Tweaktown: 9800 XT vs. 5950 Ultra

[Tim]

Well......3DM03 is useless..... to compare DX9 compatable cards from ATI and nVidia, FM even says so.

No, they don't. They say the PS2.0 test is useless for comparing ATI and nVidia. The game tests are just fine and dandy.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Well......3DM03 is useless..... to compare DX9 compatable cards from ATI and nVidia, FM even says so.

No, they don't. They say the PS2.0 test is useless for comparing ATI and nVidia. The game tests are just fine and dandy.

With approved drivers, which these were not.

Anyone wanna take guesses as to whether or not the Forceware 2.0 set gets approval?

Also, did anyone notice the new "driver status" tag in the 3dm2k3 comparisons on the ORB? "whql-fm certified" or some such. It's a step in the right direction.

A baby step, and one that I just accidently happened across, but a step none-the-less.

 

[martrox]

Well......3DM03 is useless..... to compare DX9 compatable cards from ATI and nVidia, FM even says so.

No, they don't. They say the PS2.0 test is useless for comparing ATI and nVidia. The game tests are just fine and dandy.

See DW's comments above....... The point is that, with the way nVidia approches benchmarks these day..... just about anything they touch is useless to compare with.....

Why argue the point? FM has kind of dug their own grave here, by not standing up for their own benchmark.

 

[Tim]

With approved drivers, which these were not.

Yes, off cause the need for approved drivers is a given. I responded to the general statement that 3Dmark03 was useless; it was not my intention to say that specific benchmarks in this review was useful.

 

[Randell]

It is interesting to see how sites have gone back to the 'nVidia cards will have the upper hand in future games' routine.

Are these people just forgetful, or has nVidia being having a few words in peoples ears?

I couldn't beleive it, I honestly double checked the date as I thought I was reading a November 2002 review :?