen is credible unless it's from a solid, known, and reputable reviewer (Like ATT, <)

To all of the nVidiots who've claimed they were one in the past (I'll find you all, believe me) and those who say "ATI is making me change my allegance" will be quoted and put in a file which I will make my signature after compiling and citing the names of each person-- None of you will escape I promise.

I'm the biggest nVidia fanboy and I laugh at this card (I could get 2 at MSRP for 479 canadian if I wanted since the store I go to has 10 already but NDA says the 28th).

You so-called nVidiots, leave the club and never come back-- You're not welcome. I die by my own sword which was initially the GeForce 256.

Man I hate people who claim they're brand loyalists and then say "Oh well I'm gonna change sides". You never were one to begin with if you even THINK about it

Im sorry, but anyone who can post something as this, should just be ignored.

First off, discounting the vast majority of the sites, just because the show the 3870x2 is faster, is silly.

You claim that its not credible unless it is from a "reputable" reviewer, such as from ATT. Now that ATT has some results that you dont agree with, you change your tune. That is again, silly.

Your claims that someone cant change video cards just because you think they've made some allegiance is again, silly. More along the lines of crazy. You've got them tracked, and none of them will escape? What is it they are supposed to be escaping from? Your wrath? Getting crazier by the minute.

You die by your own sword? Thats... wow. Just because you prefer one company, or bought their card first, doesnt mean you cant change sides to get a card that is better. Actually, that would be the smart thing to do. I prefer ATi, but have bought NV cards many times, more than ATi cards actually. Because one company doesnt always have the best card out. Claiming an undying allegiance to one company is not in your best interest. Do you only eat at McDonalds? Sure if you ate at Burger King, that would be betraying them. Do you only weak Nikes? Surely if you wore Reeboks, you would be betraying them. Do you only buy Fords? If you bought a Chevy, surely you would be betraying them. Do you only buy Sony electronics? If you bought a Phillips, surely you would be betraying them. Those might not be your favorites, but you get the point. Selling out to buy only one companies card, car, food, clothes, etc is silly beyond belief, imo. Its even more silly if you only do this for video cards, and not everything else in your life. Because if you dont, you must not really believe in it, or else you would.

Your post I quoted (from HardOCP) is probably the funniest post Ive ever seen dealing with video cards. Because you seem to be serious. Its funny, yet sad at the same time.

Now now dude. New Drivers will come out for my Virge DX and you'll all be cryin!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CP5670]

I'm the biggest nVidia fanboy and I laugh at this card (I could get 2 at MSRP for 479 canadian if I wanted since the store I go to has 10 already but NDA says the 28th).

You so-called nVidiots, leave the club and never come back-- You're not welcome. I die by my own sword which was initially the GeForce 256.

Man I hate people who claim they're brand loyalists and then say "Oh well I'm gonna change sides". You never were one to begin with if you even THINK about it

:laugh:

Dude, just look at HOCP test history to see how biased and BS their reviews are.

Actually, I think that place is quite appropriate for him.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CP5670

I'm the biggest nVidia fanboy and I laugh at this card (I could get 2 at MSRP for 479 canadian if I wanted since the store I go to has 10 already but NDA says the 28th).

You so-called nVidiots, leave the club and never come back-- You're not welcome. I die by my own sword which was initially the GeForce 256.

Man I hate people who claim they're brand loyalists and then say "Oh well I'm gonna change sides". You never were one to begin with if you even THINK about it

:laugh:

Dude, just look at HOCP test history to see how biased and BS their reviews are.

Actually, I think that place is quite appropriate for him.

*exactly*

case closed

 

[McCartney]

Originally posted by: munky
Dude, just look at HOCP test history to see how biased and BS their reviews are. Look at when they tested the 7900gtx against the x1900xtx. Everyone knows by now the 1900xtx is faster, and in some games like Oblivion it was a lot faster. And yet, despite the claims by other reviews and users alike, HOCP apparently got the same performance in Oblivion on both cards. What's more, they refused to change the default texture filtering of the 7-series cards to HQ, despite being well aware of the ugly texture shimmering and inflated benchmark scores. And to top it all off, they rave about the lower heat, noise and power consumption of this "superior gpu", the g71, when in fact it was a slower card, based on older technology, and lacked competitive features. That site has lost its credibility to me a long time ago.

