TechTV-Screensaver GeforceFX Ultr v ATI 9700Pro comparison

[THe_KELRaTH]

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/products/jump/0,24331,3416426,00.html

"The Screen Savers: For Technology's Biggest Fans"

TEST SPECS:
Intel D850EMV2 motherboard
Intel P4 3.06-GHz CPU
512MB of 1066 Rambus memory
80GB Western Digital WD800BB hard drive
Windows XP Pro with Service Pack 1 and all the latest updates
DirectX 9.0

3Dmark
Radeon 9700 Pro - 11817.5
GeForce FX 5800 Ultra - 13883.5

At 1st I could'nt believe it till I read though the default settings:
"All tests are run with V-synch turned off and 8x anisotropic filtering"
and we all know what mode was being use eh!

apt name... By Lawson Wong
He sure is :lol:

[Doomtrooper]

I finally saw Kyle..after all these years battling on the forums :lol: , I thought he did a admirable job..little sugar coated but I expected that.
They weighed the cards on a scale..1/2 pound for 9700 and 1.5 pounds for the FX...they did zero in on low AA settings..and not actually run it but it was good to see the card on my big screen TV, got some real good close up shots.

Not a bad interview, Patrick couldn't get co-founder out of his head though.

[cellarboy]

Yeah, it was a bit sugar coated, I'd have to agree. Didn't seem like they wanted to annoy anyone.

Wasn't quite convinced by Kyle saying something along the lines of, "Once it's in your machine you won't be able to hear it." I sure could tell the difference between Delta 60mm 7200rpm cooling my CPU and the 80mm Thermaltake smartfan I have now -- the GFFX sounds a lot like the Delta to me!! :D

[Hellbinder]

Strange, I dont find pandering junk like this funny at all.

GFFX is no more Faster than the 9700pro when IQ's are matched Than I could fly to the damn moon. The GFFX loses to the 9700pro by an average of 30FPS and even then no horazontal lines or variations of them are getting AA'd. You are doing nothing but selling people a 3 dollar bill when comparing The 9700pro's performance to the GFFX at 4x. Even 6xs to 4x Is pushing it.

People get upset for me bringing things like this up. I want to know why more people think stuff like this is *cute* and *funny* instead of the *Questionable* comparrison it is (and i am being VERY restrained).

It is simply neither RIGHT nor FAIR to let Nvidia be declared the Performance leader when they are NOT offering the same product on the screen. Hell.. Lets all overclock our Xabres with a deep-freez and let them be king. Its the same thing.

[Doomtrooper]

I didn't think it was funny, no winner was given in the review..he called it even.

A video capture of the review here:

http://stl.caltech.edu/kyletss.zip

It wasn't as bad as it could have been, I agree claiming the FX the winner is incorrect..and it wasn't.

*edit:notice 'please don't curse in the background folks comment' :lol:

[indio]

I've read plenty of video card reviews over the last 5 years. And I have never seen the use of so many seemingly non-standard settings in benchmarking as of late. I can't recall ever seeing triple buffering enabled in 3d mark during a review or 8x af for that matter. http://www.techtv.com/freshgear/products/jump/0,23009,3405793,00.html They didn't use it in this review at TechTv that was done in November.
Why change it all of a sudden? Adding variables to testing procedures over time kind of defeats the purpose of benchmarking doesn't it?
Ask yourself why are many review sites adding variables that specifcally favor GFFX? Pseudo-scientific methods should be ignored.

correction: they used 8x af and triple buffering when available

[cellarboy]

I have to *cough* agree with Hellbinder re: the relative IQ of the two cards. Kyle made no mention of the significantly higher IQ of the 9700pro when discussing the scores of the two cards. I found this quite dissapointing.

ATI fans should take something away from the piece though in that Kyle recommended purchasing a 9500pro if you wanted a card 'right now'

[Doomtrooper]

I have to *cough* agree with Hellbinder re: the relative IQ of the two cards

I agree, some screen shots showing AA and AF in and higher than 2X would have made it better, but like I said 'sugar coated'...or politcally correct.

