JoeyDee
  •  JoeyDee
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2003-08-20T22:26:56Z
(please read, it might get intresting eventually...)

I haven't been able to post anything here for about a month now because I've just been swamped with computer orders. I had some spare time today so I looked at various review sites to stay up to date with current products out there I might want to order. I was begining to regain some of my faith for NVidia when I made a PC with a GeForceFX 5200 Ultra for someone wanting good bang-for-the-buck. Normally I would've gotten a Radeon 9600 or 9500, but I got the 5200 Ultra because I saw one at my Best-Buy for $99 ($30 rebate), considering I couldn't get an Ultra online for that price, I bought it insead of the 9600. The 5200 Ultra suprised me in that it easily beat my 128mb Radeon 9100 in almost all tests... I started to even consider buying the newer "Fliped Chip" 5600 Ultra's instead of 9600 PRO's... untill today when I had some free time.

If any of you have been to Tomshardware.com lately (I still take HH's reviews, and especially previews more seriously though) you might have read the Det 45.xx review... If you haven't, go look...at the 3DMARK 2003 scores....

We all know that NVidia greatly hurt FutureMark financially due to decreased sales of it's new 2003 version of 3DMARK because NVidia "optimized" thier drivers for it by only rendering what can be seen on a monitor. This created VERY high scores. FutureMark, to the defense of thier product issued the v3.30 patch, which disabled NVidia's "optimizations". Most of the FX's scores in 3DMARK 2k3 were cut in half with the new patch.

FutureMark was very angry at NVidia, continually stating that thier driver "optimizations" were very wrong, and hurt thier product sales, NVidia denied they did anything wrong and that FutureMark was at fualt... A few days latter, after NVidia reps met with FutureMark reps, both sides basicly called it a draw..which left many of us baffled.


Last week (I believe it was) NVidia again became a part of the FutureMark developement team ( they always used to be untill they realized NV30 performed awfully in beta builds of 3DMARK 2003, so they jumped ship, claiming the 3DMARK benchmarks mean nothing)...

Here comes the new Detnator 45.xx Driver release which show almost NO performancechange in anything, EXCEPT UT2k3 and....you guessed it, 3DMARK 2003. UT 2k3 is probably just a bug in that it's 4x AA scores are VERY high in 1600x1200 compared to Det v44.xx (basicly 4x AA isn't working in UT 2003 at that res.). 3DMARK 2003 scores were very different from Det44 scores in v3.30 3DMARK 2003, around a 40% increase in scores throughout...but look at these new results with the un-patched version of 3DMARK 2003 with the older Det44 drivers that damaged 2k3's reputation as a ligit benchmark...you will see almost no difference.

Det45 has now completely sealed the deal... 3DMARK 2003 is useless, other than to loop constantly to show off your PC's powers when people are over.... But as the great benchmarking program that determined the true power of your card like 3DMARK 2001 did, 3DMARK 2003, simply, is dead. FutureMark will surely loose even more money now becuase of Det45...

Thank's NVidia! (sarcasticly)

Okay, I'm starting to fall asleep.... Questions? Comments?
Bothware
2003-08-20T22:35:56Z
I appreciate high image quality and I like to have the peace of mind provided by good quality drivers and long term support .... therefore in the current graphics card market I would only use & recomend ATI Radeon based cards.

I'm even tempted to try and get hold of a suitable mobile radeon for my laptop .. apparantly some of them are pin compatible with the GF4go440 which currently resides in there.

Thanks for the long post Joey ... the info is really good to know.
S2
  •  S2
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-08-20T22:47:51Z
Man I wish Futuremark Filed a 5 billion dollar lawsuit against Nvidia in my hopes of boycotting Nvidia and thier scandalous shinanigans. Hope ATI lives forever and Nvidia dies tommarow.

gpk99
2003-08-21T00:53:03Z
sounds like a new rap cd to me...doesnt it?...........
JoeyDee
  •  JoeyDee
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2003-08-21T10:06:44Z
Another thing I forgot to add to my origional post. When it comes to Radeon 9800 Vs. GeForceFX5900, the benchmarks where the GeForce do take the lead, like at high res with some AA on, both will get you very playable framerates. For example...lets say in game X, at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 4x AF, the Radeon gets 95 FPS while the GeForceFX gets 100 FPS. Do you think those 5 extra FPS really matter? No, the human eye cannot tell the difference of frames per second higher than 32...so to your eye, 40 FPS looks just like 99,000 FPS, and 95 FPS looks just like 100 FPS. What determines the winner of this benchmark in Game X is image quality, not FPS, and ATi definately has the edge on image quality with AND without AA and AF enabled.

btw, I hate rape... lol
Ramman
2003-08-21T10:26:01Z
It's interesting how the tables turn over the years. ATi several years ago were the bad guys. Compatibility issues, terrible drivers, poor cards. Now it's nVidia's turn to get a bad rep.

