R8500 20% Faster Than GF4 Ti4600?

MouseAnony, what "info" is it droping? Since you know exact numbers (25%) then I suppose you must know what kind of info it's dropping to, wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

If the quality was so crap with these drivers, why hasn't any of those reviewer using them noticed? And if the reviewers were given special drivers for the review, wouldn't reviewers find that suspisious?

Oh, do you even have a 8500? I have, and it's running faster, with better quality and stability for every new driver. I don't see where you get this stuff that newer "fixed" drivers would be slower.
 
Once again start posting substanciated information rather than conjecture.

As someone who is reviewing an ATi product at the moment (and ATi are aware) I have yet to recieve any 'special drivers', so please tell me where these 'special' drivers come from!
 
Humus said:
MouseAnony, what "info" is it droping? Since you know exact numbers (25%) then I suppose you must know what kind of info it's dropping to, wouldn't make much sense otherwise.
Click to expand...
That was an est but it's quite accurate. As I said b4, it's the least important info i.e. anything which only minorly effects the display quality.
Humus said:
If the quality was so crap with these drivers, why hasn't any of those reviewer using them noticed?
Click to expand...
They did notice. Haven't you read old reviews in which they said it had fog, colour and texture problems but they it had been or they had been assured it would be fixed in newer drivers.

The quality on the 25% isn't that bad but it is noticeble when you compare two cards side to side.

But it is much less noticeble when you don't compare them. The special driver quality is quite bad but these reviewers know all about it anyway.

And if the reviewers were given special drivers for the review, wouldn't reviewers find that suspisious?
Click to expand...
As I said, only ATI loving site got these drivers and they KNEW all about it so they don't have to be suspicious.

Oh, do you even have a 8500? I have, and it's running faster, with better quality and stability for every new driver. I don't see where you get this stuff that newer "fixed" drivers would be slower.
Click to expand...
Better quality and more stable. Totally true!!!!!!! I've said this all along. But they are slower. Go look at most recent reviews (e.g. Anandtech's G4 review) esp SS and you will realise it is a lot slower. Or just compare the drivers (but you will have to make sure you totally delete the drivers as they tend to be 'sticky').
 
DaveBaumann said:
Once again start posting substanciated information rather than conjecture.
Click to expand...
As I've said, if you want proof look at recent reviews from reliable sites and see how the Rad 8500 is doing now. SS is one very good example. Or read what JC said.

As someone who is reviewing an ATi product at the moment (and ATi are aware) I have yet to recieve any 'special drivers', so please tell me where these 'special' drivers come from!
Click to expand...
As I said (do you ever read?) only ATi lovers (who BTW will have known about them for a long time) will receive them. People ATI know they can trust. It's not easy to get on this list, believe me.
 
As I said, only ATI loving site got these drivers and they KNEW all about it so they don't have to be suspicious
Click to expand...

Oooooh, I see, only these small site got good driver - ATi didn't think about supplying them to larger sites that have a wider coverage!

Better quality and more stable. Totally true!!!!!!! I've said this all along. But they are slower. Go look at most recent reviews (e.g. Anandtech's G4 review) esp SS and you will realise it is a lot slower. Or just compare the drivers (but you will have to make sure you totally delete the drivers as they tend to be 'sticky').
Click to expand...

Anand's GF4 review used the current 'official beta drivers' (6025) for the Radeon, and there are known issues with them. The much talked about 'High Poly Bug' is in fact a texture thrashing issue which is slowing down OpenGL applications which has been resolved in later development driver releases (some of which have been leaked, but none have come officially). The testing which I have undertaken shows Serious Sam to be twice as fast in DirectX at 1600x1200x32 (Extreme GFX settings) than it is in OpenGL!

AFAIK the issue that JC was talking about is a separate issue to that of the Texture thrashing issue.

As I said (do you ever read?) only ATi lovers (who BTW will have known about them for a long time) will receive them. People ATI know they can trust. It's not easy to get on this list, believe me.
Click to expand...

Yes I read - I've read your same claims a number of times and you have yet to back up with any proof; prove that these 'special drivers' exist, or stop posting - you are getting tiresome.
 
So, it's a big conspiration, ATi and a lot of reviewers cooperating on getting nice reviews out for ATi. :rolleyes: So now that these reviewers all agreed upon publishing cheat numbers, why waste time to create a special driver for them, why not just give them the numbers to publish instead?

And drop the BS that the newer drivers are slower, they aren't. I've seen them consistently improve, helping performance up in both games and in my own demos.

I suspect Doomtrooper may actually be right, you're Nam_ng behind another name, looking into your profile it looks like you don't really want people to know who you are.
 
And drop the BS that the newer drivers are slower, they aren't. I've seen them consistently improve, helping performance up in both games and in my own demos.
Click to expand...

Humus - the current 6025 drivers that are out at the moment are pretty poor becuase of this texture issue; nearly all the the openGL benchmarks I've done for the Radeon with these drivers actually have the harddisk thrashing, indicating its accessing the swapfile for something (presumably textures); its evident that this should not be the case.
 