Are you slow?
I just quoted all the reviews of the cards and I see GREAT performance and praise.
I don't see that with all nvidia reviews. You guys are just being retarded.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Thats the beauty of opinions. I believe the 9700 Pro was such a huge leap over the 8500 and Ti4600 (5800U was late), and was overall such a superior card in every way. It gave you more than just DX9 in terms of new tech. DX9 caught on faster in games than DX10 too. But thats not fault of the GTX. The AA/AF frames for the Ti4600 were a joke. The 9700 Pro gave you playable frames at settings that were before unthinkable. The 8500 could atleast to "free" AF, but AA killed it. The GTX was/is a very nice card, just not the leap to me. SLI lowered the impact the GTX gave. Because you could use a 7950 or SLI'd 7900's. The GTX was still faster than those still, but if not for those, the impact of speed would have been even greater. If it went against only a 7900 and not SLI, it would have seemed like an even bigger monster of a card. The 9700 Pro didnt have that "problem". It went up against single cards from the last gen. To me, the 8800GTX is behind the 9700 Pro, but not all that far behind mind you. Obviously using the 9700 Pro for the first time was not like the first time I put in a Voodoo card, but in a second behind that. But you could ask 10 different people the same question (who actually used cards when they first came out) and you'd likely get a whole slew of different reasons/answers. As I said, just my opinion.

I'd have to disagree. I went from a Ti4400 to a 9700pro and I don't remember it being anywhere close to 2x as fast as the Ti4400 (a quick refresher looking over old benchmarks confirms this). It did however offer much better IQ and "free" AF, which was still a big deal back then. In most games I could enable AA and run about the same speed as a Ti4400, but I couldn't turn on AA and run higher resolutions. Back then, 1024 was pretty much the standard with 1280 breaking in due to 17 and 19" LCDs and native resolutions. 1600x1200 was still super high-end and the 9700pro struggled there as well. Similar to the 8800GTX with DX10 and Crysis, the 9700pro hit a wall with DX9 and HL2 and it didn't seem quite so powerful.

With the 8800GTX, you had a card that not only doubled the fastest single-card out there, but also beat out two of those cards in CF. Not only could you run games at higher resolutions than before, you could run them with AA as well. It shifted the standards from 1280/1440 to 1680+ and made high-res wide aspect gaming a reality. Just look at reviews with the X1950/7900 and then compare them to the first 8800GTX review and subsequent reviews. You'll see a massive shift in benchmark suites and settings as a result. The impact is also pretty obvious among gamers today, where more and more people are able to upgrade to better cards like the G92 and RV670 at much less expense, comfortably running any game today at 1680x1050.

 

[McCartney]

What bothers me the most is that people don't refute my evidence but rather resort to character attacks to help attract more people to the thread and get me crucified. It's ridiculous

 

[Tempered81]

chizow i dont think the 8800gtx is twice as powerful as the 1950xtx

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: McCartney
What bothers me the most is that people don't refute my evidence but rather resort to character attacks to help attract more people to the thread and get me crucified. It's ridiculous

what is your evidence proving?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: McCartney

Originally posted by: munky
Dude, just look at HOCP test history to see how biased and BS their reviews are. Look at when they tested the 7900gtx against the x1900xtx. Everyone knows by now the 1900xtx is faster, and in some games like Oblivion it was a lot faster. And yet, despite the claims by other reviews and users alike, HOCP apparently got the same performance in Oblivion on both cards. What's more, they refused to change the default texture filtering of the 7-series cards to HQ, despite being well aware of the ugly texture shimmering and inflated benchmark scores. And to top it all off, they rave about the lower heat, noise and power consumption of this "superior gpu", the g71, when in fact it was a slower card, based on older technology, and lacked competitive features. That site has lost its credibility to me a long time ago.

Are you slow?
I just quoted all the reviews of the cards and I see GREAT performance and praise.
I don't see that with all nvidia reviews. You guys are just being retarded.

Lol, the more I read their reviews, the more unscientific and doubtful their results appear. Of course when pitting a 1900xt against a 7800gtx-512, there's pretty much no argument which card is the winner. But compare their results on two different dates:
Jan. 24, 2006
Mar. 9, 2006

Looking at their FEAR results, the first thing I notice is that they changed the settings for Nvidia cards. In the first review, the 512mb gtx could only muster playable fps at 1280 resolution, but with the addition of SS TRAA (which in itself an odd "advantage", given how little vegetation and chain-link fences there are in FEAR.) But in the second review, all of a sudden Nvidia cards are also delivering playable fps at 1600x1200, only with lower AA, and look at that - once again they have faster average fps.

