there is now virtually no IQ difference between the 5900 and the 9800

[Shad0hawK]

it seems ATI has adopted the tactics of some of it's fanboys, that is when you lose , whine and cry and submit no proof.

as for myself, i will see if i can duplicate the results hardOCP got since i have acess to the same brand 5900U and 9800pro. as a little addition i must say i am impressed with the 6xAA perf of the 256meg 9800, ahhhh if it was stable i would buy it in a heartbeat!!

Editor's Note: As mentioned above, ATI has come to us and told us that our UT2K3 benchmarks were off in our BFGTech Asylum 5900 Ultra review and that the benchmark numbers we shared were damaging the 9800 line of products. This was first brought to me by their PR Director, Chris Evenden, last Tuesday morning. At that time they did not submit any proof of their claims that shed light on the specific benchmarks we used. As of posting this, ATI has still never given us proof of any of their statements specific to the benchmarks they suggest are damaging to their product.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTAw

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDk2

 

[reever2]

Sweet flamebait, i love how some people like to take ONE sites word over many others and treat it as gospel

 

[Draklyne]

Extremetech came to some conclusions as well.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by reever2
Sweet flamebait, i love how some people like to take ONE sites word over many others and treat it as gospel

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821


http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/index.html

note that these are reputable sites

how many more would you like?

can you give me links to where the 9800 pro beats the 5900 in the majority of games tested? can you explain why ATI cannot prove differently? can you?

 

[reever2]

I didnt realize you would turn this issue from being about image quality to a benchmark fest. Hardocps filtering article chose the best case scenario for testing what was being tested, beyond3d's findings are quite the opposite and are in a more open, better lighted area of UT and the filtering issue is very apparent. But when linked to those pictures in the hardocp forums, kyle deleted them.

 

[Patten]

Well about the second link that you gave Shad0hawK I would like to give you a link to somthing that I posted that was already on the forums and the link I got the information from is the same as yours.

Here is the link to my post: Here

Look at the third post down, I pointed out some times where the 9800 pro beats out the 5900.

It seems after looking through that again you also posted a few times there.

You know though, both are good cards and it really dosnt matter what card you buy because both are almost the same, when there is a difference it is VERY small, in most tests I have seen. So I dont know why everybody is having to post so many things arguing about which is better and what not.

Who knows how either of those cards will run in HL2 or any other game that is going to be released in the future.

I am sure the 5900 will beat the 9800 in some games while the 9800 will beat the 5900 in others.

That is just my opinion, you can think what you want but it probably wont change anybody elses opinion so posting this wont do a thing but just start a big flame war. People like certain cards, be it Nvidia or ATI it dosnt really matter and people shouldnt really care because I shure dont.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by reever2
I didnt realize you would turn this issue from being about image quality to a benchmark fest. Hardocps filtering article chose the best case scenario for testing what was being tested, beyond3d's findings are quite the opposite and are in a more open, better lighted area of UT and the filtering issue is very apparent. But when linked to those pictures in the hardocp forums, kyle deleted them.

i am not turning it into a"benchmark fest" although i am sure if the ATI came out on top you would have no problem with it, i put those links there because the same performance in ut2003 was achieved by 2 other sources, blowing your argument about a "best case scenario" out of the water i could turn around and say "the ati looks better in certain areas" as a best case scenario for ATI. both toms and anandtech mention the drastically improved image quality in the 44.03 drivers.

hardOCP is not backing down from thier position, they really have no reason to. but as i said before i have acces to both cards where i work so i am going to do my own test, so far in working with both cards the 5900 comes out on top in most things and i take what i see with my own 2 eyes as more crediblw than what a few websites say.

here toms discusses the vast improvements of the 44.03 driver over the 43 driver the AF process has been completely reworked. they also mention an in depth study later.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/geforce_fx_5900-07.html

the same with anandtech

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=11


at beyond3d i do not see an actual review of the 5900 or a direct comparison between the 5900 and the 9800, just alot of people bitching in the forums. of course it is late and i am in a hurry to get to bed, so i may have missed it.