Oki, haven't had any such problems myself though. From my own experience it has been a contineous curve going upwards in stability, performance and conformance with few exceptions. With the 6052 drivers I have no problems, performance is great and I don't know a single bug.
 
problem is, most of us dont think of the 6025 drivers as recent !!!!
For us, recent would be 6043 rev2 or 6052...And these drivers kick ass!
 
Mystiq,

AFAIK no. I am in the same boat with Win2k...waiting

I have been afraid to try the 6043 as I have a major UT mod a few days from a public relase..screwing up my PC due to a driver update is a risk I dare not take...
 
DaveBaumann said:
Humus - the current 6025 drivers that are out at the moment are pretty poor becuase of this texture issue; nearly all the the openGL benchmarks I've done for the Radeon with these drivers actually have the harddisk thrashing, indicating its accessing the swapfile for something (presumably textures); its evident that this should not be the case.
Click to expand...

Dave,

I didn't like the 6025's at all so I ran 6018's up until the 6043 release. I would check out Rev 2 of the 6043's. Make sure AGP texture acceleration is enabled after installing the drivers, for some unknown reason Windows XP will sometimes disable it forcing a driver reinstall. My hardrdive light doesn't even flicker.
:D
 
Too funny

MouseAnony said:
These are all ancient reviews therefore using the originally 'buggy' drivers which naturally cut off 25% of the less important info (read my first post)

...

The special drivers cut of about 35% thereby increasing performance by about 2x again. So a total of 4x performance increase over the current drivers.

...

Why would you actually want these drivers? True they increase performance by about 4x but the quality is so crap it isn't worth it. If you don't believe me try the old 'buggy' drivers and compare this with the new 'fixed' drivers.
Click to expand...

But no one has these "special drivers that increase performance by 4x" :rolleyes:

I searched the whole codebase... not one occurance of #define SPECIAL_DRIVER_THAT_INCREASES_PERFORMANCE_BY_4X

I won't deny the driver has bugs (the games I play work fine, but I don't work on the R200 and am not aware of all the problems), but you're grasping at straws. First, how would the driver determine what information to throw away? Secondly, if you are referring to the "Quake/Quake" issue, that problem has been resolved (I bought my Radeon 8500 _after_ it was fixed) and the performance is nearly the same. (Compare before/after for yourself.) Obviously, the Quake/Quack problem was a bug in the driver. The bug is now fixed and Quake still runs fast. I see no cheat. QED
 
Re: Too funny

OpenGL guy said:
But no one has these "special drivers that increase performance by 4x" :rolleyes:

I searched the whole codebase... not one occurance of #define SPECIAL_DRIVER_THAT_INCREASES_PERFORMANCE_BY_4X

I won't deny the driver has bugs (the games I play work fine, but I don't work on the R200 and am not aware of all the problems), but you're grasping at straws. First, how would the driver determine what information to throw away? Secondly, if you are referring to the "Quake/Quake" issue, that problem has been resolved (I bought my Radeon 8500 _after_ it was fixed) and the performance is nearly the same. (Compare before/after for yourself.) Obviously, the Quake/Quack problem was a bug in the driver. The bug is now fixed and Quake still runs fast. I see no cheat. QED
Click to expand...

Be prepared for this kind of drivel, on every forum or message board there is always someone that thinks ATI stinks and Nvidia is God :rolleyes:

Now could you give a hint of what your working on :p , we have ways to make you talk :eek:
 
Re: Too funny

Doomtrooper said:
Be prepared for this kind of drivel, on every forum or message board there is always someone that thinks ATI stinks and Nvidia is God :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Furtunately, we have ppl that thinks the other way around
 
Just a couple of ideas:

If ATi can manage to cut out 20% of a scene or more, without drastically reducing visual quality and massively boosting performance, is that a bad thing? Heck, that would give you some free (2x quality, perhaps) FSAA, or max anisotropy, or better textures. Hardly cheating if the output looks good.

As far as the conspiracy goes, I think others have covered it well enough. The Radeon8500 is a great card. It's really cheap for what it offers. If you want to drop $290 for a GF4 4400 or $390 for a GF4 4600, be my guest. You'll get a great card. I bought my 8500 soon after it was released, through Dell, for $210. When it was brand new. Now, it's even cheaper. The drivers are maturing well, performance issues are being ironed out, and all we have to worry about these days are the odd incompatabilities in specific systems (which any card will have) and the quasi-problem Carmack has found with Doom3 -- which hasn't yet been released. Given time that issue may be fixed through drivers as well.

Can't we accept that this benchmark may have been done improperly, the 8500 is a good card and a great value, and move on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cyan
Playtron : new Linux based platform-agnostic open gaming OS
Replies
9
Views
606
eastmen
E
D
RTX Video HDR modded to work in games, RTX Game HDR?
Replies
7
Views
896
DegustatoR
D
iroboto
  • Locked
Are current games less effectively executed than previous generations? *spawn
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
D
Video Game Console Cooling - A Hot Topic (pun kind of intended).
Replies
12
Views
2K
arandomguy
A
Rys
  • Sticky
Hello again
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
10K
homerdog
homerdog
Back
Top