Crysis demo Nvidia vs ATI test

here's the link it looks like they tested the new ATI HD 2900XT video card against the Nvidia 8800GTX.

Anyway I expected the 8800GTX to run better than the ATI card because of the Nvidia Crytek partnership.

Edit: this is the 3DMark06  test result from the Turkish site 

QX6800 with these top of the line GPUs putting out only 50 FPS? That's scary.shoenberg3

They are high end GPUs being put against the most graphic intensive game made so far.  If the 8800GTS 320 MB pulls at least 40 FPS at 1440 x 900 resolution with all settings to max, I'll be very happy. 

That really isn't surprising to me anymore. I think this is just further confirming that the 8 series will become the new FXonemic

lol you are silly.  You are justifying your opinion on a benchmark for a game that isn't out by a card that isn't out.  Nvidia spent more money on R&D then they had ever spent in the history of the company.  Even if these Benchmarks are accurate, AMD is 6 months behind.  6 MONTHS!  Shouldn't they be dusting the competition?  Guess we won't know until the benchmarks are official.     

The highest end R600 part is the XTX. The card used in the benchmarks (if real) will retail @ a similar cost to the 8800 GTS. So if these results are true the R600 XT is pretty good.

[QUOTE="onemic"]That really isn't surprising to me anymore. I think this is just further confirming that the 8 series will become the new FXTaijiquan

lol you are silly. You are justifying your opinion on a benchmark for a game that isn't out by a card that isn't out. Nvidia spent more money on R&D then they had ever spent in the history of the company. Even if these Benchmarks are accurate, AMD is 6 months behind. 6 MONTHS! Shouldn't they be dusting the competition? Guess we won't know until the benchmarks are official.

I don't think anyone can deny the similarities. The 8 series card comes out and it doesn't vastly outperform the 7 series. The midrange 8 series cards come out and they can't even perform better than a 7900 GS or X1900 XT(FYI the midrange 7 series cards outperform the 6800 ultra by a good margin same goes for the midrange 6 series in comparison to the 5950) and then this benchmark comes out showing that ATI's new line of cards, which are still be finalized are performing better than the 8 series on crysis. A game that was clearly made for Nvidia cards.(Since crytek and Nvidia partnered up for it) and the similarities between the 8 series and the FX series become obvious. Sure we should wait until the official benchmark, but they will probably be exactly the same and with the current trends the 8 series is having I wouldn't be surprised if the official benchmarks actually showed a bigger difference in performance between the two lines of cards. 

[QUOTE="Taijiquan"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That really isn't surprising to me anymore. I think this is just further confirming that the 8 series will become the new FXonemic

lol you are silly. You are justifying your opinion on a benchmark for a game that isn't out by a card that isn't out. Nvidia spent more money on R&D then they had ever spent in the history of the company. Even if these Benchmarks are accurate, AMD is 6 months behind. 6 MONTHS! Shouldn't they be dusting the competition? Guess we won't know until the benchmarks are official.

I don't think anyone can deny the similarities. The 8 series card comes out and it doesn't vastly outperform the 7 series. The midrange 8 series cards come out and they can't even perform better than a 7900 GS or X1900 XT(FYI the midrange 7 series cards outperform the 6800 ultra by a good margin same goes for the midrange 6 series in comparison to the 5950) and then this benchmark comes out showing that ATI's new line of cards, which are still be finalized are performing better than the 8 series on crysis. A game that was clearly made for Nvidia cards.(Since crytek and Nvidia partnered up for it) and the similarities between the 8 series and the FX series become obvious. Sure we should wait until the official benchmark, but they will probably be exactly the same and with the current trends the 8 series is having I wouldn't be surprised if the official benchmarks actually showed a bigger difference in performance between the two lines of cards. 

The 8800gtx got rave reviews. Benchmarks show it to be about 60-100% faster than the 7900gtx.

It absolutely crushes the x1950xtx and even beats it in crossfire in most benchmarks. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gf8800-games_18.html 

x2900 is being released 8 months after the 8800gtx. Of course its going to be faster. 8800 series launched only 3 months after the x1950xtx.

