ATI is not as good as u thought!

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's from May and I'd like to mention that Carmack had to do his own coding for Nvidia similar to what Valve had to do for Half-Life 2.
 
well that was because ATI didnt know that itwas gonna bench doom3, Nvidia knew, so they optimized their drivers for the benchmark. anyways when they benched doom3, that build was like an alpha i think, not even a beta. alot of things can change by the time doom3 is released.



but let me guess.....hmmmm u got a nvidia card?
 
Isn't the 44.03 drivers the one that cheated on the 3DMark benchmark.
 
actually, that pretty much shows that there's some bizarre problem with either ati drivers or [H]'s installation.

Constant FPS across all resolutions means there's a bottleneck.

Carmack has mentioned that he had to program a special bit of code for nVidia to make it work right, so seems that he's of more-or-less the same opinion Valve is.

BTW, I own an nVidia card and prior to the last month or so had no intention of buying an ATI.
 
Now I'm neither on ATI's side or nVidia's (or HL2 or Doom3's for that matter), but couldn't the same exact same thing be said against Doom3 & nVidia in THAT benchmark? ;)
 
and it was proved that as ati had no idea that benchmark would happen, see something odd there? how the fact at all res. ati gets the same fps? the drivers they used to test with the ati cards had a bug. so its not a real comparison.
 
oh, i didnt even realize, that was the test with the drivers that sucked, why not post the benchmark that shows the decent previous drivers, still wern't as fast as nvidia but it was better than 10fps.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDc0LDI=
thats the page to look at.

radeon 9800 pro gets 70fps at 1024x768, much better than the 10fps from the shitty drivers.
 
doom 3 is like a year away. i'll worry about my 9700 and doom3 when it comes out.
 
Originally posted by asd
here is a bench with newer drivers. ati is better but still far away from nvidia:

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1052729768FyFQIMpRcj_2_3.gif
Click to expand...

you're such a troll, why not post this graph? http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1052729768FyFQIMpRcj_2_2.gif

performance is much closer there and at 1024x768,


[edit]

haha nm it only looks closer because the graph is smooshed, my bad, but you're still a troll.

[edit#2]

and those were OLDER drivers, BTW.
 
Are you Nvidia guys desperate to find things to make yourselves feel better?

lol
 
ati does better dx9. nvidia does better openGL. when the next line of cards comes out it could be switched. These things change, just look at what was going on a year ago when it was the g4TI on top.

So shut the f*ck up and talk about something remotely important.
 
Originally posted by Typhon
ati does better dx9. nvidia does better openGL. when the next line of cards comes out it could be switched. These things change, just look at what was going on a year ago when it was the g4TI on top.

So shut the f*ck up and talk about something remotely important.
Click to expand...

you mean nvidia does better opengl if john carmack writes a path specifically for the card and optimizes it so it uses less precision but runs faster...
 
LOL :D

Its such a stupid comment its unbeleivable... Not as good as you thought... Bah... About 1 hour after that bench was released (what, 6 months ago? More?), it was confirmed that yes, that catalyst version broke Doom III performance. Its not a coincidence its at 10 fps. And this is all BEFORE (read again, BEFORE) Carmack started optimising the ARB/ARB2 codepaths.
 
I have a 9600 pro and I run the Doom 3 alpha at 23-42 FPS in actual gameplay.

So that can't be true.
 
Originally posted by manny_c44
I have a 9600 pro and I run the Doom 3 alpha at 23-42 FPS in actual gameplay.

So that can't be true.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, the DoomIII alpha is at 640x480 I believe, much lower than these benches being discussed were run at. Although, I do agree that the benches at that point were crap and unfair...
 
Doom III will look better on ATI hardware since Carmack is writing FX12 and FP16 (Pathetic) just so it can be faster. ATI will be running at FP24 all the time since thats all it can run. Trust me you can see a difference from FP16 and FP24.
 
Originally posted by Xtasy0
oh, i didnt even realize, that was the test with the drivers that sucked, why not post the benchmark that shows the decent previous drivers, still wern't as fast as nvidia but it was better than 10fps.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDc0LDI=
thats the page to look at.

radeon 9800 pro gets 70fps at 1024x768, much better than the 10fps from the shitty drivers.
Click to expand...

wow, ur right, geforce is so much better.
 
Enough of this. I've told you to use existing threads, and you will. Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
ríomhaire
History
Replies
5
Views
5K
Shem
Shem
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Hectic Glenn
Kerbal Developers Depart Valve
Replies
4
Views
27K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Back
Top