Nvidia is greater than ATI

Topic = Duh, also Consoles > PC since the PC video card costs more than console but doesn't perform as well, lolz.wok7

Topic = Duh, also Consoles > PC since the PC video card costs more than console but doesn't perform as well, lolz.wok7

Are you the same guy that asked if PC can play games in HD?

EDIT: YES YES YOU ARE OMG YOU FREAKING NOOB!! 

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]These numbers are highly questionable. The r600's technical specs point to a performance at least alot better then the x1950xtx so there has got to be something wierd going on. I guraentee you they will be alot better when real reviews come out in two-three weeks.noIinteam

Someone posted this at Dailytech:

"The R600 has 64x5 Vec5D units which maces each unit handle a maximum of 320 stream ops per second, but makes it's worst case scenario a lot worse with 64 stream ops per second (for the lack of a better term). You can think of that in the same manner as you see that SIMD units in our current processors can deliver huge amounts of processing power if, and only if, used correctly and optimized accordingly, otherwise we see no gains.



In my opinion AMD/ATI made a design compromise, they used this approach as it could prove to be way better in the dx10 world, and in a much more interesting way, in the GPGPU world.



Think about it, if you open up your architecture with CTM and give the people the power of 64x5 vec5d units you end up with an amazing amount of processing power. That's where I think they are focusing.



Nvidia has a much more favorable place in the gaming world. If you have 128 scalar units, in a worst case scenario you'd still issue 128 stream ops (all else constant, and given you have the bandwidth). But your best case scenario isn't that good.



I believe they delayed it because they were expecting dx10 games (of course, this is just speculation on my part). And I hope, for their sake, that it performs a lot better in that world.



Still, if I am somewhat right, drivers could provide better optimization for shader programs that aren't made with a simd architecture in mind, but then again, I could be entirely wrong.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2039097&frmKeyword=&STARTPAGE=8&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

SO does it means that ATI wants a game devoloper has to do some special optimization for R600, which would only be useful for this series but will have no use for all the other cards as of now

the 8800 still has higher Framerate despite it has less memory, wow:oAGP

What... euhhh framerates have nothing to do with memory. 

[QUOTE="AGP"]the 8800 still has higher Framerate despite it has less memory, wow:oBebi_vegeta

What... euhhh framerates have nothing to do with memory.

http://www.dailytech.com/ATI+Radeon+HD+2900+XT+Performance+Benchmarks/article7043.htm

This one showed it in the lead and it wasn't the XTX which is the higher performance card.

[QUOTE="wok7"]Topic = Duh, also Consoles > PC since the PC video card costs more than console but doesn't perform as well, lolz.baddog121390

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="AGP"]the 8800 still has higher Framerate despite it has less memory, wow:oOemenia

What... euhhh framerates have nothing to do with memory.

Not that much... As in why is a 8800GTS 320mb faster then most 512mb cards

[QUOTE="baddog121390"][QUOTE="wok7"]Topic = Duh, also Consoles > PC since the PC video card costs more than console but doesn't perform as well, lolz.Oemenia

If ATIs card fails I'm getting the GTX version of the 8800. 

[QUOTE="Oemenia"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="AGP"]the 8800 still has higher Framerate despite it has less memory, wow:oBebi_vegeta

What... euhhh framerates have nothing to do with memory.

Not that much... As in why is a 8800GTS 320mb faster then all 512mb cards

the test mean nothing since they are both rediculas frame rates, wait for some dx10 benchmarks before saying which is better.  nvidia wins the last few gens for having much better price/performance but with amd now behind ati that could change as amd is the king of price/performance

the test mean nothing since they are both rediculas frame rates, wait for some dx10 benchmarks before saying which is better. nvidia wins the last few gens for having much better price/performance but with amd now behind ati that could change as amd is the king of price/performance

imprezawrx500

Ati did well without AMD and won last gen... so your point failed. 

Those benchmarks are trash, ill wait for a reliable site.Hammerofjustice

That is a reliable site.  ROFL.  You're just waiting for a site to produce results that you want to see. 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7052

 

Their new card is already flopping. :lol: It's the Radeon 8500 all over again.

 

*if this is old, whatever*

 

 

TekkenMaster606

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7052

 

Their new card is already flopping. :lol: It's the Radeon 8500 all over again.

 

*if this is old, whatever*

 

 

l-_-l

Maybe you should wait for the XT price, it's a little better then the GTS. 

