Radeon X800PRO will beat NV40 Ultra

[Maintank]

The X800 will freaking own Far Cry for a while, there's some serious performance problems with FC & nVidia hardware right now on high or better detail settings and until that is resolved it will be kind of like the TR:AOD benchmark battle....with ATi still the top dog by a good margin.


Believe it when I see it.

 

[Hanners]

imho some people are pissed from all these speculations .... and instead of listening, started creating them

You know what they say - If you can't beat them, join them.

 

[jimmyjames123]

Keep thinking that if it makes you feel better

Well, all we can do is make assumptions at this point, in the face of vague information. Looks like you are back at it spreading FUD, huh?

The NV40 was hitting about 15k in 3dmark03 at the presentation in Cali. 3dmark03 scores obviously depends to a certain degree on system specs and system settings.

 

[ClyssaN]

15000 3dmark2003 at default settings for the X800 Pro ?! hmm to good to be true i think ... right dig ?

 

[Tim Murray]

Well, if the demoed NV40 were running at 475Mhz and not 400, I see how it could hit 15k pretty easily.

 

[jimmyjames123]

Yeah, the NV40 3dmark03 scores seem to jump significantly with any increase in core clock frequency.

If (and that is a big IF) NVDA can bump up core clock frequencies to near the level of the ATI competitors, then I think that this generation will be very close in overall performance. If not...then who knows

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yep.. and also the fact that the X800 should be 24bit against 6800Ultra's 32bit also will help the X800 preform alot better. Remember that 3DMark2003 is essentially still a DX9.0b benchmark which in the end supports 24bit which everyone knows ATI's 9800XT was alot better than NVidia's GF5950(without cheats of course).

So I can see the card doing 15k in 3DMark2003.

US

 

[991060]

X800=15k 3dm2k3 default.

Any other questions?

Yes, how about telling sth about the core/memory clock?

 

[Doomtrooper]

Yep.. and also the fact that should be 24bit against 6800Ultra's 32bit also will help the X800 preform alot better. Remember that 3DMark2003 is essentially still a DX9.0b benchmark which in the end supports 24bit which everyone knows ATI's 9800XT was alot better than NVidia's GF5950(without cheats of course).

So I can see the card doing 15k in 3DMark2003.

US

FP32 performance with long shaders should be better for proper SM 3.0 support.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I agree but I think we'll most probably see a 3DMark2004 than see futuremark patch 3DMark2003 with SM3.0. We all know Nvidia and it's hate for 3DMark2003 anyways.. right??

US

 

[indio]

I think ATI coming out with the 800XT so soon after the X800 Pro indicates to me that we should not expect the Pro to beat the 6800 Ultra.

I have to disagree , the best competition is no competition, if the 12 pipe card is semi-equal performance. for $100-$200 less the the Ultra. The The 16 pipe card will be all alone at the top. Sounds like a good strategy to eliminate your competitor.

The take that Millions of dollars they've been stockpiling for months and buy the competition.

 

[Sazar]

the 3dmark03 numbers likely would mean something if they were still considered a reliable source of information and a reliable benchmark...

as is the marchitecture of the r420 seems to undergo tweaks everytime someone or other releases a new "exclusive" (hint hint teh Inq) and so extrapolating the performance of the same seems to be a little harder...

going off the base marchitecture put forth by many people and agreed upon (apparently) by the people who would most likely be in the know (db and co) it does seem this baby's gonna be fast 8)

personally I can't wait to get my mittens on an AIW XT revision...

 

[ClyssaN]

the 3dmark03 numbers likely would mean something if they were still considered a reliable source of information and a reliable benchmark...

yep... nvidia did a good job at that...

 

[digitalwanderer]

Yes, how about telling sth about the core/memory clock?

Ok, I told Sth about it. If you wanna know you'll have to ask him as I ain't gonna get myself in trouble and post that on the boards!

 

[tazdevl]

X800=15k 3dm2k3 default.

Any other questions?

Yes, how will it perform in Half Life 2 and Doom3 compared to the 6800 ?

Better in "apples-to-apples" at both, it can lose to the nV40 in D3 under the right circumstances running the custom nVidia path and in HL2 it will be undisputed king. 8)

The question is whether or not it will be the undisputed king of HL2 in 2004 or 2005.

http://www.vgpro.com/news/4590

In an interview with gaming magazine Polygon, Gabe Newell of Valve indicated that Half Life 2 might not make its 2004 release date.

Newell had the following to say:

"We've already spent millions into this project, and we're willing to spend as much as we need to make this the best first person experience ever. If that means delaying the game to 2005, we'll do it without any hesitation. If it means sinking another $20 million into the project, we can do it. Rest assured, if we delay the game, it'll be only to blow your socks off even more when it finally releases."

 

[Malfunction]

and Far Cry

The X800 will freaking own Far Cry for a while, there's some serious performance problems with FC & nVidia hardware right now on high or better detail settings and until that is resolved it will be kind of like the TR:AOD benchmark battle....with ATi still the top dog by a good margin.

well :drool:

but wasn't Far Cry TWIMTBP game? I started it just once yesterday and I am not sure if that was the case...

