ATI kicking Nvidia's tail again in DX9 Test

[Kedas]

interesting read:

http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/

 

Although most of you will probably already know that buying an FX isn't really a smart idea.

 

---------------------------------

 

info about windows 64bit for AMD64 available here:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/pres03.mspx

 

Well, then we have at least more than one thread

 

LOL, the board automatically changed 'ASS' to 'TAIL' in the subject.

[JaKiri]

Given that the latest GeForce is only JUST faster than the Radeon 9800 Pro and costs about £100 more, I think that's assured

[newbie]

Kedas said in post #1 :

interesting read:

http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/

 

Although most of you will probably already know that buying an FX isn't really a smart idea.

 

---------------------------------

 

info about windows 64bit for AMD64 available here:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/pres03.mspx

 

Well, then we have at least more than one thread

 

LOL, the board automatically changed 'ASS' to 'TAIL' in the subject.

 

 

Which FX are you referring too? NVIDIA and ATI are pretty much neck and neck, there is not one better than the other. But if you truly want the most FPS (frames per second) than you would want to get the FX5900 Ultra card--sometimes by 10-20 fps. I am not sure how reliable your webpage is either, since it looks like they are using some sort of home brewed tweaking utility. Besides that if you really want a good comparison I suggest you look for benchmarks with the more advanced games--Doom III, UT 2003, and Splinter Cell.

[Kedas]

Which FX are you referring too

All of them, read the article please.

 

Close in DX8 games yes.

 

I'm talking about DX9 performance.

If you would read that article from that link I gave you wouldn't be saying that.

[newbie]

Kedas said in post #4 :

All of them, read the article please.

 

Close in DX8 games yes.

 

I'm talking about DX9 performance.

If you would read that article from that link I gave you wouldn't be saying that.

 

I am well aware of the article, are you saying Doom III and UT2003 are not DX9 compliant? Using those games are benchmarks the FX cards are usually ahead by a few FPS.

[JaKiri]

And also 1/3 more expensive.

[Kedas]

newbie said in post #5 :

 

I am well aware of the article, are you saying Doom III and UT2003 are not DX9 compliant? Using those games are benchmarks the FX cards are usually ahead by a few FPS.

 

UT2003 is DX8

Doom3, Half Life2, DeusEx 2, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness: are DX9 games.

 

Doom3 isn't out yet but Half Life2 is said (not proven yet, it's not out) to be faster on ATI cards.

[newbie]

Kedas said in post #7 :

 

UT2003 is DX8

Doom3, Half Life2, DeusEx 2, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness: are DX9 games.

 

Doom3 isn't out yet but Half Life2 is said (not proven yet, it's not out) to be faster on ATI cards.

 

I stand corrected, UT2003 is DX8.1 but I would also like to point out any reputable benchmark would show DoomIII or HL 2 which is the only standard worth showing.

 

Fair Comparisons:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/index.html

 

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=1

 

This is a good one but I read the mag, their articles aren't posted on the webpage:

www.maximumpc.com

 

And both the NIVIDIA and ATI cards (the high end that is) will set you back about $499.

[Kedas]

Because (DoomIII or HL 2) aren't out yet I think we would both be wasting our time saying which cards are better.

 

But one thing is for sure at the moment, it is 1-0 for ATI in DX9 games.

(and not by a small margin)

 

I don't know about Doom3 but from what I heard from developers it's very likely that HL2 will make it 2-0.

[Dave]

Makes me glad I didn't bother going for an FX card in that case

[newbie]

Kedas said in post #9 :

Because (DoomIII or HL 2) aren't out yet I think we would both be wasting our time saying which cards are better.

 

But one thing is for sure at the moment, it is 1-0 for ATI in DX9 games.

(and not by a small margin)

 

I don't know about Doom3 but from what I heard from developers it's very likely that HL2 will make it 2-0.

 

I never stated one being better than the other you seem to be the one making that claim. What I did show is that is untrue. They both are great graphics cards but the FX takes the lead if you consider 1-5% more FPS in a few games a lead. The real score is 50/50.

 

I should also note that Doom III and HL are the only games to judge the performance of a graphics card--with very few exceptions. They are according to the game industry the best of the best. Even though as you have repeated 'they are not out yet'--any reputable benchmark like the ones I posted would use them. The game that is posted in the link you provided is one of the most unsuccessful game franchises in the genre. The page also doesn't elaborate on the actual settings that are tweakable in the console.

[Kedas]

Like I said: pointless to discuss it now.

[Kedas]

interesting developments about DX9 games:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11406

 

and an other article that tells the same as that beyond3D article:

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/001.htm

 

If Doom3 can't at least give the same performance on a FX card as on a DX9 ATI card then Nvidia is doomed.

[newbie]

Kedas said in post #13 :

interesting developments about DX9 games:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11406

 

and an other article that tells the same as that beyond3D article:

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/001.htm

 

If Doom3 can't at least give the same performance on a FX card as on a DX9 ATI card then Nvidia is doomed.

 

What developments?

Nothing has changed since we stopped this debate! Please take your own advice (post 12) and wait till the games are released before you make any more incriminating statements.

 

You are saying the same thing as your first post, I have already replied to this. One thing I will add--it's interesting that you post a link about beyond3d that try’s to defend the position that they are not 'ATI-Fan-Boys'. Hmmm kind of makes me laugh.

 

 

[edit]

I got an email saying you replied to me, this is why I posted again. If this was not meant for me then please disregard.

[edit]

[Kedas]

The message was certainly not only meant for you

I would have sent a PM if that was the case

 

"What developments?"

Just what is mentioned on that link notting more notting less.

This message wasn't meant to start/continu a debate only to add info in this thread for people that are reading it.

 

you got an email because someone added a message in this thread that is it notting more notting less.

(in this case it was me)

[Kedas]

A few more DX9 (HL2) preliminary tests:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1261768,00.asp

and

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/HL2_benchmarks/002.htm

 

"Valve will have Half-Life 2 treat NV3x hardware as DX8.1 hardware for the default settings."

 

Poor Nvidia

 

Glad that my Ti4600 is still performing very well (wish I had an DX9 ATI card though)

 

 

[JaKiri]

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x?pg=1

 

Another report of the above, with a picture of Gabe

[Kedas]

This isn't really an DX9 test but a DX7+DX8+DX9 Test.

So it's an overall hardware performance test:

Here are neither ATI or Nvidia a clear winner.

http://www.guru3d.com/article.php?cat=article&id=76&pagenumber=1

 

To be honest they are soo close that you may think that something is wrong.

The differences are below 5%

The problem is you don't really know when DX9 or DX8 is used.