[indio]

After watching the video I think overall he did a pretty good job. He didn't mention the image quality but for legal reasons I think. He really couldn't slam Nvidia unless he was 100% confident he could win a libel suit. Do you realise what we happen if he said "Nvidia fudged the drivers and used misleading image quality settings in there control panel to gain favorable benchmarks" :shock: He'd have lawyers crawling up his a$$.

[Dave H]

He really couldn't slam Nvidia unless he was 100% confident he could win a libel suit. Do you realise what we happen if he said "Nvidia fudged the drivers and used misleading image quality settings in there control panel to gain favorable benchmarks" He'd have lawyers crawling up his a$$.

What? Why?? Just because he's on TV???

There's no difference re: libel if your statements are made on your website or on your TV show. And criticizing a product, even for subjective reasons, is certainly not libel...in fact it's the entire point of a product review!

[indio]

He really couldn't slam Nvidia unless he was 100% confident he could win a libel suit. Do you realise what we happen if he said "Nvidia fudged the drivers and used misleading image quality settings in there control panel to gain favorable benchmarks" He'd have lawyers crawling up his a$$.

What? Why?? Just because he's on TV???

There's no difference re: libel if your statements are made on your website or on your TV show. And criticizing a product, even for subjective reasons, is certainly not libel...in fact it's the entire point of a product review!


You can't just say whatever you want because your the media. Libel and slander apply to any individual or organization. I don't think he has enough proof to make acqussations or draw conclusions. He could have mentioned some thing like "There is currently some discrepencies in the the comparing of Image quality settings between the cards and it is being looked into . Stay Tuned."
Image quality comparison is is highly subjective in most instances and you need considerable proof to assert the in a particular instance i.e. this one.. that it is not.
Unfortunately he 2-stepped the whole thing.

[Nagorak]

After watching the video I think overall he did a pretty good job. He didn't mention the image quality but for legal reasons I think. He really couldn't slam Nvidia unless he was 100% confident he could win a libel suit. Do you realise what we happen if he said "Nvidia fudged the drivers and used misleading image quality settings in there control panel to gain favorable benchmarks" :shock: He'd have lawyers crawling up his a$$.

Libel doesn't apply to public persons or companies.

If you went on TV and started talking about how I suck and am the stupidest person in the world, etc, etc, then I could sue you for libel. If you did the same about George W. Bush, he's just SOL, because he's a public person and has plenty of exposure to reply if he wants. The same applies to companies like Nvidia, I'm pretty sure. Also, unless it's a complete fabrication I don't think libel even applies.

[mr]

This was the first time for me to watch TechTV (thanks for the link Doomtrooper), and I must say that was not too bad.
I don't know if this was a comparetivly lenghty or short report as I've no base of comparison, but if this was all the time budget Kyle could get, a comprehensive (for the average joe) Image quality comparison would IMO simply not fit in.

Many important things were said (late, loud, hot, expensive, not available as of now, no clear performance advantage, 9500Pro best bang/buck ratio) so even if the benchmark settings seem questionable to some people, the overall impression of the FX is IMO not very favorable at all.

Of course there's always room for improvement but this was IMO worth to watch.

[Dave H]

First of all, the legal standard for libel is very high in the US, particularly for opinion journalism. Almost anything said in the context of a product review is legal, short of e.g. "Jen-Hsun Huang molests little boys". Or deliberately falsifying, e.g. making a recording of a Harrier jet landing and passing it off as the FXFlow. In particular, you do not have to prove your statements true to defend yourself from charges of libel; so long as they were not made with "reckless disregard" for truth (i.e. you did not have a reason to believe them untrue) and were not made with "actual malice" against the plaintiff, you are not guilty. Perhaps you are confusing America with a country that lacks strong free speech protections (e.g. Britain, in the case of libel law).

Second of all, your first post implies Kyle would have had a difficult time discussing the IQ issues without potentially exposing himself to a lawsuit. But you agree with me that there is no legal difference between statements Kyle might make on his website and statements he might make on TV. And I have a hard time believing you think there's no good way for a web review to discuss the IQ issues without potentially exposing themselves to a lawsuit. So I'm kind of at a loss as to what your point could have been in the first place... :?

