chip has a review up

[jvd]

http://www.chip.de/produkte_tests/unterseite_produkte_tests_8788188.html


huh the radeon gets beat by a geforce 4 in quake 3.. i dunno if something is wrong with his numbers otherwise it looks good . to bad i can't read anything but english and italian

 

[tEd]

the numbers are not really compareable because they used quincunx aa and 8x aniotropic on the gf4600 while using 6x multisample and 16x anisotropic on the r9700 but still impressive

 

[L233]

the numbers are not really compareable because they used quincunx aa and 8x aniotropic on the gf4600 while using 6x multisample and 16x anisotropic on the r9700 but still impressive

And they scattered that information all across the review... I had to read it twice before I figured out what was wrong.

Poorly done review IMHO.

 

[tEd]

a usual chip review i would say

 

[Xmas]

a usual chip review i would say

Yep, not really worth the bandwidth...

 

[alexsok]

Hmm... intresting...

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Hmm... intresting...

Not really. As has already been mentioned, the comparisons shown in that histogram are pretty meaningless.

 

[Oats]

What AA and AF settings were used for the parhelia?

 

[Kristof]

Anti-aliasing and Anisotropic filtering will always end up being apples to oranges comparisons due to the very different implementations - unless great care is taken to create a level playing field.

Then again comparing 16x Anisotropic + 6x MS-AA with 8x Anisotropic + 4x MS-AA is a bit silly and results should come with a huge warning sign

K-

 

[tEd]

well they used quincunx on gf4600 what is more like 2xaa than 4x imho. on parhelia they used 16xfaa aa and 2x anisotropic

63fps at 1600*1024 with 6xaa and 16xanisotrpic in q3 ist very impressive
can't wait for some serious reviews and some aa af pics

 

[Xmas]

It's mentioned on the last page:
GF4: Quincunx + 8x AF
Parhelia: 16xFAA + 2x AF
R9700: 6xMS + 16x AF (don't know if it's quality or performance mode)

Silly comparison...

 

[John Reynolds]

I looked but didn't see what driver versions were used for the various cards tested. Just curious. . .for a reason. 8)

 

[ChrisK]

I looked but didn't see what driver versions were used for the various cards tested. Just curious. . .for a reason. 8)

On page 10 they say:

"Catalyst, Version 7.75"

They seem to say that this is the name of the ATI card's driver. They also say, that super sampling AA didn't work and also that pixel and vertex shaders didn't work for Serious Sam II.

Chris

 

[msan_ewu]

When are the NDA's lifted/real reviews going to be out. Tomorrow (19th) right?

 

[Sunrise]

@John Reynolds:

They used driver version 6.13.10.6143, you can check it on this page

http://www.chip.de/artikelbilder/bilder_galerie_8788084.html?show=8

It is also still in BETA stage.

@msan_ewu:

Yes, confirmed.

 

[Bjorn]

It's mentioned on the last page:
GF4: Quincunx + 8x AF
Parhelia: 16xFAA + 2x AF
R9700: 6xMS + 16x AF (don't know if it's quality or performance mode)

Silly comparison...

Quincunx ???

Maybe want to give the impression that Quincunx is almost like 4X and use that so that the Ti 4600 won't be completely embarassed.

I don't think silly is the right word in that case.

 

[John Reynolds]

Actually, I'm more interested in the driver version used for the GF4.

 

[Dave Baumann]

30.82 - Current released driver.

 

[Doomtrooper]

It amazes me that a review site can do a entire review and compare the the 9700's Maxium level of AA and Anisotropic in a benchmark like Quake 3 ..then run the rest of the cards @ Medium settings.

It also amazes me that a review would not contain ONE screen shots comparison...I mean these are graphic cards ?? Screen shot should be mandatory vs. these damn graphs.

 

[L233]

It amazes me that a review site can do a entire review and compare the the 9700's Maxium level of AA and Anisotropic in a benchmark like Quake 3 ..then run the rest of the cards @ Medium settings.

Doomtrooper, Chip isn't a "review site", it's a German print magazine and a pretty big one, too. Now, considering the average quality of video card reviews in the print computer media, it's actually not that atrocious. I've seen much worse. Compared to some of the better reviews done by Internet hardware magazines, it's kind of pathetic tho. The best thing about Chip is that they break NDAs on a regular basis.