GTX295 vs 4870X2

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: chizow

Haha ya right, and I'm sure you believe that too.

Yep, I do. What, now you?re dictating what I think too? If you are that?s your problem, not mine.

Considering you won't even concede resolution is more significant than FSAA you actually think anyone is going to believe that?

I won?t concede a point that isn?t true. But then I?ve done a thorough analysis of AA over the course of several months so I know what I?m talking about, unlike you.

Yet, they are still not equal by any standard. You said they're equal, when they are clearly not. When comparing A to B you can't just dismiss both by using C as your example.

Yes, they?re equal without developer support.

All that would be needed would be a PhysX to DX11/OpenCL wrapper.

Right, and who do you think will support that? Intel won?t, ATi probably won?t, and Microsoft probably won?t, especially if they make their own physics standard as part of DirectX. That brings us right back to nVidia as the sole vendor that supports it.

It does the same thing as AC and FC2, allows reading of the MS depth buffer for improved AA efficiency which is also supported by Nvidia parts with the necessary DX10 extensions.

But by your own admission nVidia can?t run the Clear Sky DX10.1 path.

No, that you consider anything not in a settings menu a marketing tool.

Nope, just anything that doesn?t have widespread gaming support.

Of course not because it not only offered very little difference in IQ (arguably worst), it actually resulted in artifacts/distortion and render errors in many games. Can you say the same of PhysX? Once again, a PhysX title will always be a better game with PhysX enabled vs. without.

What a load of nonsense. Let?s start with the PhysX side of your (ludicrous) claims:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15261/3

UT3's PhysX implementation isn't perfect, of course. We encountered a number of bugs, such as objects vibrating in place and occasionally sliding in strange patterns. Planks and stone slabs in the Lighthouse map unrealistically exploded into many pieces, kind of like giant graham crackers.

In addition, I?ve seen at least one PhysX title generating rendering errors where limbs were getting stretched and contorted in a manner they shouldn?t be. It was ugly when it happened and it sure as hell didn?t make the title better; it made it worse.

As for your Truform claim, again that?s woefully inaccurate. I?ve seen examples where it visibly improved in-game characters.

Again, far more games support Truform than nVidia PhysX yet it still failed. It failed because developers didn?t support and it and because more powerful hardware enabled higher polygon counts. This could also happen with PhysX as multi-core becomes more prolific (say 8 or 16 cores) and multi-threaded physics renderers start harnessing that unused power.

Yet it was still marketing because no games supported it. That's your measuring stick is it not? So when you saw the first Hardware T&L demo and no games used it yet, you dismissed it as marketing or the next big thing?

But they did support it ? OpenGL titles automatically supported it.

As for your other question, if you can?t understand the difference between a virtually mandatory spec tied to the operating system like DirectX and a proprietry (and elective) spec like PhysX, there really isn?t any point in continuing this discussion with you until you gain such understanding.

PhysX is proprietary just as Havok is and even DirectX is proprietary in the sense that its not a completely open spec.

Uh, no. Not even close. Havok runs under software and will run on any x86 processor. As for DirectX, any IHV that wants to be in the Windows gaming platform must implement it because it?s virtually mandatory to be in that market.

Neither apply to PhysX and to even attempt to make that claim is laughable.

As for developer support, there's plenty of developer support and more added monthly. Epic, GameBryo, EA, 2K, THQ along with all the other devs listed on that nZone PhysX page. Considering the list is growing by the month, its clear PhysX is gaining traction, not losing ground.

Exactly the same applies to DX10.1 with Blizzard, Sega, EA and NHN (et al) getting on board. All this for something you claim offers no benefit.

Well once again, what DX10.1 features cannot be accomplished in DX10?

Get nVidia to disclose what features they don?t support and then we can continue this discussion.

If you're going to claim PhysX is going to die due to lack of industry support, you most certainly need to acknowledge any title excluding 60-65% of the discrete GPU market would be doomed to failure before launch.

How so? When DX11 comes, it?ll support everything DX10.1 does. That?ll simply leave G8x/G9x/G2xx parts out in the cold and their market share will shrink out of existence as people upgrade.

Support or adoption rate has nothing to do with a technology's significance, that's just you assigning value without objectively valuating the two.

Yes it does ? it has everything to do with it. A feature means squat if no-one supports it.

So PhysX isn't part of your buying equation, but that doesn't dismiss the significance of it especially when we have proof of tangible benefits in real games.