Edit: Nagorak, actually you have it wrong. If I said something bad (and false) about you, you could sue me for slander or defamation of character, which carry lesser burdens of proof. Libel law specifically applies to famous people/companies, but the burden of proof is therefore much higher.

[Hellbinder]

-The benchmarks shown were 2x FSAA and 8x AF.. giving the GFFX a sizable 3dmark advatage that they showed for quite a while.

- he states that,, *the gffx is the fastest card accross the board you can buy* (basically slight paraphrase)

-They flash for like one sec to the UT benchmark and if you are 1" from your screen you can see that the 9700pro wins by 3fps. Otherwise its hard to tell.

Overall, They both seem to recoment not getting the Nv30, and both seem a little put off and disssatisfied with it. Here is what the kicker is. Back when they did the 9700pro bit, it was the fastest.. BUT Nvidia was about to come out with somethign much faster. Now 1/2 a freaking year later they conclude that *neither one should be bought* and basically the indication is to wait for the next round *especially* the Nv35. Wonderful. Just wonderful. Im so glad that we are all so *ok* with that. great.. What about the Fact that the radeon9700pro is only 270$???

And one more thing. If i hear one more time that *if it had arrived 4-6 months ago it would have been a bigger deal* Im going to snap in half. Can you say No Ram over 400mhz??? can you say clock speed of 400mhz tops? Can you say, even bigger boot whipping in FSAA+AF tests??? And when the IQ's are matched its a complete slaughter?

Yeah, im officially done now. Ill clam up about this and go about my business. The only thing that just grates on me about this is that these guys and nearly every other publication(magazine), and several major hardware sites did nothing bust post how much better the Nv30 was going to be, and how you should Hold off.. till the Nv30 gets here. And all the claims that were made, and things that were said about it arriving all the time... and Here we are in FEB, its Still not here. And now we have TV shows, and publicatios STILL recomending not to get a Radeon 9700pro because NOW we have to wait for Nvidias NEXT card..

Please tell me.. Doesn't this bother ANYONE else???

[Mulciber]

Actually, he specifically said that the R350 would be out first, and the nv35 would be out much later. Is there a problem with this reasoning Hellbinder?

He also said that 3dmark doesn't represent real world performance. This is why he went over to UnrealII to show that they were running "neck and neck". He obviously didn't have time on that segment to run a detailed IQ comparision, much good it would have done on a TV screen.

You're purposefully twisting the facts around, to fuel your infantile rant...much as always.

[indio]

First of all, the legal standard for libel is very high in the US, particularly for opinion journalism. Almost anything said in the context of a product review is legal, short of e.g. "Jen-Hsun Huang molests little boys". Or deliberately falsifying, e.g. making a recording of a Harrier jet landing and passing it off as the FXFlow. In particular, you do not have to prove your statements true to defend yourself from charges of libel; so long as they were not made with "reckless disregard" for truth (i.e. you did not have a reason to believe them untrue) and were not made with "actual malice" against the plaintiff, you are not guilty. Perhaps you are confusing America with a country that lacks strong free speech protections (e.g. Britain, in the case of libel law).

Second of all, your first post implies Kyle would have had a difficult time discussing the IQ issues without potentially exposing himself to a lawsuit. But you agree with me that there is no legal difference between statements Kyle might make on his website and statements he might make on TV. And I have a hard time believing you think there's no good way for a web review to discuss the IQ issues without potentially exposing themselves to a lawsuit. So I'm kind of at a loss as to what your point could have been in the first place... :?

Edit: Nagorak, actually you have it wrong. If I said something bad (and false) about you, you could sue me for slander or defamation of character, which carry lesser burdens of proof. Libel law specifically applies to famous people/companies, but the burden of proof is therefore much higher.

