[QUOTE="swehunt"] [QUOTE="musclesforcier"]Sorry but Tom's Hardware is not reliable at all.PacoL250
Okay, then by what fact? "sorry but Tom´s hardware is not reliable at all" if you say one thing like that i want some critic not only a emty post.
The moust solid reliable hardware site i know, Evry reweiv and evry detail is very carfully explained and they are very openminded not fanboy´s of anykind.
Please explain why it´s not reliable?
The reason is that they have been wrong and/or have exaggerated at times in the past. I'd have to dig to find the threads, but that's the case.
However, I've seen similar benchies at many other places.
I made this point in another thread, but here's the issue: nVIDIA's TWIMTBP Program and the varying degrees in which it is implimented in games.
In games, the interaction with the game and the hardware's drivers is very important. If the game and drivers are both built to work well together (e.g. Crysis), then that particular line of cards will work better than anything else. So hence why Crysis plays better on nVIDIA cards. If a game is built to work well with a particular driver set and line of cards, yet that card and driver set are not present in the system (e.g. having Crysis and a Radeon HD3870), the game will not be at it's optimal visual level. If a game doesn't take advantage of anything in particular then it becomes very much dependent on how stable the drivers are and/or how the physical hardware is.
Make sense? Good. :P :)
Now as for benchmarking (e.g. 3DMark06, etc.), things get very dependent on other pieces of hardware; however if that's under control then that point is moot. These programs only slightly take advantage of a driver set only to the point that these programs tell the hardware what, how, etc. in regards to rendering. Nothing too complicated like a game. Therefore, we're looking far more closely at the actual piece of hardware than anything else.
I think it was said before that AMD/ATI cards benchmark better than nVIDIA cards do, yet nVIDIA cards do better in games than AMD/ATI cards. Look at it this way, all conspiracy theories aside:
nVIDIA's TWIMTBP program is in so many games nowadays in varying degrees. That helps developers do a better job rendering their game on nVIDIA hardware because of the support nVIDIA gives them (keep in mind, developers need to pay for that support and in general the TWIMTBP support, at least, IIRC). Without that and just looking at hardware, then that would probably mean that, even depending on what cards you are comparing, AMD/ATI cards are better pieces of hardware, just not as supported like nVIDIA cards seem to be.
Sort of like how the Xbox 360 has had more support from developers versus the PS3 in the past year. That's a whole other ball of wax, but the rough comparison can be made.
But i still dont get why that makes this chart inrellevant, never mind if games are optimiced for Nvidia or ATI both the cards will play the same games. (I still play crysis on my ATi tho it´s more optimiced for Nvidia.)
I admit its an old chart.. if you mean the drivers used, Ati was running their beta drivers and ofcourse thats not in ATI´s favour. (catalyst 7.11)
And ofcourse other Hardware are important, but all cards are tested in the same rig.
But is your point that new games made is in Nvidia favour?, I agre. But I dont think that matters, Still cards play same games anyway.
Important is the fact about how well and smoth a game plays on your hardware and I trust Tom´s hardware to find that out.
Indestructible2 : No, I dont want a "Flamewar" its a chart providing benchmark for many various/diffrent games from a well respectabled site. And last thread i was posting (got locked.) in was the coparing GTS 640mb and HD3870. thats why i ever mentioned that, this clear the fact ATI HD3870 is superrior in overall. (in all games but one even on beta drivers.)
/never mind my bad grammar/ENG, I live and were born in Sweden.
Log in to comment