Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thraxz

R600 BENCHED! Just as expected.

Recommended Posts

Where to start... where to start.

 

Well, the blasphemy begins on the first page. 1280x1024 on Doom3? That's not a challenge for any new card, and the 8800GTX isn't made to run at that "puny" of a resolution, is it? And a crossfire setup beating it is just further proof, as I'm fairly sure all reviews I've seen that test at 1600x1200+ show the 8800GTX beating any crossfire setup by a considerable margin.

 

Page 2, Ah my point is made 8800GTX>X1950 crossfire

 

And again with the question Praz originally posed, what are they, afraid of 16X AA?

 

Page 4... I have to call BS on that one. I've run 3DMark06 before on my SLI setup (2 7900GTXs) and it got 8900 (@ 1900x1200) with the same settings they ran at, how the hell did my FX-60 and 7900s beat a quad core Core 2 Duo and an 8800, let alone the R600? If anti-aliasing makes the cards limp that much with a quad core, that's kinda sad ::shrug::

 

Page 5, Doom3 again. And again, the question is asked: The game can do 16X AA, why ain't they testing it at it?

 

Page 6, FEAR. I'm gonna have to run tests, but I'm pretty sure I can call bull crap on that one too, because if I recall correctly, I get 75FPS @ 1920x1200 with EVERYTHING on maximum, how is a quad core and my same video card only doing 75 @ 1600x1200?

 

Page 7. Personally I find Call of Duty 2 to be overrated, but at least I can say with relative certainty that those numbers are PROBABLY right. I don't know, I haven't played it since I still only had 1 7900GTX.

 

Page 8, I'm not gonna bother, not only because the 8800 won, but because, in my opinion, that game is stupid.

 

Page 9. Again with a game I hate, moving on. Wait, again I must state, Half-Life 2 has these "ridiculous" graphics according to some people, fully capable of a higher level AA, so why the heck didn't they use it?

 

Page 10! Oblivion. I call the biggest volume of BS ever called, as I get around 40FPS average WITH VERTICAL SYNC ON and high level AA ;) and that's at 1680x1050 (I don't play at 1920x1200 because the performance different is minimal and for some reason I prefer the slightly smaller resolution).

 

Page 11, ::blinks and moves on:: Real-Time strategy ain't what it used to be.

 

DISCLAIMER: The opinions in this post are mine, they are not necessarily fact, and anyone basing any decisions they make on them would be ludacris without doing your own further research. No one should taken any offense from any of these statements as I'm both high on several prescription drugs for post-car-accident injuries, and I'm also cold. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Page 9. Again with a game I hate, moving on. Wait, again I must state, Half-Life 2 has these "ridiculous" graphics according to some people, fully capable of a higher level AA, so why the heck didn't they use it?

 

May be for the same reason that all the games I have won't give you the choice to go above X8 AA, yes you can force it via the Nvidia control panel and thru ATI CCC, but who is to say it was used ETC, don't see much point in that link full stop, in time we will know how good it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May be for the same reason that all the games I have won't give you the choice to go above X8 AA, yes you can force it via the Nvidia control panel and thru ATI CCC, but who is to say it was used ETC

 

When I forced 14x in my xt/xtx softfire setup I saw the smoothest lines I've ever seen. Maybe it's placebo, but I don't think so. I was skeptical of AA past 8x as it was and to see a difference like that was a 'whoa!" MOMENT.

 

don't see much point in that link full stop, in time we will know how good it is!

 

That's all too true,(especially since the chip has gone through quite a few respins) and this is coming from the guy who posted the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May be for the same reason that all the games I have won't give you the choice to go above X8 AA, yes you can force it via the Nvidia control panel and thru ATI CCC, but who is to say it was used ETC, don't see much point in that link full stop, in time we will know how good it is!

 

::Clears her throat loudly:: as I said, Doom3, along with some of the other games mentioned, can go HIGHER than 4X IN GAME. Which is why I said it. Doom3 specifically can do 16x.

 

And I've done it. And THraxz is right, that's some smooth crap man LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I forced 14x in my xt/xtx softfire setup I saw the smoothest lines I've ever seen. Maybe it's placebo, but I don't think so. I was skeptical of AA past 8x as it was and to see a difference like that was a 'whoa!" MOMENT.

 

 

 

That's all too true,(especially since the chip has gone through quite a few respins) and this is coming from the guy who posted the thread.

 

Not to mention we all know what's going to happen. Same . that happened with the 7800/X1800.

 

NVidia puts out their premiere, ATI beats it with theirs.

 

NVidia gives them the finger and releases a "beefed up" version of their card (the 7900) and beats ATI, which ATI counters with a card that's about the same performance wise with some perks for single card users.

 

Same story it's been for what, 5 years now? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
::Clears her throat loudly:: as I said, Doom3, along with some of the other games mentioned, can go HIGHER than 4X IN GAME. Which is why I said it. Doom3 specifically can do 16x.

 

And I've done it. And THraxz is right, that's some smooth crap man LOL

 

Ok you may have missed my point here, but the ATI is new generation hardware made with DX10 in mind, as is the 8800 cards, and a sweet as they are unfortunately the cant seem to support the resolutions in some of my games as the 1900 XT I had before it could, E.g. in C&C ZH with the ATi card I could do 1440 X 900, now with the 8800 I can only do 1152 X 864, this is also the case with BF2 & 2142, I have to use a WS hack to get them to run @ 1680 X 1050, so I am hoping this is to do with the drivers not being mature and I was guessing that this might be the same scenario @ the benches for the R600 in this thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very odd thing. I'm inclined to agree with the crappy BIOS idea. But it's a little difficult to say that a card that still isn't released yet has better functioning drivers than the already released for a few months nvidia card.

 

In any case, we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is also the case with BF2 & 2142, I have to use a WS hack to get them to run @ 1680 X 1050, so I am hoping this is to do with the drivers not being mature and I was guessing that this might be the same scenario @ the benches in this thread!

 

I may be wrong, but I don't thing the BF2 game engine supports wide-screen resolutions. 2142 is a modified version of the BF2 engine so no support there either. The hack you speak of is the only way I know of to get them into a wide mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be wrong, but I don't thing the BF2 game engine supports wide-screen resolutions. 2142 is a modified version of the BF2 engine so no support there either. The hack you speak of is the only way I know of to get them into a wide mode.

 

Nope you’re right, but with the ATI 1900 XT I could @ least do 1280 X 1024, so what I am saying is what ever the worse case scenario was with the 8800, my 1900 could always do higher resolutions, which leaves me gutted! I hope that new patches or drivers put this right, I have not heard of anyone else complain about this so seems to be just me! Sucks :sad:

 

 

That's a very odd thing. I'm inclined to agree with the crappy BIOS idea. But it's a little difficult to say that a card that still isn't released yet has better functioning drivers than the already released for a few months nvidia card.

 

In any case, we'll see.

 

 

Not sure I follow:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×