The ATI R600 Rumours & Speculation Centrum

I presume that there's about 2 months lead-time on a WHQL Vista driver (are they still "WHQL" under Vista?), so there should be Vista drivers ready for launch out there, regardless of the clocks of the card or whether R600 is going to achieve a 22/1/07 launch.

Erm, just so long as there's actually a working card on which to test the drivers

Nothing about the reported performance is remotely surprising. Game benchmarking has become hugely dependent upon choice of demo versus FRAPs, area of game tested, laziness of tester (Tech Report has become fairly lazy and Anandtech is downright laughable) and other phase of the moon nonsense.

Jawed

 

Which makes me kind of sad

 

It does look like a complete ripoff of this site here as someone already pointed out.

The only games level505 didn't use from computerbase.de are these games:

Company of Heroes (ATI X1950XTX CF gets its ass whipped by 8800GTX)
Prey (ATI X1950XTX CF beats the 8800GTX by a little)
Quake 4 (ATI X1950XTX CF is even with 8800GTX)
Riddick (ATI X1950XTX CF gets beat a little by 8800GTX)
Serious Sam 2 (ATI X1950XTX CF gets its ass whipped by 8800GTX)
Splinter Cell 3 (ATI X1950XTX CF whips the 8800GTX's ass)
Tomb Raider: Legend (ATI X1950XTX CF gets its ass whipped by 8800GTX)

So by looking at these left out games, one could speculate that the new R600 would either lose or only be even to the 3 games where ATI gets beat badly. The 3 other evenly matched games might show a small win for the R600.

I am surprised that level505 didn't use Splinter Cell 3 included in their "review". The x1950xtx CF at 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF is even with a 8800GTX in SLI. So probably the R600 would crush all in this game.

I am still open to if these benches are real or fake..I'm leaning toward fake. But who knows? Maybe this guy has an early sample and early drivers and just has the specs wrong. Maybe he is somehow connected to the computerbase.de site. Maybe! If so, then all that hiding his new site, etc. was really pretty stupid when anyone can clearly see he lifted the numbers.

Maybe it's a PR stunt by AMD to make Nvidia think the R600 is a few % better but then AMD come out with a monster that kills even a 8800GTX refresh(8900GTX). Maybe that's their evil plan. .*muuwahhh*

Someone give us more different benches to compare. Leak dem sum bishes!

Oh, and Happy New Year everyone.

 

I was! I love it when people decide to do stupid shit like this, it's some of the silliest of silly season stuff.

As confident as I ever was in this "review".

 

are you guys expecting the performance to be better or worse than this guys results?

 

If somebody's thinking the Oblivion 8800GTX results are ridicilous low, look and shiver;

(it took a good search but you can get the 8800GTX on it's knees like the Level505 review pointed out)



Saved game here

So yes, the Level505 benchmarks could be valid.

 

I would think considering that ComputerBase.de did thier benchmarks with an FX60 and Level 505's results were supposed to be done on an overclocked (3.2ghz) Core Quad both the 8800gtx and R600 should be doing a bit better than this.

As an example here is what a few sites made of FEAR 1600x1200 4XAA testing...

Obviously I have no idea what demos where used but there are other examples of this under performance in Level 505's benchmarks.

I'm thinking they don't have an 8800gtx to benchmark let alone an R600..

All IMO of course.

 

Aye brought me poor 8800 gts to it's knees at 1280x960 with 8xQ fsaa/16AF with supersampling TAA turned on.
But.. that is a fucking beatiful looking scene
If someone ever asks either what the best looking game or why Oblivion is the best, just show them that.

Maybe the R600 can render that scene at 30+fps at 1080P with 6X fsaa (or if they go to higher fsaa mode.. 8x or whatever) eh?
That would be a site to behold

 

Heh, um, I play Oblivion just fine at 1920x1200 with 16x CSAA/16x AF, and the foliage all the way on high in the in-game settings.

I think the key is the transparency supersampling that is turned on there. I guess I just don't see much need for it at 1920x1200 res

 

that pic isnt too impressive imo.

 

it makes a HUGE difference dude, i wish i could just enable it for every game. cant wait till we have cards fast enough to just enable full scene ss aa.

 

I always use this screenshot when talking about how good Oblivion looks...



FYI: 1600x1200, No AA, No AF, 14 fps@ GF 7600GT

 

I probably should've been clearer about this in my earlier post, but the ComputerBase.de numbers I quoted were reached using a C2E X6800 (2.93 GHz).

The FX-60, which was (is?) part of their GPU review reference system, was only used for the CPU scaling numbers on the latter pages (18+) of the review.

And as for the comparatively lower scores that ComputerBase.de has reached, they might be explained by them using TSAA in all the tests. (as disclosed on page 4)

.
A Happy 2007 to everyone, and may it bring us even more gadgets to talk about endlessly!

 

Pfft.. you should know better than to say that (TAA)
Hell, why even bother with 16AA

Um what?
Seeing it rendered in real time is much more impressive than seeing it staticly, as with Oblivion.
Although I can't think of any game that looks really impressive in screen shots.

 

That's a 640/480 screenshot.. dimwit !

If you wanna post a 1600/1200 screenshot to show of non-AA do it at it's original screensize .. bah.

 

There is the new EATM feature that makes SSAA second fiddle in some respect.

 

EATM

 

Check out this thread
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34225

 

The "dimwit" isn't appreciated, especially if you don't have an existing relationship with erick (that allows for playful banter).

And the screenshot is obviously independent of his FYI. The screenshot is a (large) thumbnail that gives you a pretty good idea of what he considers a beautiful rendered scene, and the FYI is in reference to the 16x12 #s being discussed.

 

ya I just didnt know the acronym.