Printable View
http://www.tweaktown.com/document.ph...rticle&dId=517
Don't blame on Valve for 'favouring' ATI
It is clear that nVidiots are charging WAAAAAAY too much money for their underperforming gadgets.
When R9800p 128mb beats FX5900U 256mb...
you know something's wrong!
I am bored, and because of that i will state this: the % are calculated wrong in that benchmark, for example in the high detail at 1280*1024 they say that the FX is 22.7% slower than the R9800pro, numbers:
Radeon= 27.49fps
GF=22.4fps
To calculate the % just do a simple rule of 3(don´t know if it has a different translation for english :P)
Say that radeon fps= 100%, then 22.4fps=?;
(22.4fps * 100%)/(27.49fps)=?
?=81.48%;
100%-81.48%=18.52%
18.52% |= 22.7% ; the GF is still slower, but not by the % they said :p
Peace.
[Edit]Ohh, BTW: the ammount of memory doesn´t translate into more performance unless extreme AA is being used (maybe 4X at 1600*1200, but i would guess that it needs more like 6X+ AA in order to need more than 128MB), in the comparison they used only 2x AA[/Edit]
Quote:
Originally posted by Iceball_AARF
I am bored, and because of that i will state this: the % are calculated wrong in that benchmark, for example in the high detail at 1280*1024 they say that the FX is 22.7% slower than the R9800pro, numbers:
Radeon= 27.49fps
GF=22.4fps
To calculate the % just do a simple rule of 3(don´t know if it has a different translation for english :P)
Say that radeon fps= 100%, then 22.4fps=?;
(22.4fps * 100%)/(27.49fps)=?
?=81.48%;
100%-81.48%=18.52%
18.52% |= 22.7% ; the GF is still slower, but not by the % they said :p
Peace.
you are absolutely correct. The radeon in this case is 18.52% faster than the GF. You have a funny way of getting this number... not funny but a little more confusing way to do it.
Anyhow... 22.7% is overstating it and i don't know how they got that number.... it is supposed to be 18.52%.
Hehe, thanks for the funny thing :)
Well, they got 22.7% by doing it the wrong way, i mean, they setted up 22.4 as 100% and then they saw how does 27.49 related to it
(27.49/22.4)*100=122.72%
122.72%-100%= 22.72%
It is all in the way they are comparing the items, when you are comparing two items you must understand that the same % cannot be used to say faster than AND slower than....
Also whatever comes after the *than* word is what must be set as 100%, if not the comparison is incorrect.
Peace.
I would like to see how my computer performs in Aquamark. This should be a good bench.
No... ok tell me this:
I have a $100 CPU and a $150 CPU. Do you say one is 50% more epxensive or do you say one is 33% more expensive?
I think it's you who's got it backwards.
nvm
Boys, the ATI is 22.7% faster than the GF. BUT, the GF is 18.5% slower than the ATI. It's all in the reference.
Basically Iceball said it.......
Quote:
Originally posted by Chuck232
No... ok tell me this:
I have a $100 CPU and a $150 CPU. Do you say one is 50% more epxensive or do you say one is 33% more expensive?
I think it's you who's got it backwards.
Ok Chuck232, i said it about as simple as i could:
If you compare in one direction you say one, if you go the other direction you have to say the other thing!, for your cpus:
150$ IS 50% more expensive than 100$
BUT!!!!!
100$ IS 33% CHEAPER than 150$!!!!!!!....
That should clear it for whoever needed it.
Peace.
That post is 100% more correct than Chuck's.... :DQuote:
Originally posted by Iceball_AARF
Ok Chuck232, i said it about as simple as i could:
If you compare in one direction you say one, if you go the other direction you have to say the other thing!, for your cpus:
150$ IS 50% more expensive than 100$
BUT!!!!!
100$ IS 33% CHEAPER than 150$!!!!!!!....
That should clear it for whoever needed it.
Peace.
Hows about the nVidia cards are 100% more suckier than the ATi cards, that make sense??
That is not 100% true, but 110%. ;) (Just joking arond here!!!).Quote:
Originally posted by Dondero
Hows about the nVidia cards are 100% more suckier than the ATi cards, that make sense??
Each company has their strong point and weakness. Right now ATI is the king, maybe few month later Nvidia will catch up and pass ATI.
The Graphic War will never over, until one of them bankrupts; or even better then merged together. Well, I never hope they will do that, because then the price of the graphic card will be sky high.
Have a nice day!!!!
Computer Maniac ;)
I think Chuck was correct as well if you allow him meaning 33% LESSQuote:
Originally posted by Mojo
That post is 100% more correct than Chuck's.... :D
expensive - c'mon, let's look at things here and cut some slack....
look at this
This thread is 150% more confusing compared to the other threads.;)
I'm not gonna think too much about this benchmark simply because the reviewer seemed very ATi oriented. He kept saying how the 5900 was running 256MB and that ATi could've done even better if it had that much memory (which I think is BS).
The memory difference is meaningless, as the RAM on the video card is simply used as a texture buffer. The only time the card would need more than 128 MB is if it was running 1600x1200 at 4xAA or higher with very high res textures.
The IQ difference is also debatable, as this review and the other review mentioned in this thread show reverse situations - In one, ATI is better than NVidia, in the other Nvidia is better than ATI, both using the same benchmark and the same drivers, just different frames.
That said, I'm still glad I have a 9700.
Hmmm.... ::looks at above post::Quote:
Originally posted by patlo
you are absolutely correct. The radeon in this case is 18.52% faster than the GF. You have a funny way of getting this number... not funny but a little more confusing way to do it.
Anyhow... 22.7% is overstating it and i don't know how they got that number.... it is supposed to be 18.52%.
See this is what my post was directed at. The radeon is "22.7%" faster, not 18.52%...
I'm 50% less confused now, but only 33% more informed. :confused:
Although it's equivalent, I think it's usually taught in algebra like this:Quote:
Originally posted by Iceball_AARF
Say that radeon fps= 100%, then 22.4fps=?;
(22.4fps * 100%)/(27.49fps)=?
?=81.48%;
100%-81.48%=18.52%
18.52% |= 22.7% ; the GF is still slower, but not by the % they said :p
(22.4fps/27.49fps)*100%=81.48%
the formula is:
(part/whole)*100%=??
ie. 33 is what percentage of 66?
(33/66)*100%=50%
Actually, i just used the way it was teached to me waaaay back around 7th grade :), it seemed easy enough to grasp it :) (and yes i too am amazed that i can remember things like that :p)
Peace.
ya people always do funky things with their braces (){}[]. use a ti89 or other symbolic utility and you start paying attention to braces, one non matching pair and you get an error, with no text editor to remind you to close your parantheses. :eek: