GF4 Ti4200 Ultra - Good Budget Choice?

Strontium wrote:
Tom's Hardware, as well as AnandTech, are both biased out the ass. Blech.
They used to be more subjective (read: about 4yrs ago).

IAWO, what about all the posts where people are benchamarking their new card
and cant get it close to the scores that TH posts on their reviews. MMM,
smelly. From what Ive seem, synthetic optimisations or not, nVidia is good
for some, ATI in others, and nobody can say that one eats the other because
they too close. The GFFX 5900 Pro is a top card, just as the R9800 is. The
clincher may be if you have a cold house, go for the 5900 because it may
keep you warm late into the night ;p

Are you saying that the 5900 Ultra benchmark numbers were faked or "fixed"
somehow in his article? That it's actually slower than a 9800 Pro? If so,
I would be very interested in hearing your objective technical evidence to
support this.

"Strontium" wrote in message
...
Tom's Hardware, as well as AnandTech, are both biased out the ass. Blech.
They used to be more subjective (read: about 4yrs ago).

I actually did find some interesting articles from ZDnet
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Nvidia_...?tag=pdtl-list
and another in Cnet http://news.com.com/2100-1046-1009574.html?tag=txt in
which it was recently revealed that Nvidia had tweaked their drivers to run
better on certain benchmarks. Once these tweaks were turned off, the 9800
did beat the 5900 in several tests. In other cases, the original performance
differences between the two cards was narrowed considerably. I stand
corrected. --- John


"Chimera" wrote in message
...
John M. wrote:
cough, cough...blind loyalty..cough, cough.. Got benchmarks?

plenty out there.

Nope.

--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** outta me." - Lit
"John M." wrote in message
news:eBkRa.66618$OZ2.12245@rwcrnsc54...
Are you saying that the 5900 Ultra benchmark numbers were faked or "fixed"
somehow in his article? That it's actually slower than a 9800 Pro? If
so,
I would be very interested in hearing your objective technical evidence to
support this.

"Strontium" wrote in message
...
Tom's Hardware, as well as AnandTech, are both biased out the ass.
Blech.
They used to be more subjective (read: about 4yrs ago).

John M. wrote:
Are you saying that the 5900 Ultra benchmark numbers were faked or "fixed"
somehow in his article? That it's actually slower than a 9800 Pro? If
so,
I would be very interested in hearing your objective technical evidence to
support this.


No pointing fingers from me, but this makes an interesting read:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...ect/index.html