I?m still waiting for that list of games. Until you produce it, stop wasting my time with hand-waving about how it?s the next great thing. Without game support it means squat.

 

[BenSkywalker]

But by your own admission nVidia can?t run the Clear Sky DX10.1 path.

It runs every single feature and outputs in exactly the same fashion, it simply uses differing API calls to do it. Saying that it won't run the DX10.1 path is akin to saying that the 4870 won't run certain features in Doom3 because it doesn't use the native nV based extension(despite outputting identical results).

Get nVidia to disclose what features they don?t support and then we can continue this discussion.

Funny how that works, noone can figure out what it is that nVidia doesn't support with DX10.1, must be that it is so revolutionary people just can't wrap their minds around it. Couldn't possibly be that it only exists to ease some development time on the 360, MS would never do anything like that

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Yep, I do. What, now you?re dictating what I think too? If you are that?s your problem, not mine.

So you've finally come to realize resolution is more significant to IQ than FSAA as well. And the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit color is also clearly more significant than FSAA with regards to image quality. Gotcha. I'm not trying to dictate what you think, but I sure am going to point out instances where you blatantly contradict yourself.

I won?t concede a point that isn?t true. But then I?ve done a thorough analysis of AA over the course of several months so I know what I?m talking about, unlike you.

Why not? Increasing resolution has always improved IQ even before AA was around, based on your coverage and adoption rate criteria its obvious resolution is more important than AA. What's the point of studying AA when resolution and color accuracy have a greater impact on IQ anyways?

Yes, they?re equal without developer support.

Again, support has nothing to do with it. You said A was equal to B. You can't disprove both by injecting whatever arbitrary claim as C.

Right, and who do you think will support that? Intel won?t, ATi probably won?t, and Microsoft probably won?t, especially if they make their own physics standard as part of DirectX. That brings us right back to nVidia as the sole vendor that supports it.

It doesn't matter if Intel/AMD support it or not if they're DX11 compatible as they say they'll be. They'll just get some generic DX11 physics API and may or may not benefit from enhanced PhysX extensions like we see with EAX today. And Intel? I wouldn't even expect them to write a hardware physics wrapper for Havok until they manage to produce something that accelerates faster than a CPU, which means Larrabee late this year at the earliest.

But by your own admission nVidia can?t run the Clear Sky DX10.1 path.

And I've never claimed otherwise, they're my 1.0 out of 1.1 titles that support DX10.1 as I stated earlier. Doesn't change the fact DX10.1 offers nothing over DX10.

Nope, just anything that doesn?t have widespread gaming support.

I'd say 60-65% of the discrete GPU market and an even higher % of the DX10-capable GPU market is widespread by any standards.

In addition, I?ve seen at least one PhysX title generating rendering errors where limbs were getting stretched and contorted in a manner they shouldn?t be. It was ugly when it happened and it sure as hell didn?t make the title better; it made it worse.

And I've seen similar errors in titles that use software PhysX or Havok also. Mass Effect, CoH, Gears of War, MOH:A all come to mind. You'll often see corpses dancing in place or objects that go into constant flutter. Games have bugs, is this a surprise? Even with the bugs those titles are all undoubtedly better with physics.

As for your Truform claim, again that?s woefully inaccurate. I?ve seen examples where it visibly improved in-game characters.

Again, far more games support Truform than nVidia PhysX yet it still failed. It failed because developers didn?t support and it and because more powerful hardware enabled higher polygon counts. This could also happen with PhysX as multi-core becomes more prolific (say 8 or 16 cores) and multi-threaded physics renderers start harnessing that unused power.

How is it woefully inaccurate when you ended up with characters that looked like hemorrhaged cartoons with oversized limbs and features? Or textures that were overlapped or extended off their poly mesh?

Even if multi-core eventually replaces a dedicated GPU, hardware physics will still be the prevailing standard. And that standard will still need a front-end toolset like PhysX. Also general purpose CPUs still have a very long way to go given their FLOP counts on current archictectures still come nowhere close to GPGPUs.

But they did support it ? OpenGL titles automatically supported it.

What does support matter if there are no games? DX9 and DX10 both support PhysX now. That's certainly greater support than OpenGL at the time, even though there were exponentially more OpenGL titles then vs. now.

As for your other question, if you can?t understand the difference between a virtually mandatory spec tied to the operating system like DirectX and a proprietry (and elective) spec like PhysX, there really isn?t any point in continuing this discussion with you until you gain such understanding.

