Forget Benchmarks

[silky62678]

visually, how does the ati 9600 pro vs 9700 or 9800. Are there much differneces to the naked eye? Also is there a AIW version of 9600 ?

 

[LeeJend]

How good is your eyesight, lol. At my age I haven't been able to tell any difference in appearance since the GE3-TI series. My friends have all said the same thing.

You want to pick based on performance with DX9, antialiasing and anisotropic filtering set high at a refresh rate of 75 Hz or faster and resolution of at least 1024x768. That will give you the best appearance for next years games.

The minor improvements in pixel shaders from the 9500/9700 to the 9600/9800 won't make much difference.

DX9 compatibilty and frame rate will tell the story. Unfortunately we won't know that for another 6 months... Unless you beleive the HL2 test result rumors (poor Nvidia).

 

[StormFront]

Thank you LeeJend
A voice of reason finally!

I can understand everyones reaction to these so-called benchmarks, but you have to read deep into them to get teh complete picture.

I consider myself a very experienced PC engineer and user and I am still confident that my choice of going for the FX5900 ULTRA was the right one. I looked long and hard at the Radeon, I really did and there is no doubting it is a top notch card.

However, once all the dust has settled from certain companies deliberatley using the incorrect driver to benchmark a game when they KNOW it is not going to work , we will start to see some real comparisons.

As I have said in a thread somewhere else, as long as guys like Jon Carmack are more impressed with the FX that the ATI, I am sticking by them....

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by StormFront
Thank you LeeJend
A voice of reason finally!

I can understand everyones reaction to these so-called benchmarks, but you have to read deep into them to get teh complete picture.

I consider myself a very experienced PC engineer and user and I am still confident that my choice of going for the FX5900 ULTRA was the right one. I looked long and hard at the Radeon, I really did and there is no doubting it is a top notch card.

However, once all the dust has settled from certain companies deliberatley using the incorrect driver to benchmark a game when they KNOW it is not going to work , we will start to see some real comparisons.

As I have said in a thread somewhere else, as long as guys like Jon Carmack are more impressed with the FX that the ATI, I am sticking by them....

no offense... but like in your other posts on this topic... I am afraid the truth has been very apparent for a very long time... dx 9 benchmark comes out... gf FX sucks... nvidia hacks... nvifia performance improves in benchmarks (real world gaming a different story) and this will continue..

at least with a true dx9 benchmark like hl2 (m$ has endorsed it as THE dx9 benchmark) you are likely to get a TRUE picture...

fyi... nvidia proposed to use the very same driver set that they now are claiming is incorrect..

as long as nvidia continues it nazi ways to coverup its inadequacies with dx9... they will continue to alienate users... naturally as I have maintained... for a VERY long time... the gf FX is a good dx8 card...

also... carmack has never endorsed nvidia's product as a better card... he said it has more registers and can handle more instructions... which it can.. he has not said anything about the gf FX being a better product.. he has mentioned in his .plans that he is not happy with having to code so much to get the nv3x cards to work as fast or faster than the r3xx cards which are working on the STANDARD arb2 path... the nv3x path is proprietary and uses lesser precision to get the same or faster frame rates in the openGL game... arb2 to arb2 path comparison will show the TRUE power of the cards.. since this is the standard openGL path and here carmack has gone on record to say that r3xx cards are 2x faster than their nvidia counterparts... in dx9 situations with no partial precision and all ps2.0 shaders and the like... r3xx cards are 5x-10x faster than nvidias nv3x products...

i am glad that you enjoy your card... but I am personally never going to recommend a current gen nv3x card to anyone... it is fraud and it is bogus coz you will never get the expected iq/performance... the hacks give better performance @ a cost of IQ...

now back to the original poster... there is no visual difference in IQ between teh r3xx cores... and yes there is an AIW 9600pro coming out soon... it will be the first AIW to support dual monitor... point of note... it is dual ANALOG... not digital (ie.. 2 vga's... no dvi's)

there is also a 9600pro in the works with wireless VIVO that should also be out soon...