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews

as you see things are different now when it comes to Nvidia's IQ with credible work done by 3 major review sites with much the same results(that is IQ on the 5900 that matches and in places exceds ATI's IQ), but like i said i take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt and i am going to see for my self, if the 9800pro turns out to be the better card i will buy it. same for the 5900.

so far the 5900 is my choice. not because "nvidia the the greatest" or some such nonsense, but because the 5900 so far is proving to me personally to be the better card.

oh man it is late and work sure comes early!!! one lst short post to make....

 

[dawdler]

The hardocp reviewer is an idiot, most people seem to agree on that

here toms discusses the vast improvements of the 44.03 driver over the 43 driver the AF process has been completely reworked. they also mention an in depth study later.

???

They arent even DOING AF on some places in the 44.03!!!!!!!!!!!!

Btw, did I forgot to mention where the awesomeness of 44.03 30% increase come from?

"Delivers an incredible 30% increase in performance over previous Detonator 40 drivers.**



**Performance results based upon GeForce FX 5600 Ultra running UnrealTournament 2003 Antalus flyby." -Nvidias own description on the performance gain

 

[crabcakes66]

look at that incredible image quality ... the nvidiots strike again.


shadow is another one of those people that like to take every good thing written about the 5900 out of context.


ati just makes better cards man....deal with it.

 

[Guest]

GO now to msi.com and get into thier forums for multimedia card. around 98 poeple out of 100 of whome buying 5900 cards having problems running games more than one houre. example splinter cell runs for one houre ad then the pc reboot, or other latest games which cannot be run.:flame:

yo man, if you want very good graphics for HL2 or D3 go for ATI9800 or wait till nvidia response for their bugs problems.

WAIT for next month then decide what to buy....:cheese:

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Gorgon
WAIT for next month then decide what to buy....:cheese:

That's what everyone said a month ago
Oh wait... That's what everyone said in january too!

 

[TrueWeltall]

Im tierd of seeing threads like this. You should have read the other couple thousand.

 

[Ady]

Thats the difference between 8xaf with det 43.45 & 44.03. In other words they got a great speed increase in af benchmarks with the latest 44.03 driver, but it looks like they practically turned af off. Gee, I wonder how they got that speed increase again!?!?!

 

[Hudson]

Originally posted by Shad0hawK
i am not turning it into a"benchmark fest" although i am sure if the ATI came out on top you would have no problem with it, i put those links there because the same performance in ut2003 was achieved by 2 other sources, blowing your argument about a "best case scenario" out of the water i could turn around and say "the ati looks better in certain areas" as a best case scenario for ATI. both toms and anandtech mention the drastically improved image quality in the 44.03 drivers.

hardOCP is not backing down from thier position, they really have no reason to. but as i said before i have acces to both cards where i work so i am going to do my own test, so far in working with both cards the 5900 comes out on top in most things and i take what i see with my own 2 eyes as more crediblw than what a few websites say.

here toms discusses the vast improvements of the 44.03 driver over the 43 driver the AF process has been completely reworked. they also mention an in depth study later.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/geforce_fx_5900-07.html

the same with anandtech

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=11


at beyond3d i do not see an actual review of the 5900 or a direct comparison between the 5900 and the 9800, just alot of people bitching in the forums. of course it is late and i am in a hurry to get to bed, so i may have missed it.

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews

as you see things are different now when it comes to Nvidia's IQ with credible work done by 3 major review sites with much the same results(that is IQ on the 5900 that matches and in places exceds ATI's IQ), but like i said i take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt and i am going to see for my self, if the 9800pro turns out to be the better card i will buy it. same for the 5900.

so far the 5900 is my choice. not because "nvidia the the greatest" or some such nonsense, but because the 5900 so far is proving to me personally to be the better card.

oh man it is late and work sure comes early!!! one lst short post to make....

