NV40 3DMark 2003 scores revealed -theinquirer

If you don't use pixel shaders in games, 9 times out of 10 NV3x will kick R3xx's arse.

The only thing R3xx has going for it in those situations (and "those situations" account for around 95% of all 3d games ever released) is the quality of its AA.

 

That is just totally not true...

In fact Nvidia *mostly* only has an advantage in Quake engine based games. But not even all of those. Ati is faster in at least 70% of current games available today and gains speed with each level of AA or AF applied.

Furthermore what you are saying is just silly its like saying. "ATi is only faster in games with textures" otherwise it basically sux...

 

Its never to late for a little humility my friend

The only thing that bothers be is that Nvidia at is core is still a bunch of megalomaniac Evil doers, Scoundrels and liars. Which has basically been my beef with them for a few years now.

BTW, Dont think this means that I no longer believe that the R420 will kick the Nv40 in the rear. Becuase i still believe that.

 

I take it you are not a big time Nvidia fan!

 

How about the initial release of FarCry, where the R3XX outperforms the NV3X even thought the R3XX are running FarCry using PS2.0, while the FX line is dumbed down to PS1.1 by default? Even the FX5900 line struggled to keep ahead of the R9600XT.

Better IQ and performance in a TWIMTBP game? I can't think of a better example of the current shortcomings of the NV3X with those games you say are so rare. Hopefully this will be remedied/ameliorated by the NV4X line.

 

Even if the quality of the AA were the only thing, it'll still be a huge thing for a lot of people, me included.

 

Even if it WERE true - who cares?
Look at the calendar man it's 2004 already...

 

Most games that don't use shaders are so CPU bound on these parts in the first place the performance differences are negligable - you will be using FSAA and other HQ options in them anyway.

 

DB, will B3D do some preview with a sample of both NV40/R420 not long(at the same time as other sites would be great ) after the launch?

 

I'd expect you to either believe me or not based on my past reputation. And I hardly care whether you do or not
Furthermore, with 35GB+ of memory bandwidth, in a shader limited game, I don't even really find that impressive. Heck, I shouldn't even be teaching most of you guys anything by telling you that, hehe

Uttar

 

Im sorry, I dont go search for posts from a user to learn about them when they claim something like that. But hey, nice attitude.

 

Fallguy, apparently you don't read this board very much at all, then

 

Just found something interesting by Hardcoreware ....



Source: http://www.hardcoreware.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15088

 

Hmmm.......Obraxis, first post........ coincidence?

 

thank god that isnt a utk2k4 graph, or for 10 pages we would argue whether the game is cpu bound or not. BTW, nice showing by nv.

later,
epic

 

I have no idea if it is or isn't, but I see no reason why this can't be legit.

I mean, assuming NV40 has approximately double the bandwidth of the 9800 XT (600 Mhz GDDR3 for NV40 vs. 325 Mhz for 9800 XT), 1600x1200 4X AA scores on a GPU limited benchmark like a Fly-By, should be about double.

Of course, I expect the same of ATI if they ship a part with similar bandwidth.

 

No...it's the fact that it's a fly-by, that we don't have to argue whether it's mainly CPu limited or not.

 

I can tell you that even without having NV40 scores I'd know that those UT2003 scores are total bullshit.

Like--reality is somewhere over

(here) and those scores are somewhere over ---------------------> (here)

If it looks wrong, run at a higher resolution.

 

Flyby is not cpu limited, but I wish it will be with the new gpu's

The R9800XT's scores at x4FSAA and 8xAF are fishy at least, they stayed at a steady 120 :?