German Site fakes Results?

[Terrahertz]

Guys this is very interesting. It pertains to the front page post about the Gainward GeForce FX.
Go here http://www.3dchipset.com/index.php#978
and here http://www.guru3d.com/comments.php?id=1053&category=1

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Terrahertz
Guys this is very interesting. It pertains to the front page post about the Gainward GeForce FX.
Go here http://www.3dchipset.com/index.php#978
and here http://www.guru3d.com/comments.php?id=1053&category=1

those results do seem highly inflated..

and some of the radeon's numbers seem to be highly subdued... seems highly unlikely... unless nvidia somehow have tweaked their card to run with 256bit memory and possibly 256mb ddrII...

alternatively it is a known fact that for higher frame rates nvidia is in a habit of tweaking their drivers to sacrifice image quality for the better fps...

if you want complete detailed specs of the nvidia gf FX and have any idea how pixels are processed/generated on your monitor's... please have a look around the web and then decide for yourself if it is possible for nvidia's gf FX to produce those numbers...

per design specs and comments from people who work with hardware and nvidia's released specs on their compression techniques... the 9700pro tweaked by a few mhz (around 25-50... depending on whom you believe) will outpace the gf FX due to superior bandwidth and 256bit memory v/s 128bit memory in the case of the FX...

already there are 9700pro boards out there that can be clocked to 400/400 (therefore 800mhz ddrII) and it would seem a little presumptious to state that the gf FX can reach a score of 25k default on 3dmark2001... (a highly synthetic benchmark btw...)

are the results a fake... ?

for right now I will take it with a very very large pinch of salt...

[edit] by the way... on further reading... the german website itself claimed that the results posted were fake [/edit]

 

[Terrahertz]

Re: Re: German Site fakes Results?

alternatively it is a known fact that for higher frame rates nvidia is in a habit of tweaking their drivers to sacrifice image quality for the better fps...

I remember the days when it was Nvidia that cared more about image and 3dfx was about framerates. Boy how times have changed.
If you look at the GFX and the 9700 you see who is the clear winner in memory bandwidth. Now from what I read on Maximum PC's website the 9700 won 3DMark 2001:SE Game 4 test. 10% faster than FX. They also stress that this is all beta and optimized drivers may prove much better results. All in all Nvidia missed out on a whole lot when they started making console boards.X-Box anyone? Now there paying for it dearly.

 

[Sazar]

Re: Re: Re: German Site fakes Results?

Originally posted by Terrahertz
I remember the days when it was Nvidia that cared more about image and 3dfx was about framerates. Boy how times have changed.
If you look at the GFX and the 9700 you see who is the clear winner in memory bandwidth. Now from what I read on Maximum PC's website the 9700 won 3DMark 2001:SE Game 4 test. 10% faster than FX. They also stress that this is all beta and optimized drivers may prove much better results. All in all Nvidia missed out on a whole lot when they started making console boards.X-Box anyone? Now there paying for it dearly.

well I dunno bout those marks either...

I am still waiting for a website to post a COMPLETE review about what products are coming out...

ati too has a 0.13 micron product coming out soon and they have the r350 ready to ship depending on how well the gf FX does... which means ati is not really all that worried @ the moment...

nvidia missed 1 product cycle of 6 months and basically their r&d has been sunk into making the gf FX better than it was initially going to be to compete with the r300 and beat it...

now the gf FX does have nice features but I don;t know if nvidia's insistence on using Cg instead of Hlsl for programming their pixel shader instructions is going to work...

all will be revealed in a couple of weeks I think...

 

[Terrahertz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: German Site fakes Results?

ati too has a 0.13 micron product coming out soon and they have the r350 ready to ship depending on how well the gf FX does... which means ati is not really all that worried @ the moment...

Exactly . It looks like ATI will have the upper hand for a while unless Nvidia can bring something to the market that will force the competition back to the drawing board and right now things do not look so good for Nvidia. But, like you said it is wise and wait for an 'accurate' review of the card.

 

[Goatman]

you also have to realize that the benchmarks that have been done on the GFX were only benchs that nVidia approved, which means their beta drivers were most likely optimized for those benchmarks.

also you have to look at how close the two cards are in performance, what is the avg. person going to do

I can either spend $499 USD on a Geforce, or spend $300-$400 USD on a 9700 PRO that yields only 5% worse FPS.

not to mention all the people who have already upgraded to a 9700 Pro, you really think their gonna shell out $500 for a card that is only marginally better, that most likey won't overclock very well.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Goatman
you also have to realize that the benchmarks that have been done on the GFX were only benchs that nVidia approved, which means their beta drivers were most likely optimized for those benchmarks.

also you have to look at how close the two cards are in performance, what is the avg. person going to do

I can either spend $499 USD on a Geforce, or spend $300-$400 USD on a 9700 PRO that yields only 5% worse FPS.

not to mention all the people who have already upgraded to a 9700 Pro, you really think their gonna shell out $500 for a card that is only marginally better, that most likey won't overclock very well.

honestly speaking... raw performance for high res I think the gf FX is (or at least should be) better than the radeon 9700pro by a nice margin of 15-25%...

it is @ higher res with AA and FSAA that the gf FX might falter...

again till raw benches are brought out we will not know...

also I doubt that the gf FX qualifies as the same gen as the r300 anymore it is a complete product cycle behind... therefore perhaps ti would be more prudent to compare the r350 with the gf FX...

 

[Goatman]

That's going kinda far though, comparing two products that aren't even released yet.... it is more comparing the products that will be out at the time, I seriously doubt ATi will let the GFX go unchallenged if it really is the barn burner everyone hopes. R350 will be out quickly if that is the case.

 

[Teddy]

translated from the website:

"As one can see is the GeForce FX to more as 100 faster than the Radeon 9700Pro which is really amazing."

I mean...come on!!

http://translate.google.com/transla...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools

 

[Sazar]

I am not saying that the GF FX is not capable of good performance..

however the performance figures listed are implausible simply because of the fact that the benches are soooo cpu limited...

they would need to have close to a 5ghz pentium or whatever to be running those numbers....

having cpu limited tests pushing those figures is ridiculous

 

[Goatman]

I'm not debating that the benchs are real, I could tell they were fake just by looking at them! if you're gonna lie about something, at least make it believable.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Goatman
I'm not debating that the benchs are real, I could tell they were fake just by looking at them! if you're gonna lie about something, at least make it believable.

any body who knows a lick about how gpu's work will concur with you whole heartedly

/me decidest to release benches of the new S3 chip coming out reaching... oh lets say 30k 3d2k1 marks...

 

[Goatman]

Originally posted by Sazar

/me decidest to release benches of the new S3 chip coming out reaching... oh lets say 30k 3d2k1 marks...

Why would you be so conservative about it??