Tomshardware is know to greatly favor Nvidia

 

[easyrider]

Ady:
I am takeing it, that the first shot is the 43.45 , and the second shot is 44.03??
If so it's plain to see where they got the speed increase, the second shot looks like asss, and blurred and crappy, blech. Anyone who can't see the crisp clearness in the on shit is either blind, or else needs a eye checkup, or a better monitor. I prefer crisp and clear picture, not one blurred and smudgy washed out looking, to get rid of the jaggies. I'de much rather have the jaggies rather than blotched out visuals.
The second shot is like "hey what's that on the floor there, (moves closer to the monitor, nose to the monitor, head tilted to a certain angle), OHH ok that's what it is, hard to tell when it's BLURRED in with the rest.....but hey, looky I have no jaggies, awsome!!!"

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Ady


Thats the difference between 8xaf with det 43.45 & 44.03. In other words they got a great speed increase in af benchmarks with the latest 44.03 driver, but it looks like they practically turned af off. Gee, I wonder how they got that speed increase again!?!?!

Actually, they obviously havent turned it completely off, but some places are... The floor is obviously not AF a bit. However, look at statue and far walls, they have AF with very little change. But the wall to the close right is not AF either. I dont really understand the selective disabling of it, lacks logic... It would be stupid to pick out certain textures (brick wall, brick floor, but notice the brick ceiling is still AF) and disable AF for them. Then again, never knows what Nvidia pulls out of their hat

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by dawdler
The hardocp reviewer is an idiot, most people seem to agree on that



???

They arent even DOING AF on some places in the 44.03!!!!!!!!!!!!

Btw, did I forgot to mention where the awesomeness of 44.03 30% increase come from?

well since we were discussing the 5900U and you placing pics from a test done on the 5600, i guess your not really paying attention.

also i have mentioned before and provided links you most likely did not bother to read so far 3 reputable sites coming to the same concusion, with the 44.03 drivers the 5900 is equal to the 9800 pro in image quality

 

[easyrider]

dawdler:
No, if you look very closely, even the walls to the lower right corner, where the symbol is, even there it changes to off, so it's off completely it looks like to me anyways. You really have to look for some of it, even the statue, you will see change if you look real close.
I personally have a 9700pro aiw card, so maybe I see it more? wouldn't know why though, hehe, I'de think you should see it no matter what card you have, then again maybe it's not a noticable with nvidia card for this exact reason. With this card though I actually see the entire picture pretty much, that af is off, even close up.

 

[easyrider]

Originally posted by Shad0hawK
well since we were discussing the 5900U and you placing pics from a test done on the 5600, i guess your not really paying attention.

also i have mentioned before and provided links you most likely did not bother to read so far 3 reputable sites coming to the same concusion, with the 44.03 drivers the 5900 is equal to the 9800 pro in image quality

First off, can you not see the blurr in the 44 set as compared to the 43 set? I sure can, it stands out quite a bit
Secondly, if you are referring to blur, wich makes the jaggies looked better, as being equal to that of the 9800? well then I spose your right as far as blur+no jags go. I personally prefer the crisp clear picture43.xx set, as compared to the blur 44.xx set.
So your saying you prefer blur with no jags over crisp with small amount of jags? If so your comment is justified, if not then you need to as I said 1: get a new monitor, 2: get your eyes checked 3: actually do some real tests.
I have a 9700pro, and no 5900, so I can only go from the pics I've seen, and from that, I can tell you that the 5900 pics in NO way come even CLOSE to what I see with my 9700pro
I use 4xfsaa + 16x aniso, and have very little, if any jags and the picture looks crystal clear.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by easyrider
dawdler:
No, if you look very closely, even the walls to the lower right corner, where the symbol is, even there it changes to off, so it's off completely it looks like to me anyways. You really have to look for some of it, even the statue, you will see change if you look real close.
I personally have a 9700pro aiw card, so maybe I see it more? wouldn't know why though, hehe, I'de think you should see it no matter what card you have, then again maybe it's not a noticable with nvidia card for this exact reason. With this card though I actually see the entire picture pretty much, that af is off, even close up.