I'm well aware of the difference I just find it funny that people like you and firms like AMD are so insistent on standards and adoption prior to acceptance.

Uh, no. Not even close. Havok runs under software and will run on any x86 processor. As for DirectX, any IHV that wants to be in the Windows gaming platform must implement it because it?s virtually mandatory to be in that market.

Neither apply to PhysX and to even attempt to make that claim is laughable.

Wow really? You're more ignorant on the subject than I thought. I've already linked plenty on the subject so if you want to continue this discussion you should really familiarize yourself with the material first. Here's a hint, PhysX doesn't even require an x86 processor to work, nor does Havok for that matter.

Exactly the same applies to DX10.1 with Blizzard, Sega, EA and NHN (et al) getting on board. All this for something you claim offers no benefit.

Claims based on what we've seen and read about DX10.1. Again, what IQ benefit does DX10.1 provide over DX10? You can't even answer that simple question. Its because there is no difference.

Get nVidia to disclose what features they don?t support and then we can continue this discussion.

What's the point though? They've already said long ago they support the features devs are most interested in and proved it with FC2. If there isn't some obvious feature in DX10.1 that distinguishes itself from DX10 its obvious the spec is rather unremarkable to begin with.

How so? When DX11 comes, it?ll support everything DX10.1 does. That?ll simply leave G8x/G9x/G2xx parts out in the cold and their market share will shrink out of existence as people upgrade.

Actually DX11 will support everything DX10 does, which again shows just how insignificant DX10.1 is. And I'm sure it'll leave out the overwhelming majority of performance parts sold over a 2 year period out in the cold, just like the PS 2.0 vs. 3.0 situation you so love to cry about.

Yes it does ? it has everything to do with it. A feature means squat if no-one supports it.

I?m still waiting for that list of games. Until you produce it, stop wasting my time with hand-waving about how it?s the next great thing. Without game support it means squat.

And I've already provided 2 titles which will release in less than 2 months showing concrete examples of the benefits of PhysX. Clearly not equal to DX10.1 as you claimed.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Right, and who do you think will support that? Intel won?t, ATi probably won?t, and Microsoft probably won?t, especially if they make their own physics standard as part of DirectX. That brings us right back to nVidia as the sole vendor that supports it.

It doesn't matter if Intel/AMD support it or not if they're DX11 compatible as they say they'll be. They'll just get some generic DX11 physics API and may or may not benefit from enhanced PhysX extensions like we see with EAX today. And Intel? I wouldn't even expect them to write a hardware physics wrapper for Havok until they manage to produce something that accelerates faster than a CPU, which means Larrabee late this year at the earliest.

"Enhanced" PhysX extensions? Never heard of those before. Or are you trying to say that PhysX will be able to do things that DX11 DirectPhysics won't? That'd be a neat trick since the specs for DX11 haven't been published yet.

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
But by your own admission nVidia can?t run the Clear Sky DX10.1 path.

And I've never claimed otherwise, they're my 1.0 out of 1.1 titles that support DX10.1 as I stated earlier. Doesn't change the fact DX10.1 offers nothing over DX10.

You can read through this thread over at Beyond3D if you truly think DX10.1 and DX10 are identical.

Originally posted by: chizow
Even if multi-core eventually replaces a dedicated GPU, hardware physics will still be the prevailing standard. And that standard will still need a front-end toolset like PhysX.

Unless, of course, DX11 contains hardware physics. Then we wouldn't really need PhysX at all since DX11 would run on all capable cards. And which do you think developers will want to code for? One system that runs on only some cards or the system that runs on all cards?

Originally posted by: chizow
What does support matter if there are no games?

You mean, like PhysX?

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
As for your other question, if you can?t understand the difference between a virtually mandatory spec tied to the operating system like DirectX and a proprietry (and elective) spec like PhysX, there really isn?t any point in continuing this discussion with you until you gain such understanding.

I'm well aware of the difference I just find it funny that people like you and firms like AMD are so insistent on standards and adoption prior to acceptance.

And developers as well. Companies are funny that way. They prefer to know which way the wind is going to blow BEFORE they start dumping money into supporting something that may or may not survive.

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Exactly the same applies to DX10.1 with Blizzard, Sega, EA and NHN (et al) getting on board. All this for something you claim offers no benefit.

Claims based on what we've seen and read about DX10.1. Again, what IQ benefit does DX10.1 provide over DX10? You can't even answer that simple question. Its because there is no difference.

