A promise is a promise :) there you go!

Vegetto-eX:

Just wanted to say thanks for the bit of a preview you gave. Dispite the inappropriate behavior that has been thrown at you, I do hope you come back... (Though I wouldn't blame you for not. )

Things are changing... that's for sure, doesn't seem like it is for the better either.

Peace,

 

Yep, if indeed these numbers turn out to be correct (and I'd be inclined to believe so, given both Baron's and Uttar's support), I'd like to thank Veggetto for risking his cousin's mother's niece's son's neck by posting them.

One question: did you choose to post this on B3D b/c of Baron and Uttar, or by your own preference?

 

I feel I should apologise for pretty much attacking Vegetto without providing evidence... I'm sorry for the personal attacks, and for my aggressive tone.

I pretty much made my first reply on an assumption about performance, and based it on information from people at x3dfx (no, not Voodoo users, hahaha) who said they were getting poor (~20-30fps) frame rates on R300-based machines in the AthXP 22-2500+ range.

I'm also somewhat... disenfranchised? after NV30's launch. I'd like to believe these numbers, tbh, but after the sheer unbelievable volume of FUD and outright lies that surrounded NV30... I think some skepticism is acceptable here.

 

So far I have not seen any compelling evidence to confirm or disprove these numbers, so it's 50/50. I am willing to give Vegetto-eX the benefits of the doubt, so make it 60/40.

 

Tagrineth, great apology . Thanks Veggetto!

 

When pigs fly is when those numbers are legit...if they do turn out legit there has been some major adjustments done to the settings like pure bilinear AF and/or 16 bit color.

I don't buy 35,000 3Dmarks and I don't buy 2X as fast as a 9800 XT @ 540/800 +...call me crazy

 

Maybe I'll try them later...

However, I want to stress that I'm talking about the full game, not the demo. Apparently, something changed between the demo and the game that is causing all the previous (demo) bot-match demos to not work. It's not the maps, it appears to be a command line or scripting option....

 

Which numbers in particular? Regarding botmach, I have yet to see evidence why they are incorrect. The highest 3dmark01 scores right now are in the 31000+ range, so 35,000 does not seem unfeasible.

 

Well I'll buy it.. that is, if it is not more than about $500

 

So no developers have NV40's yet, but friend of Vegetto is busy benchmarking away on it? Count me a little skeptical.

 

I brought this up because the cpu doesn't have to be the limit on all video cards .

Example on half life 2 a geforce 3 wouldn't be cpu bound but a geforce 4 might be .

The 9800pro clocked higher (core clock and as some defenders of the benchmarks have said the card would be fillrate limited not bandwitdh limited at that res) doesn't increase performance .

So something is holding it back.

My own testing shows that on ut2k3 i will continue to get 37fps with axp 2700 up to 4x fsaa and 16 tap aniso. I assume when i increase the fsaa to 6x (which i can't due do to only 128 megs of ram) the fps will drop again.

So if my gpu was the limiting factor than overclocking it as I had done from 300/300 (yes these are lower than pro clocks but it was to have a bigger diffrence in hopes we could see a diffrence in fps) to 380/330 did not change the framerate. Yet going from axp2500 - 2700 did change the fps .

When asked about this vegitto pointed to ut2k4 benchmarks .

I assume since it was he who posted the nv40 benchmarks that this is the same map and what not that was run for his numbers other wise why point to this unless it was to cast the cards in further bad light .

When asked about what we were seeing in ut2k4 and how at the end the higher fillrate card no longer led the pack and was within .2 fps diffrence (it had been 1fps in favor) of the other leading card (I assume that these two cards had become cpu bound for reasons i have no clue but i posted why i believe this) suddenly it went from a single a64 at 2.4 ghz to dual opterons as if to explain why on a cpu limited test the scores doubled.


So I ask why did he post tests that cannot be compared. Why did the system specs magicly changed when the results were questioned ?


If i am wrong about it being cpu limited which i admitted awhile back i could be why the sudden change of specs ?

Things still don't add up to me . I am not attacking anyone here . I have been asking questions and was getting fustrated when I wasn't getting answers .

I believe though that I and people who support my conclusions are being attack just for the fact that we believe something is wrong

 

Yes on 9800 XT's vapochilled to almost 600 mhz and the same for the processor, I've been down this road before with HYPE...and like last time people will believe ANYTHING.

 

Regarding the 3DMark01 score: As FUDie said, it's very dependant on CPU & system memory, and this guy had excellent CPU and AMAZING system memory (can't remember which type of RAM right now, but I do remember it was out-of-this-world). Combine that with overclocked everything but NV40, and it's not out of the question.

You sure as hell shouldn't expect 36K on the normal NV40 buyer's system, though!


Uttar

 

Do you have any Idea what it takes to get to 30K+?? I'll give you a hint, its not grandma's Dell

 

1. Isn't it possible Vegetto's tester was a dev (dual Opteron)?

2. Should I read into the fact that none of the "big" sites I frequent have linked to this thread (the only one with numbers, real or not)? Same with the screenshots. Same with Dave and Rev staying out of this thread completely (I think--the last 14 pp. have been kind of a blur ).

 

No, I am entirely incapable of reading project description, for I am blind. Many thanks for your helpful hint.

 

As stated before, 3Dmark 2001 and UT 2004 is single threaded...having a second processor mean nothing Pete.

 

DT, I was trying to mitigate duncan's doubt, not dispute your dispute. I don't know what to think of the 3DM2K1 score, but I think we've established that those UT2K4 numbers are in the realm of possibility, no? Or are there other UT2K4 botmatch numbers that show CPU limitation (which Xbit's don't)?

NewbAnhilator: Do you have any Idea what it takes to get to 30K+?? I'll give you a hint, its not grandma's Dell
Geeforcer: No, I am entirely incapable of reading project description, for I am blind. Many thanks for your helpful hint.

Oooooh, burned. He annihilated you, nub.

PS - It's "annihilator." Just call me the SpellingErrorAnnihilator. SpellChecker, for short.

 

True, but what makes you think a single CPU would not allow you to reach at least the UT numbers?

 

Thanks for sharing Vegetto.

Anything is possible, so I'm going to run down the logical possibilities of this.

I see four basic possibilities:

1) He's telling the truth as he knows it and the numbers are accurate.
2) He's telling the truth as he knows it and the numbers aren't accurate.
3) He's not telling the truth as he knows it but the numbers are accurate.
4) He's not telling the truth as he knows it and the numbers aren't accurate.

These would actually hold true for each set of numbers individually, but it's easiest to treat them as a whole. Of the four possible options, number three is by far the least likely and should probably be discounted; this leaves three remaining possibilities, in two of which he is telling the truth, and in two of which the numbers would not be accurate.

So without anything else it looks to me that it's more likely that Vegetto is telling the truth as he knows it, and didn't deserve the attacks.

I do think it's interesting that Dave and Rev have avoided this thread, and that nobody's linked to it either.

Ahhhhhhh the possibilities.