I thought Crytek even did a GF3 demo, what could have gone so wrong there?

I just remember that Crytek guy mentioning PS 2.0 and 3.0 can do this - making a dent in Nvidia 3.0 shader is soo much better and it's available now on NV40 only statements, during the launch...

I kinda laugh at what people understand Cevat Yerli (President and CEO of Crytek) says about SM 2.0 and 3.0.

What is more comparable? SM 1.0 and 2.0 or SM 2.0 and 3.0? Obviously SM 2.0 and SM 3.0 will look similar, though SM 3.0 will look better and operate faster according to various websites.

It makes no dent in the confidence that nVidia or developers have in SM 3.0, that's why you see so many games listed having the features and the mention of games to come (Which they could not comment on).

When SM 2.0 came out, does anyone remember how many games even supported even some of it. The number of games (IIRC) was a helluva lot less than the games on the launch video.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=5315

And if you even have watched the video, the whole reasoning behind making the technological mod was because nVidia (Not ATi) produced a card that supports SM 3.0. If you would like to read more into it like you have with SM 2.0 and 3.0, one could suggest that Cevat statement implies that ATi will infact not come out with a SM 3.0 part.

To be more specific, he says," After shipping Far Cry, they said "What's next for Crytek?" Then they realized that there is a new graphics card coming from nVidia. While the Crytek engine is very easy to modify, they said, "Why don't we do a mod for SM 3.0?"

If you watch the video, their was no mention the mod was intended for IHV's that are offering SM 3.0. Only one IHV was mentioned soley, that was nVidia and the 6800.

Even Tim Sweeney was excited about the ability of SM 3.0. If there are any DX dev's I would feel confident in, with regards to their statements and enthusiasm on stage, it would have to be those two due to the hottest games out now. 8)

I am curious if UT2K4 will recieve the same treament as well? SM 3.0 mod for UT2K4, anyone?

Though that would be reading to much into it...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

the 3dmark03 numbers likely would mean something if they were still considered a reliable source of information and a reliable benchmark...

I agree with you about the reliable source. I disagree with you if you say 3DMark2003 isn't a reliable benchmark. We all know that the only reason why Nvidia shunned 3DMark2003 is because the NV3x stank at it. It's most probably the only reliable benchmark to bench GPU/VPU's only. Most other benchmarks i've seen rely on CPU performance too(I could be wrong here).

Now that the 6800Ultra is posting awesome results(and yes it is awesome) with the 3DMark2003(12k in 1072x768 and 14k in 800x600) it's now deemed by Nvidia to be ok? What happens now again if the X800pro is indeed => than the NV40. Is Nvidia gonna call it a crap benchmark again?

Like I said I believe the 24bit will help the R42x with this benchmark.. and we'll have to wait (firstly) for MS to release DX9.0c and (secondly) forFuturemark to release a new benchmark e.g. 3DMark2004.

US

 

[Malfunction]

the 3dmark03 numbers likely would mean something if they were still considered a reliable source of information and a reliable benchmark...

I agree with you about the reliable source. I disagree with you if you say 3DMark2003 isn't a reliable benchmark. We all know that the only reason why Nvidia shunned 3DMark2003 is because the NV3x stank at it. It's most probably the only reliable benchmark to bench GPU/VPU's only. Most other benchmarks i've seen rely on CPU performance too(I could be wrong here).

Now that the 6800Ultra is posting awesome results(and yes it is awesome) with the 3DMark2003(12k in 1072x768 and 14k in 800x600) it's now deemed by Nvidia to be ok? What happens now again if the X800pro is indeed => than the NV40. Is Nvidia gonna call it a crap benchmark again?

Like I said I believe the 24bit will help the R42x with this benchmark.. and we'll have to wait (firstly) for MS to release DX9.0c and (secondly) forFuturemark to release a new benchmark e.g. 3DMark2004.

US

Gotta agree with you both about the use of the phrase, "reliable source" and lack of attachment with the name Futuremark. Don't see that changing anytime soon either...

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I think ATI coming out with the 800XT so soon after the X800 Pro indicates to me that we should not expect the Pro to beat the 6800 Ultra.

By the same logic, we know that we should not expect the 6800NU to beat the X800 Pro, or else Nvidia would not be bringing out out the 6800U?

Both companies will launch with their top range card (X800XT, 6800U), cut down version of the top card (X800 Pro, 6800NU), and their value version (X800SE, 6800XT). It's just some of the naming schemes have changed.

 

[anaqer]

I am curious if UT2K4 will recieve the same treament as well? SM 3.0 mod for UT2K4, anyone?

That would be an extremely sneaky thing to do... omit PS2.0 because current NV boards have trouble with it, but support PS3.0 because ATi can't do that... I'd find that rather disgusting if I actually gave a rat's ass about UT2004.