If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
At 1024x768 with very high settings
(4xAA, 16xAF) they are close to 30 fps and 45+ (with no AA and 8xAF). Those numbers were timedemos, not actual in game framerates which would be much lower. Jeff B |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
ATI hard their cards out first. Neither ATI or nvidia have their top of the line cards out. Jeff B |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"magnulus" wrote in message ... If you go out and buy a GeForce FX 6800 just because it runs faster in Doom III, you're a fool. End of line. Couldn't agree more, especially when you consider that in three years it's going to be selling on eBay for 40 bucks. Video cards have very very short life-cycles. RayO |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"NightSky 421" wrote in message ...
"rms" wrote in message ... http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny version was $345 shipped from provantage). rms I thought it was a good article and it makes me happy I have a 9800 Pro video card. However, I can't wait to see how Doom 3 plays on systems that are a little more "real world". For example, I hope they bench it on processors 1.5GHz and up with GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up. I'd like to see an all-round comparison with as many combinations of CPU and video cards as possible. Thanks for posting that link! According to the article Doom3 will come with a time demo, so just run the time demo with your card and start a thread with your hardware. Then after a couple of weeks someone can put all the data in a spreadsheet and give an accounting for the cards that are listed. What gets me, is there is no mention of Multiplayer game play anywhere. When I get the game this will be one of the first things I will check out, cause it will determine the longevity of the game. Gnu_Raiz |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed.......seriously, they couldn't test a Radeon 9800 Pro?? Which was the
definitive ATI card to buy for more than a year's time........Another thing: Is there a particular reason why these guys claim to be "Just publishing straight up FPS numbers", and yet they dont test with AA and Filtering OFF? Those last batches of tests leave 8x AF *ON*.......seriously, there are plenty of gamers out there (like...ME) who never turn on AA or AF.....AF puts more of a hit on framerates than low-level AA does.....I'm guessing those Radeon XT tests would be higher if you turned off that 8x AF... "GuitarMan" wrote in message ... "Darkfalz" wrote in message ... "rms" wrote in message ... http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny version was $345 shipped from provantage). They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns. My thoughts exactly... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Damn, I ****ed up.......their last benchmark shows 1024x768, medium detail
level, with no aa and no AF......50+ fps. Perfectly acceptable for me, and a Pro 9800 overclocked should come in somewhere in that ballpark. "HeadRusch" wrote in message news:wORLc.144389$IQ4.71080@attbi_s02... Agreed.......seriously, they couldn't test a Radeon 9800 Pro?? Which was the definitive ATI card to buy for more than a year's time........Another thing: Is there a particular reason why these guys claim to be "Just publishing straight up FPS numbers", and yet they dont test with AA and Filtering OFF? Those last batches of tests leave 8x AF *ON*.......seriously, there are plenty of gamers out there (like...ME) who never turn on AA or AF.....AF puts more of a hit on framerates than low-level AA does.....I'm guessing those Radeon XT tests would be higher if you turned off that 8x AF... "GuitarMan" wrote in message ... "Darkfalz" wrote in message ... "rms" wrote in message ... http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny version was $345 shipped from provantage). They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns. My thoughts exactly... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:52:06 -0400, "magnulus"
wrote: If you go out and buy a GeForce FX 6800 just because it runs faster in Doom III, you're a fool. End of line. GeForce 6800 line works fine in other games too. They do trail behind X800XT-PE in some DX9 games but not by much. Granted ATI still has to optimise their memory controller (which, I read somewhere, is running at 60-70% efficiency) and they are also rewriting their openGl drivers from scratch. You can expect more optimisations from nVidia as well. IMO, X800XT-PE is a better choice (if you can find it, that is) than 6800Ultra and 6800GT is better than X800Pro, given their MSRPs and also the power requirements. The bottomline is that these are all great cards and should run most of the Source/Doom3/CryEngine/UT based games without any problems. -- Noman |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"magnulus" wrote in message
... No... I parted with 400 dollars for the GeForce FX 5900 card. I'm not going to fall for NVidia's crap a second time. Nothing sucks worse than to have a brand new videocard become underpowered technology in only five months. Even Maximum PC magazine was sucked into using a high-end GeForce FX card as part of their Dream Machine last year. A few months later, they admitted that they made the wrong decision. It sounds like you and them experienced the same thing. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Jul 2004 07:46:18 -0400, Nick Vargish
wrote: "NightSky 421" writes: For example, I hope they bench it on processors 1.5GHz and up with GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up. From the article: "As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience. Even a subtle jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce 3 video card that is two years old will deliver a solid gaming experience that will let you enjoy the game the way id Software designed it to be." Not a benchmark, but at least it's positive (if subjective). Nick Fingers crossed then. -- Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes ! They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses ! And what's with all the carrots ? What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ? Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES ! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:42:47 +0100, Stoneskin wrote:
Mark Morrison left a note on my windscreen which said: Yep - so much for seeing how my GeForce 3 performed at 1024x768. I also loved the line "We figured that 1600x1200 resolution would be the place to start..." WTF ? I assume this article is aimed at people with high-end system, presumably overclocked ones. Who the **** plays games in 1600x1200 ? And on what ? A 23" monitor ??? I do a fair bit. 22" monitor. Jesus - on my old 21", I though 1024x768 was a good resolution for games. Shows how often I upgrade my gfx card, I suppose. -- Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes ! They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses ! And what's with all the carrots ? What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ? Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES ! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DOOM3 on P4P800E deluxe 9800Pro ??? | Art Simpson | Asus Motherboards | 5 | August 11th 04 10:31 PM |
Up-To-Date CPU Benchmarks | Fao, Sean | General | 1 | March 22nd 04 11:43 PM |
Tualatin on P2B Benchmarks? | P2B | Asus Motherboards | 7 | January 19th 04 02:45 AM |
Tualatin on P2B Benchmarks? | P2B | Overclocking | 8 | December 29th 03 06:52 AM |
confusion about doom3 vs HL2 benchmarks | Sumedh | Ati Videocards | 15 | September 16th 03 03:44 AM |