That's funny, I didn't see "IQ" come up in BFG's post. You threw that in there yourself. DX10.1 is mostly about performance increases, not direct IQ.

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
How so? When DX11 comes, it?ll support everything DX10.1 does. That?ll simply leave G8x/G9x/G2xx parts out in the cold and their market share will shrink out of existence as people upgrade.

Actually DX11 will support everything DX10 does, which again shows just how insignificant DX10.1 is.

Except that, since G8x/G9x/G2xx cards don't support DX10.1, they still won't support those features even under DX11.

Originally posted by: chizow
And I've already provided 2 titles which will release in less than 2 months showing concrete examples of the benefits of PhysX. Clearly not equal to DX10.1 as you claimed.

Ah. Will release. Since you're using non-released titles as proof of the usefulness of PhysX, I'll do the same and say that some future titles will make meaningful use of DX10.1 as well. Therefore, according to your example, DX10.1 is already a proven upgrade from DX10.

 

[Narse]

All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Im going to have to side with user error on this one.

 

[Narse]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Im going to have to side with user error on this one.

Sure, go ahead. I mean I have only worked on PCs for major corporations for 15 years. I am an idiot.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Im going to have to side with user error on this one.

Based on...? In case you hadn't noticed, you're addressing the Computer Help Moderator there. I would think he'd know his way around a PC pretty well.

I'd be a little more careful with those flippant remarks you're so fond of, if I were you.

 

[BenSkywalker]

All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

An inability to solve a nv4disp.dll issue isn't something I'd put on the resume anytime soon.

I mean I have only worked on PCs for major corporations for 15 years. I am an idiot.

A relative of mine heads up an IT department for an issurance company near where I live, has been pulling down six figure salaries for close to 20 years at that job. He couldn't get an iPod to sync after six hours trying to do it, he called me up- I put my 11 year old niece on the phone to walk him through it, I was laughing too hard. He IS an idiot

 

[Creig]

You know, it's people like Ocguy31 that are driving others away from the Video forum with stupid remarks like that. Ocguy31 had absolutely NO knowledge of Narse's situation, yet instantly he labels Narse as an idiot because he was having problems with Nvidia hardware and didn't have them with AMD. This kind of crap is getting OLD...

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: Creig
You know, it's people like Ocguy31 that are driving others away from the Video forum with stupid remarks like that. Ocguy31 had absolutely NO knowledge of Narse's situation, yet instantly he labels Narse as an idiot because he was having problems with Nvidia hardware and didn't have them with AMD. This kind of crap is getting OLD...

I'd say it's the whole green squad that is driving others away.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Im going to have to side with user error on this one.

I remember a short time after I bought the 8800GTS 640 at launch I kept getting the nvdisp.dll error. And of course most people said you did it wrong, remove your OCs, etc but everything had been working fine before I upgraded the driver. I simply rolled back to an earlier driver and the problem was gone. So umm...yes, nV drivers are prone to major problems as well.

In my own experience I've had many more problems with nV drivers than ATI ones but most of them were with the GTS 640 I got at launch. I've seen people say well that was their 1st DX10 part and Vista was brand new...but I didn't pay almost $600 CAD to be an unpaid beta tester for their hardware and drivers. Now of course this didn't stop me from buying a 8800GT but of course I'm not a blind fanboy unlike some others here.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Creig
You know, it's people like Ocguy31 that are driving others away from the Video forum with stupid remarks like that. Ocguy31 had absolutely NO knowledge of Narse's situation, yet instantly he labels Narse as an idiot because he was having problems with Nvidia hardware and didn't have them with AMD. This kind of crap is getting OLD...

Nice trying to bait me into some forum-war that you normally save for a few others on here with nV hardware in thier sig. I'm not going down that road. The mods just delete the posts now anyway.



I dont care how long someone has worked with computer hardware. If you list 3 different configs of GPUs and say that you always had blue screens, and blame it on "drivers", I'm going to be skeptical. I have had more GPUs than that, and have never had blue screens from drivers.

Does it mean it doesnt happen? No, of course it does. But you have to be either

A. Really unlucky and get all those bad cards, and not find a driver that works
B. Something else is faulty (Power supply, mobo, etc)

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
"Enhanced" PhysX extensions? Never heard of those before. Or are you trying to say that PhysX will be able to do things that DX11 DirectPhysics won't? That'd be a neat trick since the specs for DX11 haven't been published yet.

