Some comments from Nvnews...

Hey...just for kicks....lets see if we can run the 3D Mark "Quality" test in forced 128 bit color mode on the R-300....then do a X0R comparison to "prove" that R-300 has horrid image quality. ;)
 
Jazz said:
Wait a minute people, i haven't seen this posted here yet but i was over at rage3d and i think a bigger nvidiot than chalnoth has been found

http://www.overclockers.com/tips061/

it is actually quite funny reading this :LOL:
Click to expand...


eek3.gif



Pathetic
 
RE: overclockers.com

Alright normally this is something I would not post.. but this got right up my non-existant tits.

All I can ask is... why?

Anal retention can be cured - anyone know the remedy.


* I apologise in advance for soiling this forum with this act muck raking. *
 
Who The Hell Runs Games At 1600X1200?

If the few indicators we have can be believed (more on this below), the Radeon 9700 consistently blows away the Ti4600 at 1600X1200.

Not you, based on the survey information we've seen. 1024X768 seems to be the sweet spot for gamers, with a slow migration towards 1280X1024.

Most of you have monitors that are 17-to-19 inches. 1600X1200 is too tiny for those sizes. If it isn't for you (especially with 17 inches), stop shooting people in Quake, and start sharpshooting people in the Army.

While 21-inch monitors have dropped a lot in price over the past few years, they still cost a good deal more than most people are willing to spend. They're also bulky and heavy, not the best selling points when the buying audience often finds space to be in short supply.

So I don't see any rush to 1600X1200 anytime soon. That will have to await big, cheap LCD displays, and that won't happen until 2005 or so.

The performance pattern of the Radeon 9700 seems to be as follows:


It's not much better at 1024X768 than the Ti4600.

At 1280X1024, gaps widen, to varying degrees.

It usually does pretty well at 1600X1200, but again, to varying degrees.

It is likely that if you like antialiasing and the like, this will do pretty well also, but let's see a little more proof on that first.

However, these conclusions rely on the independence and objectivity of the measurements, and, as we shall see, this is questionable.
Click to expand...

There are so many things wrong with that post it sickens me.

1) He/She conveniently forgets that the R300's AA scores are 2-3x faster than the GF's scores. That means that in lower resolutions where the advantage is "only" 20% at the minimum, the card has MUCHO fillrate to burn.

What does this mean for gamers who run at 1024 and 1280? They can max the f*ck out of the graphical quality and still have silky smooth framerates. You *can't* do that with a GF4.

[EDIT]Not to mention the fact that those scores are obviously CPU limited. Considering the power demonstrated by the Clawhammer a few weeks ago, vs a P4 and Athlon XP, I'd love to see the R300 really open up on that one[/EDIT]

2) 21" prices are so cheap that I don't know *any* gamer who doesn't run at least 19". You can get a 19" for $200 these days. That's just a dumbass, uninformed comment.

3) At 1024 the scores were at the minimum 20% higher for the R300 than the GF4. If that's "not much better".... Dear lord..

At 1280 the differential goes even higher, into the 30's and 40's. Again, this guy is so unbelievably thick.

"It usually does pretty well at 1600x1200"... Usually??? WTF!!!!

4) "It is likely that if you like antialiasing and the like, this will do pretty well also, but let's see a little more proof on that first."

HUH? Ok, being 2-3x faster than a GF4 ti4600 with AA on, at 1600x1200, playable framerates, in Q3, Jedi Knight, Wolfenstein, as well as the blessing of Carmack for DoomIII isn't enough for him? Jeez...
 
The most amazing thing is, this guy seems incapable of realizing that If it is getting 50FPS in a Game at 1600x1200x32 with 4x FSAA and 16x aniso.. then at his beloved 1024x768 it will likely be near 100 FPS or higher...

The stupididy of this guy thinking he is not biased is astonishing...

What really burns me up his his reference to the "quak" fisco from a year ago... Without the slightest care of the recent 3dmark Fiasco for Nvidia.

How can this turky be so completely unintelligent...
 
His main beef seems to be with Anandtech....

But come on.. there is no such need for such abhorant language... paedophilia is not a laughing matter and to use such a word with regards to someone elses 'WORK' (yes even Anand had to work to get that preview out) is sickening to the extreme. He even had a pot shot (cheap shot) at Kyle's article (heh I dont even always agreewith Kyle all too much but I have more respect for someone who doesnt hide behind an editorial).

That was the biggest problem I had with that stupid editorial 'Ed' posted.

Plus the fact that his head really is quite firmly lodged in his ass with no signs of release (constipation I imagine.. please someone - we need to get hold of a laxative).
 
Fuz said:
Who The Hell Runs Games At 1600X1200?
Click to expand...

The same people who pay $300+ for their graphics cards. The same people who still get 80+ fps at 1600x1200, even with 2x FSAA and 16tap anisotropic. Um, duh?

Overclockers.com: Leading the way making "overclockers'" sites look like the moronic bafoons they are.

Natural selection and a capitalistic economies are wonderful things. The crap ends up on the bottom. Let's not link it anymore, ok?
 
It only gets better,

Now the people over at Nvnews are saying that the R300 demos barely look better than the GF4 demos...

:rolleyes:

Oh well...

I think the Rev's comments from a coupple weeks ago are accurate. Nearly everyone has lost perspective.. Its all about who's the biggest fan-boys on the internet these days.. And im not excempting myself from this either...

Time for a new perspective i think.
 
I see you guys are not familiar with Ed.... he has been at it for a long time.

Doom might remember him as one of worst Intel fanatics from THG.
 
I can't remember the members name (something like biteme) but I do remember getting flamed there when I posted my Athlon 500 was stable :p


Please tell me its not him
 
Xmas said:
Hellbinder[CE said:
]Without the slightest care of the recent 3dmark Fiasco for Nvidia.
Click to expand...
Seems like I missed that "fiasco"...
Click to expand...

You and most others.... Nvidia was suspected of cheating on 3Dmark as a result of their splash screens causing them to get higher scores. There was some converage on a few sites but for the most part it was not mentioned on any of the more popular sites. EG THG, Anandtech...... Go figure.
 
EDSTROLIG. During a particularly nasty argument when Ed predicted a complete AMD collapse within a couple of months, even BMO called him a moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
RDNA3 Efficiency [Spinoff from RDNA4]
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
6K
Bondrewd
Bondrewd
D
RTX Video HDR modded to work in games, RTX Game HDR?
Replies
7
Views
938
DegustatoR
D
P
WoJ DXVK Manager for Windows
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
worldofjoysticks
W
Z
Asking graphical artists - How difficult is it to make Forza motorsport look as good, or better, as GT7?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
T
FuryGPU - A full capable GPU implemented on FPGA
Replies
0
Views
420
TopSpoiler
T
Back
Top