QX6800 with these top of the line GPUs putting out only 50 FPS? That's scary.shoenberg3

lol reallllll scary - till Crysis will be released i think GeForce 9 series will be released too

and that will give you 80+ fps

(BTW i wish to have 50 fps on max graphics with Crysis)

I don't think anyone can deny the similarities. The 8 series card comes out and it doesn't vastly outperform the 7 series. onemic

[QUOTE="onemic"]

I don't think anyone can deny the similarities. The 8 series card comes out and it doesn't vastly outperform the 7 series. raynimrod

When I say that I mean in comparison to when the 7 series came out and how much better it perfromed over the 6 series(In case you didn't know a 7600 GT outperformed, by a good margin the 6800 ultra; the 8600 GTS can even get up to the performance of a 7900 GS)  and when the 6 series came out and how much better it performed over the FX series. 

[QUOTE="raynimrod"][QUOTE="onemic"]

I don't think anyone can deny the similarities. The 8 series card comes out and it doesn't vastly outperform the 7 series. onemic

When I say that I mean in comparison to when the 7 series came out and how much better it perfromed over the 6 series(In case you didn't know a 7600 GT outperformed, by a good margin the 6800 ultra; the 8600 GTS can even get up to the performance of a 7900 GS)  and when the 6 series came out and how much better it performed over the FX series. 

I would probably just stop if I was you.  Nvidia's marketing decision seems to be different this time.  There are also a few things you should understand.

1)THese cards are for Direct X 10.  If Microsoft and just about every developer claiming Direct X 10's performance increase over Direct X 9 being 6-10 times is true, consider the cards are guaranteed more eye candy with better performance, these seem like a winner. 

2) The G84/G86 appear to be more targeted towards this idea.  You want raw power for any 3d app?  Grab an 8800 series for rediculous frames.  You want Direct X 10/ HDCP compliance (100% H.264, VC-1, and MPEG-2 offload. Including two dual-link DVI ports even on $150 hardware with the capability to play HDCP protected content over a dual-link connection really makes the 8600 GTS and 8600 GT the hardware of choice for those who want HD video on their PC. ).

Jesus people, of COURSE the 2900 is going to run better than the 8800, it took another year or so to come out, nVidia and Ati aren't on equal footing at the moment thanks to nVidia entering DX10 earlier. I imagine the 8900, or whatever the new Ati card is going to be, will outperform the 2900.

also, the 8800 is going to be a GREAT deal cheaper than the 2900. 

Jesus people, of COURSE the 2900 is going to run better than the 8800, it took another year or so to come out, nVidia and Ati aren't on equal footing at the moment thanks to nVidia entering DX10 earlier. I imagine the 8900, or whatever the new Ati card is going to be, will outperform the 2900.

 

also, the 8800 is going to be a GREAT deal cheaper than the 2900.

Sketchbaz

Yeah. There's always something better coming out. After x2900 cards come out, people will start saying that 8900 will pwn x2900's arse. It's always like that. 

[QUOTE="onemic"]That really isn't surprising to me anymore. I think this is just further confirming that the 8 series will become the new FXTaijiquan

lol you are silly.  You are justifying your opinion on a benchmark for a game that isn't out by a card that isn't out.  Nvidia spent more money on R&D then they had ever spent in the history of the company.  Even if these Benchmarks are accurate, AMD is 6 months behind.  6 MONTHS!  Shouldn't they be dusting the competition?  Guess we won't know until the benchmarks are official.     

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="raynimrod"][QUOTE="onemic"]

I don't think anyone can deny the similarities. The 8 series card comes out and it doesn't vastly outperform the 7 series. Taijiquan

When I say that I mean in comparison to when the 7 series came out and how much better it perfromed over the 6 series(In case you didn't know a 7600 GT outperformed, by a good margin the 6800 ultra; the 8600 GTS can even get up to the performance of a 7900 GS) and when the 6 series came out and how much better it performed over the FX series.

I would probably just stop if I was you. Nvidia's marketing decision seems to be different this time. There are also a few things you should understand.

1)THese cards are for Direct X 10. If Microsoft and just about every developer claiming Direct X 10's performance increase over Direct X 9 being 6-10 times is true, consider the cards are guaranteed more eye candy with better performance, these seem like a winner.

2) The G84/G86 appear to be more targeted towards this idea. You want raw power for any 3d app? Grab an 8800 series for rediculous frames. You want Direct X 10/ HDCP compliance (100% H.264, VC-1, and MPEG-2 offload. Including two dual-link DVI ports even on $150 hardware with the capability to play HDCP protected content over a dual-link connection really makes the 8600 GTS and 8600 GT the hardware of choice for those who want HD video on their PC. ).

sigh....Isn't that exactly what the FX cards did? weren't they for the newly released DX9? So I don't see any reason why I should stop being worried about the fairly obvious comparisons.   

