Tomb Raider AOD benches: Bad news for Nvidia

Did you happen to see the ads for ATI cards all over that website? Yeah, I
thought so. BTW, those Tomb Raider games always sucked anyway.

Dave


"who be dat?" wrote in message
...
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/

This an article at Beyond 3d talking about using the game Tomb Raider:
Angel
of Darkness as a benchmark. I haven't played the game or demo, but
supposedly the game itself sucks. However, the game engine is supposedly
the first DX9 title available and is state of the art. In the article,
they
performed tests between the latest ATi and Nvidia boards. The Nvidia
cards,
in this DX9 benchmark, did bad. Very bad. This article is a very good
read
if you are interested.

Something interesting to add to this though. Supposedly, someone wrote a
letter to Valve asking them how they felt the DX9 performance of Half-Life
2
would be on the cards. The response they got back was that the
performance
of HL2 on the ATi cards and Nvidia cards would be similar to the results
obtained in the Beyond3d article. You can read it at:

http://www.3dgpu.com/modules/news/ar...hp?storyid=315

If this is true, this shows how bad Nvidia's new cards are. No wonder
Nvidia dropped out of the Futuremark program. Nvidia saw how bad their
cards were going to be at Dx9 and pulled out of their program to cover
their
asses. "Benchmarks aren't important, it's the games that matter!!" Yeah,
whatever con artists. Congrats Nvidia, you were correct. The games are
comming out and they are indeed showing they matter, big time.

If this is an indication of how all Dx9 games will run on the FX line of
vid
cards, I feel sorry for people who bought these cards. They were ripped
off. Bad.

I was looking to replace my Nvidia card not long ago. I was fed up with
Nvidia's driver "optimizations", saw how good the new ATi cards were, so I
bought a 9800 Pro. I'm feeling better and better about that decision
everyday.

Chris Smith

Also, they tested on a 128Mb GeForceFX which is hardly 'the latest board'.
Also wasn't tested on anything like the 'latest' cpu either.

--
Andrew

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Did you happen to see the ads for ATI cards all over that website? Yeah,
I
thought so. BTW, those Tomb Raider games always sucked anyway.

Dave


"who be dat?" wrote in message
...
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/

This an article at Beyond 3d talking about using the game Tomb Raider:
Angel
of Darkness as a benchmark. I haven't played the game or demo, but
supposedly the game itself sucks. However, the game engine is
supposedly
the first DX9 title available and is state of the art. In the article,
they
performed tests between the latest ATi and Nvidia boards. The Nvidia
cards,
in this DX9 benchmark, did bad. Very bad. This article is a very good
read
if you are interested.

Something interesting to add to this though. Supposedly, someone wrote
a
letter to Valve asking them how they felt the DX9 performance of
Half-Life
2
would be on the cards. The response they got back was that the
performance
of HL2 on the ATi cards and Nvidia cards would be similar to the results
obtained in the Beyond3d article. You can read it at:

http://www.3dgpu.com/modules/news/ar...hp?storyid=315

If this is true, this shows how bad Nvidia's new cards are. No wonder
Nvidia dropped out of the Futuremark program. Nvidia saw how bad their
cards were going to be at Dx9 and pulled out of their program to cover
their
asses. "Benchmarks aren't important, it's the games that matter!!"
Yeah,
whatever con artists. Congrats Nvidia, you were correct. The games are
comming out and they are indeed showing they matter, big time.

If this is an indication of how all Dx9 games will run on the FX line of
vid
cards, I feel sorry for people who bought these cards. They were ripped
off. Bad.

I was looking to replace my Nvidia card not long ago. I was fed up with
Nvidia's driver "optimizations", saw how good the new ATi cards were, so
I
bought a 9800 Pro. I'm feeling better and better about that decision
everyday.

Chris Smith

The Tomb Raider benchmark comparison I saw
(http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/alba.../index.php?p=3) stated
it was carried out on an athlon processor (2000) and a 128MB FX5900.
Apologies if you have a link to another.

--
Andrew


"J.Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:45:19 +0100
"Andrew Stirling" wrote:

Also, they tested on a 128Mb GeForceFX which is hardly 'the latest
board'. Also wasn't tested on anything like the 'latest' cpu either.

They don't say whether it was a 128 or a 256, but do you really think
that's going to make a difference?

And what's "later" than the P4 3 GHz? An Opteron?