Then, I look at the Ati cards' results and realize the 1900xtx got the exact same framerate stats on two separate occasions, with different drivers no less. From my own experience in FEAR, even using the built in "canned benchmark" will give you slightly different framerate statistics on each run, with everything else being unchanged. So, this brings up the question: how the hell do you manually play the game on two different occasions, using different drivers, and arrive at the exact same performance numbers?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
chizow i dont think the 8800gtx is twice as powerful as the 1950xtx

+/- 10%?

I just reviewed some of those benchmarks to confirm my initial impressions from over a year ago and they hold true, but feel free to flip through some more of them. Honestly this isn't a point many are going to contest regardless of which side of the fence you're sitting on. G80 was simply that damn good.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: McCartney

Originally posted by: munky
Dude, just look at HOCP test history to see how biased and BS their reviews are. Look at when they tested the 7900gtx against the x1900xtx. Everyone knows by now the 1900xtx is faster, and in some games like Oblivion it was a lot faster. And yet, despite the claims by other reviews and users alike, HOCP apparently got the same performance in Oblivion on both cards. What's more, they refused to change the default texture filtering of the 7-series cards to HQ, despite being well aware of the ugly texture shimmering and inflated benchmark scores. And to top it all off, they rave about the lower heat, noise and power consumption of this "superior gpu", the g71, when in fact it was a slower card, based on older technology, and lacked competitive features. That site has lost its credibility to me a long time ago.

Are you slow?
I just quoted all the reviews of the cards and I see GREAT performance and praise.
I don't see that with all nvidia reviews. You guys are just being retarded.

Lol, the more I read their reviews, the more unscientific and doubtful their results appear. Of course when pitting a 1900xt against a 7800gtx-512, there's pretty much no argument which card is the winner. But compare their results on two different dates:
Jan. 24, 2006
Mar. 9, 2006

what are we looking for here? i don't see anything wrong with the bench mark... in fact, most the result does show 1900xtx being faster

also, 7900 does have much, much lower heat, noise, and power effeciency

HOCP did a great job in both reviews.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: McCartney

Originally posted by: munky
Dude, just look at HOCP test history to see how biased and BS their reviews are. Look at when they tested the 7900gtx against the x1900xtx. Everyone knows by now the 1900xtx is faster, and in some games like Oblivion it was a lot faster. And yet, despite the claims by other reviews and users alike, HOCP apparently got the same performance in Oblivion on both cards. What's more, they refused to change the default texture filtering of the 7-series cards to HQ, despite being well aware of the ugly texture shimmering and inflated benchmark scores. And to top it all off, they rave about the lower heat, noise and power consumption of this "superior gpu", the g71, when in fact it was a slower card, based on older technology, and lacked competitive features. That site has lost its credibility to me a long time ago.

Are you slow?
I just quoted all the reviews of the cards and I see GREAT performance and praise.
I don't see that with all nvidia reviews. You guys are just being retarded.

Lol, the more I read their reviews, the more unscientific and doubtful their results appear. Of course when pitting a 1900xt against a 7800gtx-512, there's pretty much no argument which card is the winner. But compare their results on two different dates:
Jan. 24, 2006
Mar. 9, 2006

what are we looking for here? i don't see anything wrong with the bench mark... in fact, most the result does show 1900xtx being faster

also, 7900 does have much, much lower heat, noise, and power effeciency

HOCP did a great job in both reviews.

Looking for an explanation of two questionable aspects of their FEAR test results.

 

[McCartney]

Dude did you know that the 7800 512 had some of the best ram in a video-card ever?
You know if overclocked it pwned a 7900 GTX right? Just letting you know because you're absolutely uninformed when it comes to hardware.
You seem to be a gamer that thinks he knows hardware, I'm the opposite. I KNOW my hardware and I suck at games but I play them.

LEARN your hardware.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: McCartney
What bothers me the most is that people don't refute my evidence but rather resort to character attacks to help attract more people to the thread and get me crucified. It's ridiculous

You dont have any evidence, and you're flip-flopping. Open your eyes, and stop being a blind "nVidiot." You called yourself that, so I can as well. Unless a certain mod tells me not to, which will probably happen... Being a blind fan of anything is silly.

Also, you have zero ground to stand on about someone attacking your character, when you're calling other people "retarded". Again, being hypocritical when it suits you.

