Post your NV40 preview predictions

I suggest you educate yourself ....here I will bold the part that is most educational for you

http://pc.ign.com/articles/456/456054p1.html?fromint=1

 

The smoke is probably animated, so they're probably both correct there. The difference in specular highlights may be due to the NV40 taking the NV3x path, and the normal vectors being calculated differently on the two different paths.

 

The problem with providing screenshots is that they may be at different resolutions, and thus will not always be comparable. Personally, I like the idea of the reviewer seeking the highest-playable settings for the games, but I think it's useless to benchmark video cards at different settings like they're doing.

I think it would simply be better to have a "summary" page where the max playable settings for each game are listed, but display benchmarks in a more normal fashion.

 

Surfaced where? All the screenshots say 6800U and graphs say 6800 Ultra. Unless you are thinking its just a misinformation campaign.

 

Little late in the game for a misinformation campaign... which BTW did not occur this time around. Rumor machine spun things on its own without any help from either IHV.

 

What I see from the leak is in Shader Intensive games the card is barley faster than a 9800 XT, i.e Halo and Far Cry.
So either the card is extremely unbalanced or the pipeline config is another PR stunt.

 

or just maybe its bandwidth limited?

 

LOL, all this after 1/2 of 1 review....

 

Tomorrow morning is going to be FUN!

 

XD Woo! A little late to work on R420 demos... =D But I look foward to seeing your hand in the R500 demos!

 

ROTFLMAO...

 

On the downside, now that Humus works for ATI, he'll have to watch his posts on these boards and others such a rage3d because his opinions could be misconstrued as those of ATI.

Large companies gernally give staff guidelines on what can / cannot be said on particular subjects.

Anyway - perhaps shader speed will increase with new driver revisions. Perhaps NV30 shader code optimisations are having a negative impact on NV40 shading abilities.

Ok, im clutching at straws here

 

NV40= $499 retail(ouch) available in 45 days on shelves.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040414/tech_nvidia_1.html

 

...and 'slightly slower' 6800NU is $299 (according to them).

 

the 299 jives with what was posted before, perhaps the 499 was a typo? i dont see how the ultra version could be $200 more and have virtually the same specs?

 

At NVNews...

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=27297

 

Anyone wanna guess vanilla 6800 clocks? 350/500(1000) has my bet.

 

Well, I've (more than once) specifically outlined how [H] fails to provide the reader information about graphics cards, and is moreso providing information about games, and covered the issues with the approach and what information it fails to provide readers. It is encouraging at least to see that Brent recognizes it and is telling readers about it somewhere, because there is at least some hope they'll avoid conclusions their approach isn't suited to making.

However, an NV40 versus R380 review is about the perfect place for the problems for it to be most prominent, because all the AA, AF, shader, vertex processing, and CPU limitation relationship factors between the cards and on the selected games are uncharted territory. Hopefully there are 1) other results from some tool to establish these relationships usefully included (strangely enough, a successfully cheat-policed 3dmark 03 could be such a tool), 2) some other article(s) released in a timely fashion with such info (without the issues with Anandtech's article splitting), and/or 3) they have a disclaimer prominently displayed directing readers somewhere else for such info and thoroughly educating readers about what their approach doesn't inform about (might be required on every page or under every graph to be successfully communicated). The forum blurb indicates that 3) at least is quite possible, so the article could still be successfully informative in the intended way once reviews that more clearly inform about hardware comparison are available.

To me, the ideal would be to have the hardware-centric comparative analysis done, and then provide tools for users to pick comparison graphs based on their own image quality evaluations (maybe with a blind testing selection method to aid in objectivity) or for information on hardware comparison, depending on the information the reader wants to evaluate at the time. Similar to the type of comparison mechanism that has often been proposed in the past, maybe with [H]'s method thrown is as "reviewer's equivalence" settings as a guideline for a site like [H] that tries to do that for readers.

 

Something has got to be horribly wrong with the FarCry benchmark. The latest patch for FarCry says this:

Improved shader speed (up to two times faster) for NVidia Geforce FX cards on very high settings
- Fixed fog bug with NVidia drivers
- Added support for NVidia NV40 chipset
- Fixed realtime shadows from blended trees
- Made improvements to lighting shaders on very high settings
- Fixed bug with lake reflections
- Added support fro PS3.0 shader profile


So either the 6800U was terribly slow to begin with or there is a bug.

 

if you look at the screens, farcry wasn't useing vs/ps 3.0...