Hmm...as I said, Anand has been switching to the ATI bandwagon, but he atleast manages, for the most part, to get out a balanced comparison. It is just that his screwups, to me, all seem to screw over nVidia.
Some thoughts:
His mention of minimum fps as reported by UT2k3 (*poke at MuFu*) is still just as much a distortion as ever. He acknowledges their pitfalls when reporting the Serious Sam minimum fps, but that mention belonged with the UT2k3 benchmark results, or should have precluded them. Atleast I can look forward to fps versus time elsewhere... But, in any case, the results, along with ATI leading at low resolutions (CPU limited) indicates just how excellent ATI's driver focus has been since the 9700 Pro's launch. It has been a pleasure to watch issues being recognized and addressed over in the Rage3D forums, and in that sense atleast some past due recognition has been granted.
I agree with the praise and criticism of his aniso comparison. Overall, it's a good comparison (almost as good as my favorite comparison to date, which is from a review Ratchet did over at Rage3D as far as the image quality shots), except for the major screw up of a lack of consideration of trilinear filtering (seems Anand is a bit of a fair weather friend with his screwups...). It is a valid point that ATI's performance aniso looks very good and much better than whatever "Aggressive" aniso is, but it seems likely that he completely distorted the picture and the GF FX should have been emphasized to be leading in fps with trilinear on in many benchmarks (with the good image quality comparison prior, this would have been in proper perspective with the 9700 still offering a significant lead with Performance aniso).
If it weren't for the trilinear screw up (that seems to me very major), I'd actually have liked that review quite a bit.
Some thoughts:
His mention of minimum fps as reported by UT2k3 (*poke at MuFu*) is still just as much a distortion as ever. He acknowledges their pitfalls when reporting the Serious Sam minimum fps, but that mention belonged with the UT2k3 benchmark results, or should have precluded them. Atleast I can look forward to fps versus time elsewhere... But, in any case, the results, along with ATI leading at low resolutions (CPU limited) indicates just how excellent ATI's driver focus has been since the 9700 Pro's launch. It has been a pleasure to watch issues being recognized and addressed over in the Rage3D forums, and in that sense atleast some past due recognition has been granted.
I agree with the praise and criticism of his aniso comparison. Overall, it's a good comparison (almost as good as my favorite comparison to date, which is from a review Ratchet did over at Rage3D as far as the image quality shots), except for the major screw up of a lack of consideration of trilinear filtering (seems Anand is a bit of a fair weather friend with his screwups...). It is a valid point that ATI's performance aniso looks very good and much better than whatever "Aggressive" aniso is, but it seems likely that he completely distorted the picture and the GF FX should have been emphasized to be leading in fps with trilinear on in many benchmarks (with the good image quality comparison prior, this would have been in proper perspective with the 9700 still offering a significant lead with Performance aniso).
If it weren't for the trilinear screw up (that seems to me very major), I'd actually have liked that review quite a bit.