Yep, similar to how EAX has extensions beyond what is provided by simple DirectSound compatibility.

You can read through this thread over at Beyond3D if you truly think DX10.1 and DX10 are identical.

Or you can summarize it in 10 words or less: No difference in image quality.

Unless, of course, DX11 contains hardware physics. Then we wouldn't really need PhysX at all since DX11 would run on all capable cards. And which do you think developers will want to code for? One system that runs on only some cards or the system that runs on all cards?

So I guess there's no need for toolsets and game engines like UE3.0, GameBryo, Granny3D, Miles3D, etc. because DX9 and DX10 provide everything that's needed? Of course not.

You mean, like PhysX?

Yep, in this instance like PhysX.

And developers as well. Companies are funny that way. They prefer to know which way the wind is going to blow BEFORE they start dumping money into supporting something that may or may not survive.

Of course there's greater risk as an early adopter, but there's also greater reward. Companies that innovate lead the way for the others who follow and its clear NV continues to put their resources toward innovation that matters, not incremental standards like DX10.1.

That's funny, I didn't see "IQ" come up in BFG's post. You threw that in there yourself. DX10.1 is mostly about performance increases, not direct IQ.

No, I said early on that DX10.1 can't even claim the visual IQ improvements PhysX in its most base form are derided for. If anything DX10.1 has resulted in *WORST* IQ with rendering errors in Assassin's Creed and sunken tires and half-rocks in FC2 lol.

Except that, since G8x/G9x/G2xx cards don't support DX10.1, they still won't support those features even under DX11.

What features again? Its amazing how proponents of DX10.1 can't even put a finger on what we're all missing out on.

Ah. Will release. Since you're using non-released titles as proof of the usefulness of PhysX, I'll do the same and say that some future titles will make meaningful use of DX10.1 as well. Therefore, according to your example, DX10.1 is already a proven upgrade from DX10.

I'd love to see that list. It'll just be another example of how DX10.1 and PhysX aren't equal in any way, shape or form.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig
You know, it's people like Ocguy31 that are driving others away from the Video forum with stupid remarks like that. Ocguy31 had absolutely NO knowledge of Narse's situation, yet instantly he labels Narse as an idiot because he was having problems with Nvidia hardware and didn't have them with AMD. This kind of crap is getting OLD...

How is it labelling Narse an "idiot" to say it's user error to not be able to get a video card to work?

I vote for option C:

Narse had user error going on almost certainly, but that doesn't make him an "idiot".

I doubt there's anyone on the forum who doesn't have things with hardware and/or software they either couldn't figure out, or just gave up on to cut their losses.

In any case, the GTX295 installed uneventfully for me, I imagine a 4870X2 would as well.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and your family Creig! :beer:

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Didn't change anything else between upgrades? No system/mobo upgrade between the two? I had some nvddlmk.dll recovered errors in Vista early on too, coulda swore it was the video card, turned out to be my RAM. Crucial Ballistix D9 back when they were all the rage. Wondered how my luck with those sticks was so bad after the 3rd RMA. Nowadays those sticks are synonymous with burning up every few months.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Didn't change anything else between upgrades? No system/mobo upgrade between the two? I had some nvddlmk.dll recovered errors in Vista early on too, coulda swore it was the video card, turned out to be my RAM. Crucial Ballistix D9 back when they were all the rage. Wondered how my luck with those sticks was so bad after the 3rd RMA. Nowadays those sticks are synonymous with burning up every few months.

Yep.

I got BSODs and recovery errors non stop as well when I tried to use a NZXT 1000W PSU to power my 3 X 8800GTX as well. I switched to a PC Power 1200W, changed nothing else, and my constant "NVIDIA driver errors" (as reported by Vista) ended.

When Vista launched I went through a ton of this stuff moderating at nZone. People with rigs that would have worked fine in XP just didn't in Vista for a while. Took patches, driver updates, and in some cases hardware changes.

These days all that stuff should largely be a bad memory no matter whose hardware you buy.

Note: Except for the insufficient PSU, I never had the issues many did, but my pc was one hard drive, video cards, RAM, onboard sound, OS, MS Office, and games. Pretty straight forward stuff- I even yanked my Xfi as a pre-emptive solution.