Originally posted by: chizow


I'd have to disagree. I went from a Ti4400 to a 9700pro and I don't remember it being anywhere close to 2x as fast as the Ti4400 (a quick refresher looking over old benchmarks confirms this). It did however offer much better IQ and "free" AF, which was still a big deal back then. In most games I could enable AA and run about the same speed as a Ti4400, but I couldn't turn on AA and run higher resolutions. Back then, 1024 was pretty much the standard with 1280 breaking in due to 17 and 19" LCDs and native resolutions. 1600x1200 was still super high-end and the 9700pro struggled there as well. Similar to the 8800GTX with DX10 and Crysis, the 9700pro hit a wall with DX9 and HL2 and it didn't seem quite so powerful.

With the 8800GTX, you had a card that not only doubled the fastest single-card out there, but also beat out two of those cards in CF. Not only could you run games at higher resolutions than before, you could run them with AA as well. It shifted the standards from 1280/1440 to 1680+ and made high-res wide aspect gaming a reality. Just look at reviews with the X1950/7900 and then compare them to the first 8800GTX review and subsequent reviews. You'll see a massive shift in benchmark suites and settings as a result. The impact is also pretty obvious among gamers today, where more and more people are able to upgrade to better cards like the G92 and RV670 at much less expense, comfortably running any game today at 1680x1050.

Im not sure where I said it was 2x as fast in my post you quoted. You may want to take a look at AT's review though. I said the 9700 Pro gave you performance at settings before unthinkable. And said that it gave you playable frames with AA/AF, far above the Ti4600. If you look at the AT review I linked, and the AA/AF benchmarks, its pretty clear I was right. Especially in "higher resolutions", of 1600x1200. Heck, in one test, the 9700 Pro got 100fps and the Ti4600 got 20fps in Jedi Knight 2 at 1600x1200 with AA/AF. Thats 5 times as fast. Generally it is easily 2-4 times faster with AA/AF at a higher resolution in the games they tested. Thats pretty impressive. AA/AF killed the Ti series. The 9700 Pro could even use 6xAA in a lot of games.

I had a Ti4200, one of my best cards Ive ever owned. It was a very healthy upgrade for me, my biggest yet. Aside from my Rage3D to my Voodoo, which doesnt really count. At least till next time its the biggest upgrade. Im on a old X1900XT, got it when it first came out. Actually had two in CF. Couldnt upgrade because I was gone for 7 months.. when newer cards just came out. And now getting ready to be gone for 13 months. So Im suffering with this card till I get back, June 09'. Then Ill buy whatevers the best, and catch up on the games I missed. Which sucks because my card is having a great deal of difficulty playing current games at my native res of 1920x1200. Im resorting to gaming more on my consoles.

But as I said, its all opinion. The GTX certainly is no slouch, I just dont think it was the break thru of the 9700 Pro. You do, and thats fine, dont have any problems with that. Its our opinions. It really doesnt matter much, I think we can both agree that this 3870x2 launch is not like the 9700 Pro launch. Which was the topic of the post.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: munky

Looking for an explanation of two questionable aspects of their FEAR test results.

are you trying to judge the validity of HOCP reviews based on a single bench? non-biased people usually base their judgment on the whole review, which they clearly mention 1900xt as the faster card in both reviews...

don't be an Ackmed

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: McCartney
Dude did you know that the 7800 512 had some of the best ram in a video-card ever?

What does that have to do with HOCP's test results?

You know if overclocked it pwned a 7900 GTX right? Just letting you know because you're absolutely uninformed when it comes to hardware.

No it didn't. In fact, the 110nm g70 core would never even reach the 650mhz of the g71 core, unless you go into volt mods and extreme cooling. And even then, it'd only be on par with a 7900gtx

You seem to be a gamer that thinks he knows hardware, I'm the opposite. I KNOW my hardware and I suck at games but I play them.

LEARN your hardware.

FYI, I not only KNOW hardware, but I PROGRAM such hardware, and I'm well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of these cards. I regularly read the technical HW articles and discussions at beyond3d, and suggesting I don't know hardware has got to be the most foolish post I've read on this forum in a long time.

 

[McCartney]

Um you're not listening again idiot. OPEN YOUR EYES> I said the MEMORY on it is faster. On the 7xxx's the MEMORY was key to speeds.
Go google 7800 512 7900 gtx and come back to me.

You don't program anything as far as I'm concerned. You have 5300 posts in 3 years. Wow that's awesome. So in about 1095 days your rough post average of about 4.9 a day consists of "I know my hardware but I didn't know that hte 512 had some of the best memory on video cards"?

