NVIDIA retakes the crown...

by **RCinator** » Mon May 12, 2003 9:40 pm

RCinator = fence sitter until doomiii hits the shelves.

F#uck it - I'll buy both!

by **Freedom** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:25 pm

I'll wait until the 5900 is on the shelf and we have a full retail box to retail box test. At that point - I'll buy the faster one.

by **[TBAR]BugerBomb** » Tue May 13, 2003 10:13 am

I really dont care about frames per second anymore. I dont know of any monitor that has refresh rates of 200Hz, meaning it refreshes itself 200 times per second. Right now mine refreshes itself at 85Hz, or 85 times persecond. Now how is a game gonna render a scene faster than the monitor can deliver it? I look at image quality and performance in relation to image quality. If you compare those, then ATI stomps the GeForce 5900 as ATI does a much better job with AA than Nvidia does. As far as AF goes they are both the same with no difference shown between the cards. I mean 95 FPS in UT2K3 with 8xaa/8xaf for ATI and 35FPS at 6xaa/16xaf for Nvidia. Based on those numbers which one would you want?

I myself will buy neither one as I refuse to pay $500 for about $50 worth of material. These cards are gonna cost more than a brand new computer and I think that is rediculous. My GF3Ti200 plays all games currently available just fine so I think i'll just stick with it.

by **Rule of Wrist** » Tue May 13, 2003 11:23 am

I believe I'll wait for another generation or three to upgrade... or maybe even until some games come out that take advantage of all this fancy new wizardry... right now the only game on the HORIZON that you would need one of these supercards for (maybe) is DOOM 3... never liked doom that much anyway...

by **RCinator** » Tue May 13, 2003 11:24 am

Originally posted by [TBAR]BugerBomb
I really dont care about frames per second anymore. I dont know of any monitor that has refresh rates of 200Hz, meaning it refreshes itself 200 times per second. Right now mine refreshes itself at 85Hz, or 85 times persecond.

Yes, but DoomIII, and a host of other upcoming titles, still run at less than 60 FPS, even with these new "wonder cards".

by **Freedom** » Tue May 13, 2003 11:40 am

Originally posted by [TBAR]BugerBomb
I look at image quality and performance in relation to image quality. If you compare those, then ATI stomps the GeForce 5900 as ATI does a much better job with AA than Nvidia does. As far as AF goes they are both the same with no difference shown between the cards. I mean 95 FPS in UT2K3 with 8xaa/8xaf for ATI and 35FPS at 6xaa/16xaf for Nvidia. Based on those numbers which one would you want?

I didn't see that comparison - but since it was apples and oranges, it doesn't do me any good. But looking at just a couple of comparison off TomsHardware (a known ATI advocate), I see quite different results....

But I will agree with one thing you stated. I too do not believe a gaming video card is worth $400 to $500.

by **[TBAR]BugerBomb** » Tue May 13, 2003 12:15 pm

My comments were based on the review posted at http://www.hardocp.com Toms Hardware is way too biased towards many companies to do any kind of a fair quality review. I will read Anands website to see what his results were. It is also important to mention the fact that the 3.2 Catalyst drivers only enable 128megs of the 9800Pros' 256 megs of memory. The 3.4 drivers utilize the full 256 but rather poorly and ATI just needs to optimize their drivers to the extent that Nvidia has and you will see that they are dead even I bet. We will just have to wait and see.

by **Holden M'Groin** » Tue May 13, 2003 1:24 pm

I'm definately gonna get a 5900 Ultra, but not when it first comes out. I'll most likely get it when a game is actually recommended of it. When Doom3 is out, I'll get it and by then it'll probably be $50-$100 cheaper. Plus, who knows... ATI's nextgen card maybe a 5900 Ultra killer.

by **MMmmGood** » Tue May 13, 2003 2:09 pm

Originally posted by [U.S.C] Amaryl
This is the same situation when AMD and Intel worked very hard 2 years ago to see who was the guy that developed the first 1Ghz processor..., now the cards that are most expensive than the CPU themselves

Competition is good for the consumer though. Just look at the drastic and frequent price drops Intel has done to compete with AMD.

by **[U.S.C] Amaryl** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:14 pm

Originally posted by MMmmGood
Competition is good for the consumer though. Just look at the drastic and frequent price drops Intel has done to compete with AMD.

Yes, sure, I just hope this also happens with Nvidia and ATI, but this marketing war is making games to require more CPU and GPU power with a minimun increase of quality and innovation and makes each CPU I buy to be obsolete within 2 year or less instead 1 year for playing games.

Just see the Delta force saga and games developed beyond quake 3 using the same engine.

by **Freedom** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:33 pm

Originally posted by [U.S.C] Amaryl

Just see the Delta force saga and games developed beyond quake 3 using the same engine.

Perhaps the best example of a game engine living on is the recent retail release of Day of Defeat. That engine is five years old.

by **RCinator** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:36 pm

Originally posted by [U.S.C] Amaryl
Yes, sure, I just hope this also happens with Nvidia and ATI, but this marketing war is making games to require more CPU and GPU power with a minimun increase of quality and innovation and makes each CPU I buy to be obsolete within 2 year or less instead 1 year for playing games.

You've got it wrong - the marketing war is not making games require more CPU and GPU . . . the games are requiring more CPU and GPU because they're getting more and more complex. There have actually been a huge number of innovations and quality improvements in both arenas over the past few years as well, so to say there is just a minimal increase in quality and innovation is incorrect.

To name a few of the more recent innovations:
HyperThreading
800MHz FSB
Actually practical AA and Aniso filtering
Real-time shadowing and lighting
Programmable Pixel and Vertex Shaders

Just try running BF or your favorite graphic and processor intensive game on last year's top of the line card and then running the same game on this year's - the difference is phenominal! Just wait until games have deformable landscapes and real-time multi-point lighting . . .

by **Rule of Wrist** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:42 pm

Splinter Cell is a good example... with the effects turned up, the shadow and lighting effects in that game are simply awe-inspiring... better than any game on PS2 or PC I've seen, a year or two ago, such effects would have been impossible...

Although, I bet a lot of the guys here don't go too far from the FPS and RPG areas (from the sound of things I've read...)

by **Holden M'Groin** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:42 pm

Originally posted by RCinator
Just wait until games have deformable landscapes and real-time multi-point lighting . . .

That's why I'm looking forward to, Far Cry.

by **RCinator** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:49 pm

Originally posted by Holden M'Groin
That's why I'm looking forward to, Far Cry.

Yeah - that game looks freaking incredible! Did you see the real-time map editor that they built for the game . . . it's almost unbelievable!

NVIDIA retakes the crown...

Who is online