I have a 9700 Pro too
But the rest off the difference isnt nearly enough to be AF totally off. I noted about the wall in my post. But look at the bottom of the pillar, the colorfull part. Its hardly changing at all (it does change a bit), it should just be a blurr. And the chest of the statue for instance. Or the figures by the roof, they also change, but not nearly enough to be AF on/off.

well since we were discussing the 5900U and you placing pics from a test done on the 5600, i guess your not really paying attention.

also i have mentioned before and provided links you most likely did not bother to read so far 3 reputable sites coming to the same concusion, with the 44.03 drivers the 5900 is equal to the 9800 pro in image quality

I was paying attention, you obviously wasnt.
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=winxp-2k_44.03
Please read that and repeat what I quoted so very obvously in my earlier post.
So they have great 5900 quality? The totally inflate the 5600 quality. Good drivers? Horrible I think, and definetly not the way to do it.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
look at that incredible image quality ... the nvidiots strike again.


shadow is another one of those people that like to take every good thing written about the 5900 out of context.


ati just makes better cards man....deal with it.

ROFL!!! unlike many here i actually read the WHOLE review...i am not taking anything out of context. if i am, can you DEMONSTRATE me to be doing so from the 3 articles from anandtech, hardOCP, and toms. so far the only website givin to supossedly counter (beyond3d) has not even done an actual review of the 5900U or a direct compariosn between the 5900U and the 9800 pro! ROFL!!!

let's look at some quotes from the article since many aTI fanboys seem to scared to actually read it!

from toms
"NVIDIA has completely reworked the filtering method in the Detonator FX driver. While the old driver only uses a bilinear anisotropic filter for the most part in Quality mode, the Detonator FX offers excellent filtering quality. The new Quality mode using trilinear filtering does a fine job. It only shows some minor weaknesses around 45° angles. The two Performance modes only employ bilinear filtering.

oh then there was this...

"We were only able to test ATi's Quality mode, since the program was unable to initialize Performance mode.


hmm it seems it is not just a speed increase

from anandtech

"Both ATI and NVIDIA's quality modes are virtually identical, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the two."

Finally, NVIDIA's claim that their "performance" mode offers equal to or greater quality than ATI's is actually true. The benefit here is that NVIDIA actually does some (albeit a small amount) of trilinear filtering in their performance aniso mode, which smooths the transitions between the different mip levels. The tables have turned and now it's ATI's turn to play catch-up and make their performance mode look better."

again, this sure sounds lik an IQ increase, not just a speed increase.....

 

[theHATRED]

Should I post my short article in this thread as well, or is it not needed? It's already in two other threads, but considering the subject of this thread...?

 

[A.A]

Maybe a little of topic, but have anyone of you ever seen Nvidias Quincunx antialiasing? Looks like someone has just smeared your screen with grease.

 

[FreeYayo]

9700 Pro beats the 5900 Ultra in game tests where it really matters... 9700 Pro, a year older 200$ cheaper, still owning nVidiots

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=3x5900u&page=1

 

[dawdler]

Please dear god tell me those conclusion are not based on UT2k3 in any case.
Nvidia cheats and the idiot reviewers forces AF from the ATI control panel which does NOT enable full trilinear for ATI. Only ingame trilinear does. Nvidia cant enable it, it doesnt even have full trilinear.

 

[easyrider]

Originally posted by dawdler
I have a 9700 Pro too
But the rest off the difference isnt nearly enough to be AF totally off. I noted about the wall in my post. But look at the bottom of the pillar, the colorfull part. Its hardly changing at all (it does change a bit), it should just be a blurr. And the chest of the statue for instance. Or the figures by the roof, they also change, but not nearly enough to be AF on/off.

Yeah I saw the same things. It IS odd for sure, it's like it's off but it's like slightly oh so slightly on too or something is just like wrong or something, dunno, I jsut know the 43.xx pictures look MUCH better, but some people, well ok one person so far that i've seen, thinks the opposite, becuase the all knowing web sites say so, pfft.