Let's talk about how the "real" business world works. Winning the lawsuit isn't always the reason people sue . A small enterprise like HardOCP don't have the resources to defend a prolonged lawsuit , loose all advertising revenue for every Nvidia product and never get a review sample again , thereby rendering HardOCP ineffectual at conducting timely video card reviews.
"Exposure" to risk is very real and HardOCP definately carries insurance and would not like a rise in premuims I'm sure.
As far as not sueing media for unfavorable coverage go watch The Insider. That's the premise of the whole movie.

[Reverend]

Please tell me.. Doesn't this bother ANYONE else???
It probably does but the extent to which also probably differ from yours.

Calm down Hellbinder before you bust a vein. Even though PR can be an influence in buying decisions, I believe facts and numbers are the determining factors still. Especially when you're to make a decision between a $400 card and sub-$300 card... you read carefully as well as listen.

[indio]

Actually, he specifically said that the R350 would be out first, and the nv35 would be out much later. Is there a problem with this reasoning Hellbinder?

He also said that 3dmark doesn't represent real world performance. This is why he went over to UnrealII to show that they were running "neck and neck". He obviously didn't have time on that segment to run a detailed IQ comparision, much good it would have done on a TV screen.

You're purposefully twisting the facts around, to fuel your infantile rant...much as always.

In Hellbinders defence, :shock: I must say Nvidia has done a terrific job of muddying the waters. Anyone that has really thought about this knows what's really happening here.

Nvidia made a slider in the control panel gui with a bunch of AA #'s that mean nothing. Every AA setting looks like an AA setting the is of lower quality than the one indicated. Maybe because it is??? A gui can be programmed to say 100xAA , that doesn't mean it's doing 100x AA though.
This seems quite obvious, but no reviewer has the balls to call Nvidia out on it . Nvidia just muddys the waters more with some . "It's there You just can't see it and we can't tell you how it works BS becuase someone will steal our invisible AA!!!" Ever read the Emperor has No clothes????
This is beyond cheating it's down right fraud.

Onto AF --- wtf is balanced and aggressive and how does that illuminate the relative quality or performance of the 2 settings? More double speak smoke and mirrors. Again the quality and method of both settings is also under much suspicion.

Then we have reviewer/apologists. Like hellbinder already indicated . Saying "If this card came out 5 monthes ago it would have been impressive" is logically wanting. It would have been real impressive . It would have parts that didn't even exist yet ! It's like saying "Ya a Pinto sux today but if it cameout in 1918 it would have rocked! So don't buy a Pinto or a Yugo becuase there about the same now" :roll:
Hellbinder is sick of ppl. treating these cards equally . GFFX isn't even out yet! Erase the company names from your minds and it's not even a fight. The lifecycle of the R300 is almost over GFFX has even begun...

A truly unbiased review that put the cards on equal footing in all aspects relative to each other , from product life , availability , quality , performance , ease of use and cost will result in ..It's not even close.

[Diespinnerz]

I personally cant wait to get my mitts on a gffx...

[Dave H]

Let's talk about how the "real" business world works. Winning the lawsuit isn't always the reason people sue . A small enterprise like HardOCP don't have the resources to defend a prolonged lawsuit , loose all advertising revenue for every Nvidia product and never get a review sample again , thereby rendering HardOCP ineffectual at conducting timely video card reviews.

Now I'm really confused. First you said the only reason Kyle didn't criticize the IQ on TV is because of the threat of a lawsuit. Now you seem to be saying that HardOCP didn't criticize the IQ in their review because of the threat of a lawsuit. The tiny problem with that theory being, of course, that they did mention the IQ problems, and that in their original review, they went so far as to bash the GFfx's 2x MSAA IQ based on what turned out to be a false comparison!

And in any case, neither HardOCP nor their insurance company would have to worry about the costs of "a prolonged lawsuit" for doing this, because such a lawsuit would be thrown out on summary judgement and Nvidia would be ordered to pay HardOCP's legal costs. There is simply no case there. There is simply no hint of a threat of a case there. Furthermore, Nvidia knows that if Nvidia so much as sent a threatening letter to HardOCP threatening a lawsuit over a bad review (!), Kyle would simply post the letter online and Nvidia would be the laughingstock of the Internet. (Of course you probably think that would constitute libel too!)