I still have a bad taste for ATi, even though I've built systems since the "bad days" with their cards. Like any product, if you've had a bad experience, it's hard to use that product again.

As to the FX5200 I tend to agree with you. It's not that bad of a card. I've seen one in action with everything cranked up to max and shadowing on. It ran fairly smooth. There were some minor stutters in screens with alot of action going on. But all in all not too bad for the price. I have the FX5600 Ultra and it suits my needs just fine.
JoeyDee
  •  JoeyDee
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2003-08-21T12:53:48Z
Look at my post in the recent 9800 - 5900 thread, I was talking about the "old" days of ATi...
JoeyDee
  •  JoeyDee
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2003-08-21T12:58:13Z
Quote:

Originally posted by shervin2
Man I wish Futuremark Filed a 5 billion dollar lawsuit against Nvidia in my hopes of boycotting Nvidia and thier scandalous shinanigans. Hope ATI lives forever and Nvidia dies tommarow.




I bet FutureMark would've, except that when these NVidia reps I was talking about visited FutureMark, thier suitecases probably weren't filled with your typical notepad, pen and calculator...but rather lots, and lots of GREEN... :rolleyes:
S2
  •  S2
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-08-21T13:38:42Z
Quote:

Originally posted by JoeyDee
I bet FutureMark would've, except that when these NVidia reps I was talking about visited FutureMark, thier suitecases probably weren't filled with your typical notepad, pen and calculator...but rather lots, and lots of GREEN... :rolleyes:


Now Nvidia doesn't see green anymore, they see yellow papers.
pompoen
2003-08-21T14:20:11Z
Quote:

Originally posted by JoeyDee
NVidia "optimized" thier drivers for it by only rendering what can be seen on a monitor.


I didnt follow the whole "optimalisation" debate during the previous months but is "only rendering what is on the screen" a bad thing? why should it render what isnt to be seen at all? I'm sorry, this is probably a dumb question. But could someone explain this to me.
SS Joe
2003-08-21T14:28:35Z
"Do you think those 5 extra FPS really matter? No, the human eye cannot tell the difference of frames per second higher than 32...so to your eye, 40 FPS looks just like 99,000 FPS, and 95 FPS looks just like 100 FPS. What determines the winner of this benchmark in Game X is image quality, not FPS, and ATi definately has the edge on image quality with AND without AA and AF enabled."

That is probably the best argument to use for which Card is better. Like I said in another post, who the hell cares about Frame Rates that you can't even Notice. From the Benchmarks i've seen, ATI seems to do better when more Work is put on it, so ATI does better when each Frame Rate counts. Yeah Bragging you can get Insane Frame Rates is great and all, but I can't justify spending un-godly amounts of money just to brag. I'd Rather Brag about how I payed Alot less and get the same Noticeable Performance and better Image Quality.

Good Post.
Ramman
2003-08-21T15:34:18Z
Quote:

Originally posted by JoeyDee
Look at my post in the recent 9800 - 5900 thread, I was talking about the "old" days of ATi...


Read your other post. I'm not saying that ATi is a bad company. Just that they had a period of bad drivers and cards and I had bad experiences with them. I'm no fanboy of any manufacturer. Whatever works for what you want to achieve is the end result, not what company makes it.

Benchmarks are like barber shops for bald men, totally pointless. It's real world results that get my vote. I won't spend tons of money on a card that only gives marginal improvement over the last generation, no matter who the manufacturer is, or what they bench.
JoeyDee
  •  JoeyDee
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2003-08-21T15:58:06Z
Quote:

Originally posted by pompoen
I didnt follow the whole "optimalisation" debate during the previous months but is "only rendering what is on the screen" a bad thing? why should it render what isnt to be seen at all? I'm sorry, this is probably a dumb question. But could someone explain this to me.


The thing about the "Optimizations" NVidia was making for 3DMARK 2003 is that the programs sole purpose is benchmarking, it's not a game. If a Radeon renders the whole scene and the GeForceFX renders only what you can see, the GeForceFX will have a HUGE advantage.

Let me restate this. NVidia's Det44's actually prevented everything you can't see from being rendered. BUT, people with the developers version, and the Beta can actually change the camera view during the benchmark, and when they did on a GeForceFX with Det44's, things started to disapear. This is different from just rendering what you can see, just rendering what you can see is called Tile-Based rendering, some video cards run Tile-Based Rendering. With a TBR video card, when you change the camera view, NOTHING will disapear. errrr... see where I'm going with this?



BTW, on an older post, I ment RAP, not rape... lol
pompoen
2003-08-21T17:51:12Z
thanks I understand it now ... wether you could or couldnt see the not rendered surroundings is irrelevant because 3dmark is benching tool to compare differnt vid cards
Crisis Causer
2003-08-22T00:21:17Z
I never did or will consider 3DMARK2003 a valid benchmark. Stick with 2001SE...