Narse, if you get a 295, I can pretty much guarantee it will go smoother for you.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Didn't change anything else between upgrades? No system/mobo upgrade between the two? I had some nvddlmk.dll recovered errors in Vista early on too, coulda swore it was the video card, turned out to be my RAM. Crucial Ballistix D9 back when they were all the rage. Wondered how my luck with those sticks was so bad after the 3rd RMA. Nowadays those sticks are synonymous with burning up every few months.

Yep.

I got BSODs and recovery errors non stop as well when I tried to use a NZXT 1000W PSU to power my 3 X 8800GTX as well. I switched to a PC Power 1200W, changed nothing else, and my constant "NVIDIA driver errors" (as reported by Vista) ended.

When Vista launched I went through a ton of this stuff moderating at nZone. People with rigs that would have worked fine in XP just didn't in Vista for a while. Took patches, driver updates, and in some cases hardware changes.

These days all that stuff should largely be a bad memory no matter whose hardware you buy.

Note: Except for the insufficient PSU, I never had the issues many did, but my pc was one hard drive, video cards, RAM, onboard sound, OS, MS Office, and games. Pretty straight forward stuff- I even yanked my Xfi as a pre-emptive solution.

Narse, if you get a 295, I can pretty much guarantee it will go smoother for you.

:thumbsup: Cool so are you going to let him pick a replacement card if hes unhappy or are you just going to paypal him the money.

I'm impressed and sorry I doubted you focus group guys when you said you were just members so you could help out the other forum members.

Props to you

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Didn't change anything else between upgrades? No system/mobo upgrade between the two? I had some nvddlmk.dll recovered errors in Vista early on too, coulda swore it was the video card, turned out to be my RAM. Crucial Ballistix D9 back when they were all the rage. Wondered how my luck with those sticks was so bad after the 3rd RMA. Nowadays those sticks are synonymous with burning up every few months.

Yep.

I got BSODs and recovery errors non stop as well when I tried to use a NZXT 1000W PSU to power my 3 X 8800GTX as well. I switched to a PC Power 1200W, changed nothing else, and my constant "NVIDIA driver errors" (as reported by Vista) ended.

When Vista launched I went through a ton of this stuff moderating at nZone. People with rigs that would have worked fine in XP just didn't in Vista for a while. Took patches, driver updates, and in some cases hardware changes.

These days all that stuff should largely be a bad memory no matter whose hardware you buy.

Note: Except for the insufficient PSU, I never had the issues many did, but my pc was one hard drive, video cards, RAM, onboard sound, OS, MS Office, and games. Pretty straight forward stuff- I even yanked my Xfi as a pre-emptive solution.

Narse, if you get a 295, I can pretty much guarantee it will go smoother for you.

:thumbsup: Cool so are you going to let him pick a replacement card if hes unhappy or are you just going to paypal him the money.

I'm impressed and sorry I doubted you focus group guys when you said you were just members so you could help out the other forum members.

Props to you

Maybe you missed the part when he said "when vista came out". It is a well known fact that Nvidia had very poor Vista drivers to start off. It took a long time before they became usable for most people.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Didn't change anything else between upgrades? No system/mobo upgrade between the two? I had some nvddlmk.dll recovered errors in Vista early on too, coulda swore it was the video card, turned out to be my RAM. Crucial Ballistix D9 back when they were all the rage. Wondered how my luck with those sticks was so bad after the 3rd RMA. Nowadays those sticks are synonymous with burning up every few months.

Yep.

I got BSODs and recovery errors non stop as well when I tried to use a NZXT 1000W PSU to power my 3 X 8800GTX as well. I switched to a PC Power 1200W, changed nothing else, and my constant "NVIDIA driver errors" (as reported by Vista) ended.

When Vista launched I went through a ton of this stuff moderating at nZone. People with rigs that would have worked fine in XP just didn't in Vista for a while. Took patches, driver updates, and in some cases hardware changes.

These days all that stuff should largely be a bad memory no matter whose hardware you buy.

Note: Except for the insufficient PSU, I never had the issues many did, but my pc was one hard drive, video cards, RAM, onboard sound, OS, MS Office, and games. Pretty straight forward stuff- I even yanked my Xfi as a pre-emptive solution.

Narse, if you get a 295, I can pretty much guarantee it will go smoother for you.

:thumbsup: Cool so are you going to let him pick a replacement card if hes unhappy or are you just going to paypal him the money.

I'm impressed and sorry I doubted you focus group guys when you said you were just members so you could help out the other forum members.