Jesus people, of COURSE the 2900 is going to run better than the 8800, it took another year or so to come out, nVidia and Ati aren't on equal footing at the moment thanks to nVidia entering DX10 earlier. I imagine the 8900, or whatever the new Ati card is going to be, will outperform the 2900.

 

also, the 8800 is going to be a GREAT deal cheaper than the 2900.

Sketchbaz

Wrong and Wronger!!!

First, ATi got their unified shaders out there way before Nvidia, R580. Then the released a fully unified architecture with Xenos, about a year before Nvidia. So, no Nvidia did nothing special or revolutionary, they simply pushed a product out as fast as possible to reap the very small reward and ended up raping the consumers with their lack of drivers and support.

Then about the 8800 being a GREAT deal cheaper... the HD 2900xt is, most likely, going to be released at $400.  So the hd 2900xt is going to be a GREAT deal cheaper then the 8800GTX. 

[QUOTE="raynimrod"][QUOTE="onemic"]

I don't think anyone can deny the similarities. The 8 series card comes out and it doesn't vastly outperform the 7 series. onemic

When I say that I mean in comparison to when the 7 series came out and how much better it perfromed over the 6 series(In case you didn't know a 7600 GT outperformed, by a good margin the 6800 ultra; the 8600 GTS can even get up to the performance of a 7900 GS)  and when the 6 series came out and how much better it performed over the FX series. 

Pleast give a link to these benches. Tom's hardware interactive charts show the 6800ultra and 7600gt are almost identical in performance.

Prey 1280x1024- 7600gt is 1 fps faster

HL2 ep1 1280x1024- 7600gt is 1 fps faster

   1-The shots are a fake, so isn't much to comment here except:

   2-Good thing: If the final and real benchmarks of Crysis were similar to those ones, it would be great. 50 fps + at those resolitions will be amazing.

   3-Bad thing: a 9% increase of fps from HD 2900 XTX (R600) over the 5-6 months old 8800 GTX would be utterly dissapointing to me. I expect a 25-50% leap from R600 over the 8800 GTX, due to the 1/2 year passed and the inminet arrival of the 8900 GTX or maybe even a G90 in this year.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="raynimrod"][QUOTE="onemic"]

I don't think anyone can deny the similarities. The 8 series card comes out and it doesn't vastly outperform the 7 series. Cranler

When I say that I mean in comparison to when the 7 series came out and how much better it perfromed over the 6 series(In case you didn't know a 7600 GT outperformed, by a good margin the 6800 ultra; the 8600 GTS can even get up to the performance of a 7900 GS) and when the 6 series came out and how much better it performed over the FX series.

Pleast give a link to these benches. Tom's hardware interactive charts show the 6800ultra and 7600gt are almost identical in performance.

Prey 1280x1024- 7600gt is 1 fps faster

HL2 ep1 1280x1024- 7600gt is 1 fps faster

Well I did it in terms of 3dmark06 benchs. The 7600GT gets 1066, while the 6800 ultra gets 855 under 1024x768 4x AA and 8x AF. The point is, is that the 7600GT was at least up to par with the 6800 ultra, while the 8600 GTS isn't even up to the performance of a 7900GS 

Ough come on can't you see that those aren't real his just an Nvidia fan pls tell us from wich site do you have those statistics!!?!?!?! I personally don't have the same trust in Ati but i'm, sure goig to w8 for thr real ressults !!!beckoflight

I don't know if those tests are real or not but it looks like you know for sure that those aren't real. :roll:

It's common knowledge that Tom's Hardware benchies are extremely inaccurate, so DON'T believe what you see on there. The benchmarks are fake. Close the topic already.raynimrod

It's common knowledge that Tom's Hardware benchies are extremely inaccurate, so DON'T believe what you see on there.  raynimrod

Is there some article proving this.

I was responding to the people who were mentioning the performance of certain G6 and 7 series cards on the Tom's Hardware site. Sorry, I should have quoted.raynimrod

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]It's common knowledge that Tom's Hardware benchies are extremely inaccurate, so DON'T believe what you see on there.  Cranler

Is there some article proving this.