video cards like OS?

Printable View

12-25-2003, 08:43 PM
slavik

video cards like OS?

To me, for the past half a year, video cards are starting to become more Operating Systems (Windows vs. Linux).

let's take some anticapated games that will come out (hopefully?) next year.

Half-Life 2: from what it appears, mid-range radeon cards will easily beat nvidia's top performer, because of the way both video cards are designed and how the game is written.

Doom 3: same picture as HL2 but in reverse.

will we see a day that to be able to play any game you will need two video cards and possible two separate computer systems? one with an ati graphic card, and another with an nvidia graphic card? The whole point is that Radeon cards are currently better in rendering Dx9 based games, but nvidia is better in opengl. The consumer (us) needs a card that will do both equaly well and not to have a bias towards one or the other so that this will not become DX vs. OpenGL. The battle of standards is not what we need right now. (DX has more funding, while OGL is more open-source and more "portable")

Neither will win. (Linux was originally developed to be a home OS, not a server OS).

I am pointing fingers at nvidia for not designing their video cards to the exact specifications set by the industry (24bit precision *cough).

if a game is written to use 24bit precision, ati cards win, nvidia loses, if the same game is written to use 16 or 32 bit precisions, then the picture is reversed.

Right now: ATI IS BETTER THAN NVIDIA! <- That is my argument. Here is the support to my argument: look at the latest article on xbit labs. Look at the results. You will see that when FSAA is turned on, nvidia's cards suffer a bigger performance drop, same happens when the resolution is increased.

EDIT: Don't flame, and if I'm wrong correct me!
12-25-2003, 08:48 PM
OpStar

...

for one thing, read more than one review before formiing and basing your entire conclusion.

Yes, nVidia is RETARDED for not supporting FP24.

But how you base your opinion isn't totally the correct way.

HL2 and DIII are crap games to use for comparison sake, as they aren't out yet, and the cards you mention will not be the same ones available when the games come out (if they ever do).

Its like this, AA/AF at HIGH resolutions, the Radeon is a bit better.

OpenGL games, nV will r0x the s0x of ATi.

DX, it depends on the game. TR:AoD runs like poo on nV, but in Halo, nV cards actually perform well.
12-25-2003, 08:52 PM
slavik

Re: ...

I never stated any conclusions :P

I made an argument and gave support to it ... you are supposed to agree or disagree (you agreed on my main point, with the FP24)

Quote:

Originally posted by OpStar
for one thing, read more than one review before formiing and basing your entire conclusion.

Yes, nVidia is RETARDED for not supporting FP24.

But how you base your opinion isn't totally the correct way.

HL2 and DIII are crap games to use for comparison sake, as they aren't out yet, and the cards you mention will not be the same ones available when the games come out (if they ever do).

Its like this, AA/AF at HIGH resolutions, the Radeon is a bit better.

OpenGL games, nV will r0x the s0x of ATi.

DX, it depends on the game. TR:AoD runs like poo on nV, but in Halo, nV cards actually perform well.
12-25-2003, 09:00 PM
OpStar

...

I would not say that right now ATi is better than nVidia.

The 5950U/9800XT is a tossup.

The 5700U/9600XT is a tossup.

It gets blurry in the midrange with the 5900NU/9700 Pro, but it really comes down to budget, preference, and the games that you play.

It is no where near as clear cut as it was when the 9700 Pro was first introduced.
12-25-2003, 09:04 PM
slavik

Re: ...

Quote:

Originally posted by OpStar
It gets blurry in the midrange with the 5900NU/9700 Pro, but it really comes down to budget, preference, and the games that you play.

that's my point: depends on the games you play. it shouldn't happen!
12-25-2003, 09:07 PM
Alientank

Re: video cards like OS?

Quote:

Originally posted by slavik
Doom 3: same picture as HL2 but in reverse.

Negative. ATI is very close to Nvidia in Open_GL games, I don't know where this roxxor the soxxorz off theory comes from. Doom 3 will run very well on both ATI and nvidia hardware. Probably in the same ballpark.

Quote:

Originally posted by OpStar
OpenGL games, nV will r0x the s0x of ATi.

Again no. Are you guys basing this on the comparison done in the ONE benchmark done with Nvidia and ATI card when the 5900 ultra was released? Don't you remember? ATI didn't have drivers available that were really coded to help with games like Doom 3, Nvidia did. Kind of like the situation with Half life 2. I swear, you freakin kids, you see 1 benchmark and that's it, that's how the game will run on cards period. Game code optimizations and drivers won't help at all according to you it seems. By the time both games are out, drivers will be out for both Nvidia and ATI cards to make the games run smooth.

Benchmarks done that early on before a game is released really chaps my *** because there is so much time for the game to change and drivers to be released.
12-25-2003, 09:11 PM
OpStar

...

actually I'm not using DIII at all for my opengl statement.

You should've realized that by my statement that DIII and HL2 are crap games to reference.

Anyways, every review I've read lately has nV owning ATi in OpenGL.

Actually, one I posted last night had the 5700 Ultra BEATING the 9800XT (and all other cards tested) in an OpenGL game, and I assure you, it wasn't DIII.

nV IS better at OpenGL. Just as ATi is better at AA.
12-25-2003, 09:17 PM
Alientank

Re: ...

Quote:

Originally posted by OpStar
actually I'm not using DIII at all for my opengl statement.

You should've realized that by my statement that DIII and HL2 are crap games to reference.

Anyways, every review I've read lately has nV owning ATi in OpenGL.

