Tom's VGA Charts Part 3

[micron]

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html

 

[martrox]

Was just ok till the F-bucks thing....... Which, when you stand back and look at it, makes you wonder that no one in authority there said "Geez...what a stupid idea........"

 

[Hanners]

Was just ok till the F-bucks thing....... Which, when you stand back and look at it, makes you wonder that no one in authority there said "Geez...what a stupid idea........"

Might have been a good idea if it was better implemented, but any chart that shows the GeForce4 series as the best value for money with 4xAA and 8xAF does boggle the mind somewhat.

 

[AlphaWolf]

ya dunno wth they were thinking with fbucks.

 

[Martin Eddy]

I think the general idea of it is good but just got f***ed up in the
implementation.

They're hearts in the right place, trying to give people an idea of bang for buck. It just ends up being more confusing than anything else.

 

[THe_KELRaTH]

I think they've totally lost it - time for the white jacket n padded cell brigade to step in.

The cheapest TI4600 x8 I've seen in UK is £115.00 whereas the cheapest 9800Pro is £225.00, even if you just take fps as the value:
UT2k3 Ti4600 - 20.1 / R9800Pro - 75.8
Nascar Ti4600 - 16.9 / R9800Pro - 57.8
COD Ti4600 - 33.6 / R9800Pro - 65

Only in COD does the Ti4600 have a value near half of the 9800Pro, the rest would give it a value closer to £60.00
And as it's FUN bucks - yeah I can really see ppl enjoying playing games at 16 - 20 fps.

 

[Mark]

isn't DX8.1 = PS1.4 != GF4?

 

[jimbob0i0]

isn't DX8.1 = PS1.4 != GF4?

correct GF4 only supports up to DX8 - PS1.4 wasn't implemented till the GFFX series

 

[X2]

isn't DX8.1 = PS1.4 != GF4?

No, DirectX 8.1 introduced PS1.2, 1.3 (which the GF4 supports) and 1.4.

 

[John Reynolds]

Heh, first thing I noticed was the first page listing all the high-end FX boards as 8x1 architectures.

 

[digitalwanderer]

isn't DX8.1 = PS1.4 != GF4?

No, DirectX 8.1 introduced PS1.2, 1.3 (which the GF4 supports) and 1.4.

Just for clarification, the GF4 does NOT support 1.4? (I just sent out $50us for a GF4 ti4400 so I'm trying to remember the card now. )

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Just for clarification, the GF4 does NOT support 1.4? (I just sent out $50us for a GF4 ti4400 so I'm trying to remember the card now. )

Correct. The GF4 does not support PS 1.4.

 

[Mark]

isn't DX8.1 = PS1.4 != GF4?

No, DirectX 8.1 introduced PS1.2, 1.3 (which the GF4 supports) and 1.4.

The way I understood it was that DX8.0 was up to PS1.3, and DX8.1 came along which added PS1.4. What you're saying is that DX8.0 was PS1.1, and DX8.1 added PS1.2, 1.3, and 1.4? Can anyone clarify this for me?

 

[martrox]

Just for clarification, the GF4 does NOT support 1.4? (I just sent out $50us for a GF4 ti4400 so I'm trying to remember the card now. )

Jeez, DW, just what ya want for that $50.00 bucks?

 

[digitalwanderer]

Just for clarification, the GF4 does NOT support 1.4? (I just sent out $50us for a GF4 ti4400 so I'm trying to remember the card now. )

Jeez, DW, just what ya want for that $50.00 bucks?

Did I mention it comes with a TT copper cooler kit installed too and is supposed to OC well? (Hey, it's for my 6 year old to replace his aging GF2 MX400. He's into GTA3 & GTA VC and the card is really showing it's age with those titles.)

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

wow taking a look at the charts, there are only 2 instances where ATi does not have the lead and there are several instances where even a lowly 9500Pro beats out Nvidia's $500 card

nascar with in cockpit replay
nascar with 8x ansio

uhh what are the pro nvidia guys gonna say now?

there is not a single reason that a $500 card should loose to a 1 year old $200 card expecially when said competitor states that it is better than everything else....

 

[jvd]

Fbucks = toms got a hard on for nvidia .

My god in some of those tests the 5200 has better fbucks than the 9600pro. I just picked up a 9600pro for 100$ . That is insane.

 

[Hellbinder]

That F-bucks thing is ridiculous...

You HAVE to consider what you are getting for your money and whether its even playable or worth it. Something this "F-Bucks" thing has thrown completely out the window.

It seems to put a low importance on Double or even Triple the FPS you are getting with Quality settings over cheaper cards. In my mind a card that is getting 30 FPS faster than even a FX5950 in some games with AA+AF enabled and 4x the FPS of a Ti 4200 is a HELL of a lot more valuable.

Yet they are claiming that 100$ for a card that is delivering BELOW playable Frame rates with AA+AF is a "better value" for the money than cards with two times the FPS with AA+AF and only slightly more expensive..

Its just Lame lame lame...

 

[Doomtrooper]

The way I understood it was that DX8.0 was up to PS1.3, and DX8.1 came along which added PS1.4. What you're saying is that DX8.0 was PS1.1, and DX8.1 added PS1.2, 1.3, and 1.4? Can anyone clarify this for me?

Yep that is correct..except DX8 was only PS 1.1, DX8.1 exposed PS 1.2, 1.3,1.4.

GF3-PS1.1
GF4-PS1.3
ATI8500->9200-PS1.4

 

[cthellis42]

Anyone else notice that, sans explanation, everything 5800-and-above is listed as 8x1 pipe cards? I only hard to read the first bit of text before my head started hurting...

Also, what in the heck is the point in posting benches for some games (Warcraft III, C&C and Nascar being the worst of them) and showing us a giant "wall of equivalents" where you really see NO useful comparisons between huge swaths of cards? If they wanted to avoid quality comparisons that's fine, but on the older games could we at LEAST see resolution hops until we can actually spot card differences? Just say something like "the results for 1024x768 were usually too small to not, so we use YYYYxZZZZ for this test."