Props to you

Maybe you missed the part when he said "when vista came out". It is a well known fact that Nvidia had very poor Vista drivers to start off. It took a long time before they became usable for most people.

So?

nRollo just guaranteed it would go smoother now, thats a nice guarantee and I think we should appreciate it. For too long we've been accusing the guy of marketing and now hes putting his money where his mouth is.

Good for him I say. :thumbsup:

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Didn't change anything else between upgrades? No system/mobo upgrade between the two? I had some nvddlmk.dll recovered errors in Vista early on too, coulda swore it was the video card, turned out to be my RAM. Crucial Ballistix D9 back when they were all the rage. Wondered how my luck with those sticks was so bad after the 3rd RMA. Nowadays those sticks are synonymous with burning up every few months.

Yep.

I got BSODs and recovery errors non stop as well when I tried to use a NZXT 1000W PSU to power my 3 X 8800GTX as well. I switched to a PC Power 1200W, changed nothing else, and my constant "NVIDIA driver errors" (as reported by Vista) ended.

When Vista launched I went through a ton of this stuff moderating at nZone. People with rigs that would have worked fine in XP just didn't in Vista for a while. Took patches, driver updates, and in some cases hardware changes.

These days all that stuff should largely be a bad memory no matter whose hardware you buy.

Note: Except for the insufficient PSU, I never had the issues many did, but my pc was one hard drive, video cards, RAM, onboard sound, OS, MS Office, and games. Pretty straight forward stuff- I even yanked my Xfi as a pre-emptive solution.

Narse, if you get a 295, I can pretty much guarantee it will go smoother for you.

:thumbsup: Cool so are you going to let him pick a replacement card if hes unhappy or are you just going to paypal him the money.

I'm impressed and sorry I doubted you focus group guys when you said you were just members so you could help out the other forum members.

Props to you

Maybe you missed the part when he said "when vista came out". It is a well known fact that Nvidia had very poor Vista drivers to start off. It took a long time before they became usable for most people.

So?

nRollo just guaranteed it would go smoother now, thats a nice guarantee and I think we should appreciate it. For too long we've been accusing the guy of marketing and now hes putting his money where his mouth is.

Good for him I say. :thumbsup:

Man you need to lay off. The new drivers are a ton better than back then. There's no doubt whatsoever that it would indeed be smoother than trying to run SLI with early vista drivers...

That's EXACTLY what he's talking about. I'd even say that Crossfire works better now in Vista than it did at first. OMG no way...is it possible? Drivers mature over time? what a concept

BTW: it seems to be you and you alone accusing anyone of anything. I know these guys are here for marketing purposes. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if ATI had people trolling through here too except they don't put it in their sig. At least they're not hiding and not afraid to tell people they work for Nvidia, in part or wholly.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Didn't change anything else between upgrades? No system/mobo upgrade between the two? I had some nvddlmk.dll recovered errors in Vista early on too, coulda swore it was the video card, turned out to be my RAM. Crucial Ballistix D9 back when they were all the rage. Wondered how my luck with those sticks was so bad after the 3rd RMA. Nowadays those sticks are synonymous with burning up every few months.

Yep.

I got BSODs and recovery errors non stop as well when I tried to use a NZXT 1000W PSU to power my 3 X 8800GTX as well. I switched to a PC Power 1200W, changed nothing else, and my constant "NVIDIA driver errors" (as reported by Vista) ended.

When Vista launched I went through a ton of this stuff moderating at nZone. People with rigs that would have worked fine in XP just didn't in Vista for a while. Took patches, driver updates, and in some cases hardware changes.

These days all that stuff should largely be a bad memory no matter whose hardware you buy.

Note: Except for the insufficient PSU, I never had the issues many did, but my pc was one hard drive, video cards, RAM, onboard sound, OS, MS Office, and games. Pretty straight forward stuff- I even yanked my Xfi as a pre-emptive solution.

Narse, if you get a 295, I can pretty much guarantee it will go smoother for you.

:thumbsup: Cool so are you going to let him pick a replacement card if hes unhappy or are you just going to paypal him the money.

I'm impressed and sorry I doubted you focus group guys when you said you were just members so you could help out the other forum members.

Props to you

Maybe you missed the part when he said "when vista came out". It is a well known fact that Nvidia had very poor Vista drivers to start off. It took a long time before they became usable for most people.

So?

nRollo just guaranteed it would go smoother now, thats a nice guarantee and I think we should appreciate it. For too long we've been accusing the guy of marketing and now hes putting his money where his mouth is.

