you all won't believe this guy over at cgtalk.com....
the many posts of Cg-FX:
and it goes on... and on.... and on... and on.... and on... and on...
and the really sick thing? the people over there actually buy it!!!!
the many posts of Cg-FX:
"Those who are following the progress in the computer games industry"
OMG, what a bunch of religeous crap. Ignore that article in its entirety. The fact that they even use the term VPU shows where their bias is.
The NV3x GPU is vastly more advanced than the R3x0 GPU family. That does not always translate to pure FPS and there are some key issues wth the NV3x GPU family that worked out both good and bad for NV but to suggest that ATI is somehow leading the industry shows a complete lack of understanding on what is going on in GPU hardware and with game developers.
A GeForce FX 5700 Ultra is faster than a Radeon 9600 XT in the midrange, across the board.
Can you back that up a bit please with some data and (respectable) references? Thanks.Originally posted by 3Dfx_Sage
did you know that they dont even do real trilinear filtering anymore!?
The last I read from nVidia was that with their 5x.00 drivers that was no longer an issue.
Like when they were blowing up everyone's monitors?Originally posted by 3Dfx_Sage
The Radeon's have excellent support as far as gmaing goes
nVidia has proven that their realtime HLSL/Cg shader compiler in release 50 (Forceware) works for optimising dx9-class shaders for the more advanced nv3x architecture.
Even Futuremark's benchmark proves that so they had to intentionally disable it at the urging of their paying customer (ATI).
This benefits NV30/NV30GL as much as it benefits NV35 (FX 5950) thus making GeForce FX 5950 the fastest DX9-class graphics board on the market and Quadro FX anything but worthless for gaming, especially DX9 gaming.
...and you have bought ATI's. Have you read any of the information out of Futuremark? They said the final image out of the release 50 drivers was perfect and indentical to competitors and the reference but that they felt it was unfair optimization.
I am looking forward to more unfair optimizations that produce identical images and image quality with all my games.
I think nvidia's developer event said it all for me. When asked why Halo was faster on ATI than nVidia the lead developer barked out "...because they are not drawing everything!" Futher reading and reviews showed that ATI wasn't drawing the detail textures at all and there were other image quality shortcuts.
Every up to date review shows 52.16 with GeForce FX 5950 beats the 9800 XT on a majority of games.
However, and more importantly, in the $200 area where most people buy graphics cards the GeForce FX 5700 totally beats the 9600 XT in every game and benchmark I have seen.
The fact that we are arguing these tiny details shows that Quadro FX and GeForce FX is, without question, a solid DX9 gaming platform.
I don't know, hmmm, paying Gabe Newell $6M to become their marketing mouth? Is that right? What did I win?!?!
and it goes on... and on.... and on... and on.... and on... and on...
and the really sick thing? the people over there actually buy it!!!!