--
Andrew

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Did you happen to see the ads for ATI cards all over that website?
Yeah,
I
thought so. BTW, those Tomb Raider games always sucked anyway.

Dave


"who be dat?" wrote in message
...
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/

This an article at Beyond 3d talking about using the game Tomb
Raider:
Angel
of Darkness as a benchmark. I haven't played the game or demo,
but supposedly the game itself sucks. However, the game engine is
supposedly
the first DX9 title available and is state of the art. In the
article,
they
performed tests between the latest ATi and Nvidia boards. The
Nvidia
cards,
in this DX9 benchmark, did bad. Very bad. This article is a very
good
read
if you are interested.

Something interesting to add to this though. Supposedly, someone
wrote
a
letter to Valve asking them how they felt the DX9 performance of
Half-Life
2
would be on the cards. The response they got back was that the
performance
of HL2 on the ATi cards and Nvidia cards would be similar to the
results obtained in the Beyond3d article. You can read it at:

http://www.3dgpu.com/modules/news/ar...hp?storyid=315

If this is true, this shows how bad Nvidia's new cards are. No
wonder Nvidia dropped out of the Futuremark program. Nvidia saw
how bad their cards were going to be at Dx9 and pulled out of
their program to cover
their
asses. "Benchmarks aren't important, it's the games that
matter!!"
Yeah,
whatever con artists. Congrats Nvidia, you were correct. The
games are comming out and they are indeed showing they matter, big
time.

If this is an indication of how all Dx9 games will run on the FX
line of
vid
cards, I feel sorry for people who bought these cards. They were
ripped off. Bad.

I was looking to replace my Nvidia card not long ago. I was fed
up with Nvidia's driver "optimizations", saw how good the new ATi
cards were, so
I
bought a 9800 Pro. I'm feeling better and better about that
decision everyday.

Chris Smith








--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:07:47 +0100
"Andrew Stirling" wrote:

The Tomb Raider benchmark comparison I saw
(http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/alba.../index.php?p=3)
stated it was carried out on an athlon processor (2000) and a 128MB
FX5900. Apologies if you have a link to another.

http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/

--
Andrew


"J.Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:45:19 +0100
"Andrew Stirling" wrote:

Also, they tested on a 128Mb GeForceFX which is hardly 'the latest
board'. Also wasn't tested on anything like the 'latest' cpu
either.

They don't say whether it was a 128 or a 256, but do you really
think that's going to make a difference?

And what's "later" than the P4 3 GHz? An Opteron?

--
Andrew

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Did you happen to see the ads for ATI cards all over that
website? Yeah,
I
thought so. BTW, those Tomb Raider games always sucked anyway.

Dave


"who be dat?" wrote in message
...
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/

This an article at Beyond 3d talking about using the game Tomb
Raider:
Angel
of Darkness as a benchmark. I haven't played the game or
demo, but supposedly the game itself sucks. However, the game
engine is
supposedly
the first DX9 title available and is state of the art. In the
article,
they
performed tests between the latest ATi and Nvidia boards. The
Nvidia
cards,
in this DX9 benchmark, did bad. Very bad. This article is a
very good
read
if you are interested.

Something interesting to add to this though. Supposedly,
someone wrote
a
letter to Valve asking them how they felt the DX9 performance
of
Half-Life
2
would be on the cards. The response they got back was that
the
performance
of HL2 on the ATi cards and Nvidia cards would be similar to
the results obtained in the Beyond3d article. You can read it
at:

http://www.3dgpu.com/modules/news/ar...hp?storyid=315

If this is true, this shows how bad Nvidia's new cards are.
No wonder Nvidia dropped out of the Futuremark program.
Nvidia saw how bad their cards were going to be at Dx9 and
pulled out of their program to cover
their
asses. "Benchmarks aren't important, it's the games that
matter!!"
Yeah,
whatever con artists. Congrats Nvidia, you were correct. The
games are comming out and they are indeed showing they matter,
big time.

If this is an indication of how all Dx9 games will run on the
FX line of
vid
cards, I feel sorry for people who bought these cards. They
were ripped off. Bad.

I was looking to replace my Nvidia card not long ago. I was
fed up with Nvidia's driver "optimizations", saw how good the
new ATi cards were, so
I
bought a 9800 Pro. I'm feeling better and better about that
decision everyday.

Chris Smith








--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)




--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)