Good for him I say. :thumbsup:

Man you need to lay off. The new drivers are a ton better than back then. There's no doubt whatsoever that it would indeed be smoother than trying to run SLI with early vista drivers...

That's EXACTLY what he's talking about. I'd even say that Crossfire works better now in Vista than it did at first. OMG no way...is it possible? Drivers mature over time? what a concept

BTW: it seems to be you and you alone accusing anyone of anything. I know these guys are here for marketing purposes. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if ATI had people trolling through here too except they don't put it in their sig. At least they're not hiding and not afraid to tell people they work for Nvidia, in part or wholly.

I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I thought it was a nice gesture of nRollos thats all.

Jeez, if you have an issue with his guarantee take it up with him.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Narse
All I know is from the moment I had my 8800GTX, 800GT SLI, and 9800GTX SLI I had blue screen after blue screen caused by nVidia's drivers. I reloaded, tried differant drivers and as you can see multiple cards.

I got sick of it and got a 4870x2, guess what? No more blue screens at all, period, zero zilch, none, and I didn't even reload vista when I installed my 4870x2.

Didn't change anything else between upgrades? No system/mobo upgrade between the two? I had some nvddlmk.dll recovered errors in Vista early on too, coulda swore it was the video card, turned out to be my RAM. Crucial Ballistix D9 back when they were all the rage. Wondered how my luck with those sticks was so bad after the 3rd RMA. Nowadays those sticks are synonymous with burning up every few months.

Yep.

I got BSODs and recovery errors non stop as well when I tried to use a NZXT 1000W PSU to power my 3 X 8800GTX as well. I switched to a PC Power 1200W, changed nothing else, and my constant "NVIDIA driver errors" (as reported by Vista) ended.

When Vista launched I went through a ton of this stuff moderating at nZone. People with rigs that would have worked fine in XP just didn't in Vista for a while. Took patches, driver updates, and in some cases hardware changes.

These days all that stuff should largely be a bad memory no matter whose hardware you buy.

Note: Except for the insufficient PSU, I never had the issues many did, but my pc was one hard drive, video cards, RAM, onboard sound, OS, MS Office, and games. Pretty straight forward stuff- I even yanked my Xfi as a pre-emptive solution.

Narse, if you get a 295, I can pretty much guarantee it will go smoother for you.

:thumbsup: Cool so are you going to let him pick a replacement card if hes unhappy or are you just going to paypal him the money.

I'm impressed and sorry I doubted you focus group guys when you said you were just members so you could help out the other forum members.

Props to you

Maybe you missed the part when he said "when vista came out". It is a well known fact that Nvidia had very poor Vista drivers to start off. It took a long time before they became usable for most people.

So?

nRollo just guaranteed it would go smoother now, thats a nice guarantee and I think we should appreciate it. For too long we've been accusing the guy of marketing and now hes putting his money where his mouth is.

Good for him I say. :thumbsup:

Man you need to lay off. The new drivers are a ton better than back then. There's no doubt whatsoever that it would indeed be smoother than trying to run SLI with early vista drivers...

That's EXACTLY what he's talking about. I'd even say that Crossfire works better now in Vista than it did at first. OMG no way...is it possible? Drivers mature over time? what a concept

BTW: it seems to be you and you alone accusing anyone of anything. I know these guys are here for marketing purposes. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if ATI had people trolling through here too except they don't put it in their sig. At least they're not hiding and not afraid to tell people they work for Nvidia, in part or wholly.

I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I thought it was a nice gesture of nRollos thats all.

Jeez, if you have an issue with his guarantee take it up with him.

Your post is riddled with sarcasm. Maybe you forgot this little gem. So you are very much accusing them of something.

Cool so are you going to let him pick a replacement card if hes unhappy or are you just going to paypal him the money. I'm impressed and sorry I doubted you focus group guys when you said you were just members so you could help out the other forum members.

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I know these guys are here for marketing purposes. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if ATI had people trolling through here too except they don't put it in their sig. At least they're not hiding and not afraid to tell people they work for Nvidia, in part or wholly.

Actually, if I remember correctly, the NVIDIA's one did try to conceal it initially until the cat got out of the bag a couple of years back. So, pretty much there's no point in trying to hide it anymore.

 

[Dadofamunky]

ATI is to NVidia as Islam is to Christianity. Or the reverse. Either way, it seems to be a religious issue. ;