Don't get fooled by .... nvidia attacking Ati
- Thread starter nagus
- Start date
Vortigern_red
Newcomer
Looks like NVIDIA is marketing the shit out of Doom3.
They should, it's the only game that actually runs okay on the FX series
Oh, and I just LOVE how they hack at that 9250 card and how it's slower than the 9200.
Ofcourse their FX5200 wasn't slower than their GF4Ti4600 in any benchmark
And let's not talk about GF3 vs GF4MX either
Let's face it, NVIDIA invented the whole concept
Come to think of it, why are they comparing FX5200 (DX9 part) to 9250 (DX8 part), that says more about them than about the bad performance of the 9250 I guess
Oh, why am I saying this? I actually went and bought a videocard with my brother yesterday, and yes it was a GeForce 6800LE, to replace a Radeon 8500
They should, it's the only game that actually runs okay on the FX series
Oh, and I just LOVE how they hack at that 9250 card and how it's slower than the 9200.
Ofcourse their FX5200 wasn't slower than their GF4Ti4600 in any benchmark
And let's not talk about GF3 vs GF4MX either
Let's face it, NVIDIA invented the whole concept
Come to think of it, why are they comparing FX5200 (DX9 part) to 9250 (DX8 part), that says more about them than about the bad performance of the 9250 I guess
Oh, why am I saying this? I actually went and bought a videocard with my brother yesterday, and yes it was a GeForce 6800LE, to replace a Radeon 8500
MY80S said:That was pretty funny
Anyway, what's the 128/64 next to the 9550 over here ? Are they actually comparing a 9550SE with a 128-bit 5200/5500 ?
Oh and note "Catalyst 4.7", which is 2 releases ago, and I believe was the last release without Doom3 optimizations.
Compared against 65.74 drivers, which aren't even released yet, and are probably even more chock-full of Doom3 optimizations than the older ones already were.
Well I told me friends at ATi about this and asked them for a reaction and they just gave it to me:
Don't go quoting me on that though....
Don't go quoting me on that though....
jb said:Most of their claims are flat out wrong
Well actually the pci-e certification claim is true
shader model 3 vs 2 claim is true
doom3 performance claim is probably true ( but grown out of proportion of course, the whole lineup of cards was pretty much designed for doom3 ffs)
other benchmarks... well... Never trust a benchmark by an IHV.
I checked the digit-life august digest and a 9550 outperforms both the 5200 and 5500s. They used the 65.52s and the early beta catalyst 4.9s too, so its probably an even more well pronounced lead now (and even greater with the upcoming 4.10s). Also I dont remember seeing even the x700 pro up to 112% slower in doom3 =/.
Vortigern_red
Newcomer
Did we ever find out if this was true? The Inq story was posted in August (Just going off the SS on those slides.) at that time there was no ATI chip on the list, now the X600 is on there. Maybe ATI are just late in submitting them! The Inq story posted on those slides does not even confirm NVs headline, they have changed a question mark on the Inq article into an exclaimation mark on their headline. It is now a statement rather than a question.
The other strange thing with that list is that NV have all their chips listed, fair enought. ATI has one chip listed, NV also have a load of video *cards* listed when they don't produce any. ATI do produce cards and have none listed, not even the one using the chip that has been certified compliant.
List
I'm pretty sure claiming that the competition is 112% slower takes "out of all proportion" to new levels. Whats the ATI card doing? Going backwards?
EDIT; just thinking, those people complaining about the performance of the Radeon 7500 should be glad they have not bought an X700 Pro. The R7500 is probably only about 95% slower than the 6600GT!
.Vortigern_red
Newcomer
Can you point me to a link where there is some proof that ATI have failed the certification tests for PCIe? I must have completely missed this one somehow! Everyone else seems to know about it.
It's in the Inquirerererer, but I just have this weird feeling that if nVidia had any other more credible source for that accusation they would have used it instead.... :?Vortigern_red said:
Similar threads