Is it just me or are those benches trash:

1. the xtx has a faster core

2. the xtx has faster memory

3. the xtx has 2x the memory of the 2900 xt

but somehow the 2900 xt is only 1fps or less slower in those benchmarks ??

To me those benchmarks are not legit and anybody should see that as well. Also the xtx is being compared to a oc'd 8800 gtx that further damages the credibility of these benchmarks imo.

Is it just me or are those benches trash:

1. the xtx has a faster core

2. the xtx has faster memory

3. the xtx has 2x the memory of the 2900 xt

but somehow the 2900 xt is only 1fps or less slower in those benchmarks ??

 

To me those benchmarks are not legit and anybody should see that as well. Also the xtx is being compared to a oc'd 8800 gtx that further damages the credibility of these benchmarks imo.

 

ChiChiMonKilla

Is it just me or are those benches trash:

1. the xtx has a faster core

2. the xtx has faster memory

3. the xtx has 2x the memory of the 2900 xt

but somehow the 2900 xt is only 1fps or less slower in those benchmarks ??

 

To me those benchmarks are not legit and anybody should see that as well. Also the xtx is being compared to a oc'd 8800 gtx that further damages the credibility of these benchmarks imo.

 

ChiChiMonKilla

You'll have to wait at Q3 2007 to see any life of the xtx. 

[QUOTE="Marka1700"]ATI usually makes the better card, poeple just dont want to deal wither thier terrible drivers.tramp

At this point in time the 8800s still dont even have any official drivers 6 months after release.

Is it just me or are those benches trash:

1. the xtx has a faster core

2. the xtx has faster memory

3. the xtx has 2x the memory of the 2900 xt

but somehow the 2900 xt is only 1fps or less slower in those benchmarks ??

 

To me those benchmarks are not legit and anybody should see that as well. Also the xtx is being compared to a oc'd 8800 gtx that further damages the credibility of these benchmarks imo.

 

ChiChiMonKilla

1. Efficiency matters. The Pentium 4s operated at far greater frequencies than AMD's Athlon 64s but the Athlons were the faster processor.

2. Environment matters. It seems that there was no memory ceiling. Not all the bandwidth that the R600 and the G80 had were fully being used.

3. Again, environment matters. If the game doesn't utilize 1GB of frame buffer (and as far as I know, no game does right now), then there will be no performance increase. 

Although that 8800GTX is overclocked, it would still be faster than both R600 cards at reference speeds. 

[QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]

Is it just me or are those benches trash:

1. the xtx has a faster core

2. the xtx has faster memory

3. the xtx has 2x the memory of the 2900 xt

but somehow the 2900 xt is only 1fps or less slower in those benchmarks ??

 

To me those benchmarks are not legit and anybody should see that as well. Also the xtx is being compared to a oc'd 8800 gtx that further damages the credibility of these benchmarks imo.

 

Einhanderkiller

1. Efficiency matters. The Pentium 4s operated at far greater frequencies than AMD's Athlon 64s but the Athlons were the faster processor.

2. Environment matters. It seems that there was no memory ceiling. Not all the bandwidth that the R600 and the G80 had were fully being used.

3. Again, environment matters. If the game doesn't utilize 1GB of frame buffer (and as far as I know, no game does right now), then there will be no performance increase.

Although that 8800GTX is overclocked, it would still be faster than both R600 cards at reference speeds.

Even if the games didn't utilize the 1 gb memory the xtx should still be faster than 1fps or less than the xt due to the faster core/memory clocks, so those benches make no sense at all. Clearly those benches have a problem and should not have been posted.

[QUOTE="Einhanderkiller"][QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]

Is it just me or are those benches trash:

1. the xtx has a faster core

2. the xtx has faster memory

3. the xtx has 2x the memory of the 2900 xt

but somehow the 2900 xt is only 1fps or less slower in those benchmarks ??

 

To me those benchmarks are not legit and anybody should see that as well. Also the xtx is being compared to a oc'd 8800 gtx that further damages the credibility of these benchmarks imo.

 

ChiChiMonKilla

1. Efficiency matters. The Pentium 4s operated at far greater frequencies than AMD's Athlon 64s but the Athlons were the faster processor.

2. Environment matters. It seems that there was no memory ceiling. Not all the bandwidth that the R600 and the G80 had were fully being used.

3. Again, environment matters. If the game doesn't utilize 1GB of frame buffer (and as far as I know, no game does right now), then there will be no performance increase.

Although that 8800GTX is overclocked, it would still be faster than both R600 cards at reference speeds.