Actually, one I posted last night had the 5700 Ultra BEATING the 9800XT (and all other cards tested) in an OpenGL game, and I assure you, it wasn't DIII.

nV IS better at OpenGL. Just as ATi is better at AA.

I'll agree with some of the things you said, but a 5700 ultra beating a 9800XT, there are problems with the benchmark then. A 5700 ultra would get raped by a 9800XT, and an ATI card is better with open_gl with AA and AF then an nvidia card is, and if you have a high end card, who the hell doesn't use AA or AF? :confused: What was the purpose of buying one in the first place then? That is why ATI is generally favoured over nvidia.
12-26-2003, 01:27 AM
slavik

main point: video cards are biased towards DX or OGL

we are not looking at AA/AF yet, since that depends on how efficient the card is at rendering and at different bandwidths (GPU/Mem)

What I think the bias looks like:
ATI:
DX-----0--------------OGL

nVidia:
DX--------------0-----OGL

Another way of putting this is like and AMD Pally vs. 1st P4 with the Integer vs. Floating point if you still remember.

let me rephrase that again:

different video cards are gearing towards one over the other (DX or OGL), thus it is becoming somewhat hard to do a direct comparison between them (one is faster in DX9, the other is faster in OGL).
12-26-2003, 01:35 AM
slavik

Re: Re: video cards like OS?

according to history, if one card is beating another card by 100% or more in a benchmark that is fairly close to the final version, that is the type of the picture that will happen when the final comes out.

for example: if I star writing a benchmark which takes me 1 year. After 8 months, I have a somewhat working demo. and I decide to run it on the top cards. if one of the cards beats the other by a rather GIAGANTIC margin, by the time I'm done writing the benchmark that card will still be faster, even if I optimise the code some more ...

GFFX = propane intake durango
Radeon = Durango with extra cargo room w/o affecting maximum speed.

remember the 3dmark2003 when it came out? half a year later, the radeon cards still score higher.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alientank
Negative. ATI is very close to Nvidia in Open_GL games, I don't know where this roxxor the soxxorz off theory comes from. Doom 3 will run very well on both ATI and nvidia hardware. Probably in the same ballpark.

Again no. Are you guys basing this on the comparison done in the ONE benchmark done with Nvidia and ATI card when the 5900 ultra was released? Don't you remember? ATI didn't have drivers available that were really coded to help with games like Doom 3, Nvidia did. Kind of like the situation with Half life 2. I swear, you freakin kids, you see 1 benchmark and that's it, that's how the game will run on cards period. Game code optimizations and drivers won't help at all according to you it seems. By the time both games are out, drivers will be out for both Nvidia and ATI cards to make the games run smooth.

Benchmarks done that early on before a game is released really chaps my *** because there is so much time for the game to change and drivers to be released.
12-26-2003, 01:36 AM
slavik

Re: Re: ...

it can happen at tomshardware.com (had to point a finger for the past)

Quote:

Originally posted by Alientank
I'll agree with some of the things you said, but a 5700 ultra beating a 9800XT, there are problems with the benchmark then. A 5700 ultra would get raped by a 9800XT, and an ATI card is better with open_gl with AA and AF then an nvidia card is, and if you have a high end card, who the hell doesn't use AA or AF? :confused: What was the purpose of buying one in the first place then? That is why ATI is generally favoured over nvidia.
12-26-2003, 03:06 AM
OpStar

...

its actually this one, not Tom's Hardware:

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...bfg5900/7.html

The results here a bit more strange. The 5700 is actually the fastest card at some points in the benchmark. Remember that the 5700 has a higher clockrate than the 5900. This suggests that the raw pixel fillrate on the 5700 is higher but it slows down with multiple texture passes as we see in both Halo, UT2k3 and Aquamark. ATi and their woes with Jedi Knight are not completely resolved yet as the 9700 Pro has fairly low scores in the Rift Demo. The 9600 XT brings up the rear. (Tests were redone with the 9600 with the CoD drivers but performance did not increase unfortunately)

At 1024x768 (resolution I run on my 19") the 5700 Ultra is faster than all cards (including a 9800XT and 5950 Ultra) w/o AA/AF.
12-26-2003, 10:22 AM
slavik

Re: ...

we are moving away from the topic here ...

we aren't talking about performance here, although AA/AF makes a bigger hit on speed on GFFFX than Radeon cards.

we are talking about the design of the cards "favoring" certain optimisations over other, where one card can benefit from a general optimisation while the other can't, especially the whole thing with precision.

Quote:

Originally posted by OpStar

At 1024x768 (resolution I run on my 19") the 5700 Ultra is faster than all cards (including a 9800XT and 5950 Ultra) w/o AA/AF.
12-26-2003, 02:12 PM
Chow-Yun-Fat

Re: video cards like OS?

Quote:

Originally posted by slavik
To me, for the past half a year, video cards are starting to become more Operating Systems

I wish VCs were more like OSs. Then I could get those for a much, MUCH cheaper price, too...

<_<

>_>

Yeah...
12-26-2003, 08:54 PM
Scolecite

whats really funny is by the time anyone here can play thes Doom 3 and Hl 2 we will have better cards and I will get it and laugh at your pokey 9800XT and 5950.
12-26-2003, 09:09 PM
slavik

why would you laugh?

today's best video cards will be able to play games of 2006-2007 at descent speed/quality ...

Quote:

Originally posted by Scolecite
whats really funny is by the time anyone here can play thes Doom 3 and Hl 2 we will have better cards and I will get it and laugh at your pokey 9800XT and 5950.