The threat of losing advertising and/or access to review cards in the future is certainly more real, and it's commonly thought that many publications pull punches on their reviews for this reason. OTOH, as the Internet community tends to be a conspiracy-minded bunch, I think websites are under enough pressure to appear independent that the two tendencies often cancel each other out. Anand's GFfx review absolutely blasted the 2xMSAA IQ (and wasn't too positive on the card in general), and he hasn't even bothered to update it now that the screenshots are known to be misleading. But somehow I don't think Anand is too worried about not getting more review samples from Nvidia. :)

BTW, I happened to watch the rerun of The Screen Savers tonight to catch Kyle's segment (mainly because I wanted to see if on TV I could hear the off-stage cursing that didn't come through in the .wmv posted here :wink: ...unfortunately, no such luck :cry: ), and it turns out that not five minutes before the on-air review which, while non-committal, certainly wasn't very good for Nvidia, the host is doing a promo for Nvidia who in fact is a main sponser of the show! So the "fear of losing advertising" angle doesn't work here either, I'm afraid. (Yes, they failed to mention the IQ problems, but others in this thread have pointed out the reasons for that: lack of time and impossible to show clearly on TV.)

As far as not sueing media for unfavorable coverage go watch The Insider. That's the premise of the whole movie.

I've seen The Insider, thanks. Unfortunately, there's a slight legal difference between a former company employee revealing trade secrets and accusing his ex-employer of illegal conspiracy on a fact-based journalism program, and a reviewer making a subjective criticism in an opinion-based product review. In the former case, the, uh...Russel Crowe character guy (Jeffrey Wigand I think was his name?) pretty much had to prove his allegations true in order to avoid a libel conviction, because he actually was in a position to know the truthfulness of what he said, and if he made any of it up it clearly did constitute actual malice. In the latter case, it's very possible to reasonably make a mistake (as indeed HardOCP and Anand both did in assuming the 2x screenshots were accurate), and in any case nothing said or done comes even close to the level of actual malice.

[Doomtrooper]

And all the claims that were made, and things that were said about it arriving all the time... and Here we are in FEB, its Still not here. And now we have TV shows, and publicatios STILL recomending not to get a Radeon 9700pro because NOW we have to wait for Nvidias NEXT card..

Please tell me.. Doesn't this bother ANYONE else???

Not really, he didn't make those claims..he said "I don't know why Nvidia even released it" then proceeded to say I would buy a 9500 Pro at the end...not exactly slanted one way.
Overall the interview could have been a 'Hexus Net' clone where thay claim the FX blows the 9700 out of the water..better image quality..blah..blah.. this was a balanced interview amd IMO it was OK, you will never see a live review where somone totally trashes the product..it will always be sugar coated.
The live audience was not pleased with it also (warned to stop yelling out obsceneties), kind of like the sane general public reaction.

[indio]

Let's talk about how the "real" business world works. Winning the lawsuit isn't always the reason people sue . A small enterprise like HardOCP don't have the resources to defend a prolonged lawsuit , loose all advertising revenue for every Nvidia product and never get a review sample again , thereby rendering HardOCP ineffectual at conducting timely video card reviews.

Now I'm really confused. First you said the only reason Kyle didn't criticize the IQ on TV is because of the threat of a lawsuit. Now you seem to be saying that HardOCP didn't criticize the IQ in their review because of the threat of a lawsuit. The tiny problem with that theory being, of course, that they did mention the IQ problems, and that in their original review, they went so far as to bash the GFfx's 2x MSAA IQ based on what turned out to be a false comparison!


And in any case, neither HardOCP nor their insurance company would have to worry about the costs of "a prolonged lawsuit" for doing this, because such a lawsuit would be thrown out on summary judgement and Nvidia would be ordered to pay HardOCP's legal costs. There is simply no case there. There is simply no hint of a threat of a case there. Furthermore, Nvidia knows that if Nvidia so much as sent a threatening letter to HardOCP threatening a lawsuit over a bad review (!), Kyle would simply post the letter online and Nvidia would be the laughingstock of the Internet. (Of course you probably think that would constitute libel too!)

The threat of losing advertising and/or access to review cards in the future is certainly more real, and it's commonly thought that many publications pull punches on their reviews for this reason. OTOH, as the Internet community tends to be a conspiracy-minded bunch, I think websites are under enough pressure to appear independent that the two tendencies often cancel each other out. Anand's GFfx review absolutely blasted the 2xMSAA IQ (and wasn't too positive on the card in general), and he hasn't even bothered to update it now that the screenshots are known to be misleading. But somehow I don't think Anand is too worried about not getting more review samples from Nvidia. :)

BTW, I happened to watch the rerun of The Screen Savers tonight to catch Kyle's segment (mainly because I wanted to see if on TV I could hear the off-stage cursing that didn't come through in the .wmv posted here :wink: ...unfortunately, no such luck :cry: ), and it turns out that not five minutes before the on-air review which, while non-committal, certainly wasn't very good for Nvidia, the host is doing a promo for Nvidia who in fact is a main sponser of the show! So the "fear of losing advertising" angle doesn't work here either, I'm afraid. (Yes, they failed to mention the IQ problems, but others in this thread have pointed out the reasons for that: lack of time and impossible to show clearly on TV.)

As far as not sueing media for unfavorable coverage go watch The Insider. That's the premise of the whole movie.

I've seen The Insider, thanks. Unfortunately, there's a slight legal difference between a former company employee revealing trade secrets and accusing his ex-employer of illegal conspiracy on a fact-based journalism program, and a reviewer making a subjective criticism in an opinion-based product review. In the former case, the, uh...Russel Crowe character guy (Jeffrey Wigand I think was his name?) pretty much had to prove his allegations true in order to avoid a libel conviction, because he actually was in a position to know the truthfulness of what he said, and if he made any of it up it clearly did constitute actual malice. In the latter case, it's very possible to reasonably make a mistake (as indeed HardOCP and Anand both did in assuming the 2x screenshots were accurate), and in any case nothing said or done comes even close to the level of actual malice.

I will concede the point. I do not wanna go into more detail and write an incredibly long post ATM.

[Hellbinder]

Mulciber..

Actually, he specifically said that the R350 would be out first, and the nv35 would be out much later. Is there a problem with this reasoning Hellbinder?

He also said that 3dmark doesn't represent real world performance. This is why he went over to UnrealII to show that they were running "neck and neck". He obviously didn't have time on that segment to run a detailed IQ comparision, much good it would have done on a TV screen.

You're purposefully twisting the facts around, to fuel your infantile rant...much as always.

Did i ever tell you how much i appriciate you as an individual and think you are fine upstanding human being??? 8)

[Hellbinder]

And by the way, I have reevaluated and yes, i was way out of line on some of my comments about that show. I have watched it a few times now and its not that bad.

I had downed a coupple of Fat Tire's last night and was already brooding about some other things. Mulciber is mostly right this time, but wrong wbout my motivations.

[RussSchultz]

Ahhh, blame it on the devil drink. ;)

[FrgMstr]

While this thread has gone way off topic, I would like to respond to a simple statement made by a few folks here. Please don't confuse "sugar coating" with only having 7 minutes of TV time to explain yourself.

I do appreciate much of what you guys are saying and agree with you, but you are simply asking for discussions on specific topics (valid ones too) that you simply cannot get done in a format like TV...espeically not 7 minutes of TV. Give me 30 minutes and we could sit down and really talk turkey.

I have used the GFFX for hours of gaming now and I will say that overall it seems to be a bit superior to the 9700Pro. Yes, I am talking about playing games with eyecandy turned on and my experience, not examining FPS and Pixels frame by frame.

Actually, I am going to put the GFFX in my own setup this week. It is a great card but it is just late to the dance and it is hard to suggest that someone blow 4 bills on it when the 9500Pro is a great stop-gap card for 200.