Is that your rubettual? pretty weak imo


Say bye bye to all your nice new friends for about a week. Hey, you were warned.

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: munky

Looking for an explanation of two questionable aspects of their FEAR test results.

are you trying to judge the validity of HOCP reviews based on a single bench? non-biased people usually base their judgment on the whole review, which they clearly mention 1900xt as the faster card in both reviews...

don't become an Ackmed

Non-biased people usually base their judgment on several trusted sources. This one source just happens to have results that sometimes contradict what other sources say, while using an unscientific and unreproducible testing methods.

 

[McCartney]

Right since "science" related to gaming, right?
As far as I'm concerned the benchmarks at hardocp seem very fair, they're at the same resolution but some of them have different settings because of the 3870x2 not being able to handle higher ones.
Why not code better drivers if you're so good and give them to kyle so we can reproduce what all of these canned-benchmark reviews are getting?

You know your review is in limbo when the senior editor DougWilson says they're not using canned benchmarks and someone quotes the review directly stating that's exactly the case (That they are using canned benchmarks)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: McCartney
Um you're not listening again idiot. OPEN YOUR EYES> I said the MEMORY on it is faster. On the 7xxx's the MEMORY was key to speeds.
Go google 7800 512 7900 gtx and come back to me.

You don't program anything as far as I'm concerned. You have 5300 posts in 3 years. Wow that's awesome. So in about 1095 days your rough post average of about 4.9 a day consists of "I know my hardware but I didn't know that hte 512 had some of the best memory on video cards"?

Is that your rubettual? pretty weak imo

how about a little respect? ... you can't even spell ... and your posts in this thread consist of nothing but FUD with nothing but *one* maverick site to back up your ridiculous claims.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: McCartney
Um you're not listening again idiot. OPEN YOUR EYES> I said the MEMORY on it is faster. On the 7xxx's the MEMORY was key to speeds.
Go google 7800 512 7900 gtx and come back to me.

You don't program anything as far as I'm concerned. You have 5300 posts in 3 years. Wow that's awesome. So in about 1095 days your rough post average of about 4.9 a day consists of "I know my hardware but I didn't know that hte 512 had some of the best memory on video cards"?

Is that your rubettual? pretty weak imo

So according to you, the 7800gtx 512 should be faster than the 7900gtx because of the faster memory. Now go, and find me benches where that was the case, wiseguy. Your level of ignorance is almost not worth replying to.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: McCartney
Um you're not listening again idiot. OPEN YOUR EYES> I said the MEMORY on it is faster. On the 7xxx's the MEMORY was key to speeds.
Go google 7800 512 7900 gtx and come back to me.

You don't program anything as far as I'm concerned. You have 5300 posts in 3 years. Wow that's awesome. So in about 1095 days your rough post average of about 4.9 a day consists of "I know my hardware but I didn't know that hte 512 had some of the best memory on video cards"?

Is that your rubettual? pretty weak imo

Say bye bye to all your nice new friends for about a week. Hey, you were warned.

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003

P.S. I'd just like to thank everyone here for not sinking to his level when being provoked.
He'll be back in a week or so, and if there is no change in his behavior, it will be dealt with.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: munky

Looking for an explanation of two questionable aspects of their FEAR test results.

are you trying to judge the validity of HOCP reviews based on a single bench? non-biased people usually base their judgment on the whole review, which they clearly mention 1900xt as the faster card in both reviews...

don't become an Ackmed

Non-biased people usually base their judgment on several trusted sources. This one source just happens to have results that sometimes contradict what other sources say, while using an unscientific and unreproducible testing methods.

no the result does not contradict other sources.. its just one bench out of many... yet the result still align with other sources.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Red Storm
3870 X2 under $399.

Not everyone has an nVidia motherboard, so SLI is not an option for a lot of people. Single card solutions however, are.

HOLY!

$383.99 now ... while I'm not about to run out & replace my 8800GTX with one, at this price thats a great deal! :thumbsup:

Definitely a good price for these, have to agree!

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Red Storm
3870 X2 under $399.

Not everyone has an nVidia motherboard, so SLI is not an option for a lot of people. Single card solutions however, are.

HOLY!

$383.99 now ... while I'm not about to run out & replace my 8800GTX with one, at this price thats a great deal! :thumbsup:

Let us know if you got one for that price, seemed like an error cause it says 449 now.