Even if the games didn't utilize the 1 gb memory the xtx should still be faster than 1fps or less than the xt due to the faster core/memory clocks, so those benches make no sense at all. Clearly those benches have a problem and should not have been posted.

The XTX has a probleme!!!

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=703&Itemid=1

ATI has officially confirmed

ATI said in front of 150+ journalists that the R600XT won't be able to compete with the Geforce 8800 GTX. The dream is dead and Radeon HD 2900 XT won't be able to catch up with the six month old Geforce 8800 GTX.

ATI said that R600XT, Radeon HD 2900XT has about the same performance as the 8800 GTS. Radeon HD 2900 XTX won't be launched in mid may and will be delayed to Q3 2007. We already wrote about this here.

The dream that AMD can do something and return as the high end market leader is gone. R600 trails against G80. Congratulations Nvidia.

[QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"][QUOTE="Einhanderkiller"][QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]

Is it just me or are those benches trash:

1. the xtx has a faster core

2. the xtx has faster memory

3. the xtx has 2x the memory of the 2900 xt

but somehow the 2900 xt is only 1fps or less slower in those benchmarks ??

 

To me those benchmarks are not legit and anybody should see that as well. Also the xtx is being compared to a oc'd 8800 gtx that further damages the credibility of these benchmarks imo.

 

Bebi_vegeta

1. Efficiency matters. The Pentium 4s operated at far greater frequencies than AMD's Athlon 64s but the Athlons were the faster processor.

2. Environment matters. It seems that there was no memory ceiling. Not all the bandwidth that the R600 and the G80 had were fully being used.

3. Again, environment matters. If the game doesn't utilize 1GB of frame buffer (and as far as I know, no game does right now), then there will be no performance increase.

Although that 8800GTX is overclocked, it would still be faster than both R600 cards at reference speeds.

Even if the games didn't utilize the 1 gb memory the xtx should still be faster than 1fps or less than the xt due to the faster core/memory clocks, so those benches make no sense at all. Clearly those benches have a problem and should not have been posted.

The XTX has a probleme!!!

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=703&Itemid=1

ATI has officially confirmed

ATI said in front of 150+ journalists that the R600XT won't be able to compete with the Geforce 8800 GTX. The dream is dead and Radeon HD 2900 XT won't be able to catch up with the six month old Geforce 8800 GTX.

ATI said that R600XT, Radeon HD 2900XT has about the same performance as the 8800 GTS. Radeon HD 2900 XTX won't be launched in mid may and will be delayed to Q3 2007. We already wrote about this here.

The dream that AMD can do something and return as the high end market leader is gone. R600 trails against G80. Congratulations Nvidia.

Now that makes sense if there was a problem with the memory used in the xtx.  

[QUOTE="Einhanderkiller"][QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]

Is it just me or are those benches trash:

1. the xtx has a faster core

2. the xtx has faster memory

3. the xtx has 2x the memory of the 2900 xt

but somehow the 2900 xt is only 1fps or less slower in those benchmarks ??

 

To me those benchmarks are not legit and anybody should see that as well. Also the xtx is being compared to a oc'd 8800 gtx that further damages the credibility of these benchmarks imo.

 

ChiChiMonKilla

1. Efficiency matters. The Pentium 4s operated at far greater frequencies than AMD's Athlon 64s but the Athlons were the faster processor.

2. Environment matters. It seems that there was no memory ceiling. Not all the bandwidth that the R600 and the G80 had were fully being used.

3. Again, environment matters. If the game doesn't utilize 1GB of frame buffer (and as far as I know, no game does right now), then there will be no performance increase.

Although that 8800GTX is overclocked, it would still be faster than both R600 cards at reference speeds.

Even if the games didn't utilize the 1 gb memory the xtx should still be faster than 1fps or less than the xt due to the faster core/memory clocks, so those benches make no sense at all. Clearly those benches have a problem and should not have been posted.

Comparing the clock speeds of an R600 to a G80 is like comparing a Pentium 4 to an Athlon 64. 

Also, as I've already said, the games tested may have not used all of the memory bandwidth available. 

The site i read showed t hat the ati cards were faster,but only by a few frames,but in all honestly once you go over 60FPS you really don't need any more.

I've always gone with Ati...hopefully there middle range card will be able to compete at least on par with the 8600,the main reason i like ATI is because off their simple driver numbers unlike Nvidia's lol.

Yh i know that sounds stupid but that's just the way i think about it :P 

I don't trust those benchmarks. It looks very fishy... I'll wait 'till there's a review on HardOCP and benchmarks on Tom's Hardware, kthx.