 

[easyrider]

Originally posted by Shad0hawK
ROFL!!! unlike many here i actually read the WHOLE review...i am not taking anything out of context. if i am, can you DEMONSTRATE me to be doing so from the 3 articles from anandtech, hardOCP, and toms. so far the only website givin to supossedly counter (beyond3d) has not even done an actual review of the 5900U or a direct compariosn between the 5900U and the 9800 pro! ROFL!!!

let's look at some quotes from the article since many aTI fanboys seem to scared to actually read it!

from toms
"NVIDIA has completely reworked the filtering method in the Detonator FX driver. While the old driver only uses a bilinear anisotropic filter for the most part in Quality mode, the Detonator FX offers excellent filtering quality. The new Quality mode using trilinear filtering does a fine job. It only shows some minor weaknesses around 45° angles. The two Performance modes only employ bilinear filtering.

oh then there was this...

"We were only able to test ATi's Quality mode, since the program was unable to initialize Performance mode.


hmm it seems it is not just a speed increase

from anandtech

"Both ATI and NVIDIA's quality modes are virtually identical, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the two."

Finally, NVIDIA's claim that their "performance" mode offers equal to or greater quality than ATI's is actually true. The benefit here is that NVIDIA actually does some (albeit a small amount) of trilinear filtering in their performance aniso mode, which smooths the transitions between the different mip levels. The tables have turned and now it's ATI's turn to play catch-up and make their performance mode look better."

again, this sure sounds lik an IQ increase, not just a speed increase.....

Web sites and reviews are exactly like assholes, they are opinions and everyone has one, nothing more.
If you go solely off a web sight and waht they have concluded, well yer gonna get burned eventually, I know I did.
This was in the days of tnt/gf days. I read toms AND anands reviews, and both said the tnt1, tnt2, and gf1 all got high scores and were good cards. Well I figured ok fine I'll go build exactly to THIER specs, mainboard memory vid card, everything the "exact" same so as there would be NO conflicts if I had issues or problems, this was anands specs btw. Well I went out and bought and built TREEE freeking times, to thier specs, and each time, I wasted valuable money and time building these machines because ONLY 1 time out of those 3 did I get exactly what they did, or was on par with what they had score wise. So what's this tell me, it tells me to take reviews with a grain of salt, and to actually do the tests yourself, so as to not get burned like I did, and ever since then, I have done just that, and have been very happy with my results and buys. I tend to believe the majority of the forums people over the web sights, becuase msot times the sites don't exactly coinside with what everyone else says and does.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by dawdler
I have a 9700 Pro too
But the rest off the difference isnt nearly enough to be AF totally off. I noted about the wall in my post. But look at the bottom of the pillar, the colorfull part. Its hardly changing at all (it does change a bit), it should just be a blurr. And the chest of the statue for instance. Or the figures by the roof, they also change, but not nearly enough to be AF on/off.


I was paying attention, you obviously wasnt.
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=winxp-2k_44.03
Please read that and repeat what I quoted so very obvously in my earlier post.
So they have great 5900 quality? The totally inflate the 5600 quality. Good drivers? Horrible I think, and definetly not the way to do it.

are you talking about the picture from the 5600 again? that completely different card and since it seems to be a 5600(not identifying it as a 5600ultra) it is a completely different gpu core as well from the one being discussed here LOL!!!

can you stay on topic? we are discussing the 5900 ultra, not the 5600.

 

[A.A]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
look at that incredible image quality ... the nvidiots strike again.


shadow is another one of those people that like to take every good thing written about the 5900 out of context.


ati just makes better cards man....deal with it.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[easyrider]

Originally posted by FreeYayo
9700 Pro beats the 5900 Ultra in game tests where it really matters... 9700 Pro, a year older 200$ cheaper, still owning nVidiots

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=3x5900u&page=1

Yep, and notice it's not narrowed to ONE game, and is actually in "todays" games, not what's comieng, such as hl2 or doom3. This is what I wanted to see not what is going to be comeing out, hell that's like telling the future, saying this game performed his way or that way, and it's only a beta or even alpha. Some people are baseing off doom3, wich is utterly stupid if you ask me, it was an alpha release of all things, so your going to base off a game and say a card sucks because of an "alpha" release?, bleh, I wanna see what a card does in actual games that are out "right now, that's like saying bah, the radeon 10k sucks, and the nvidia 300k wins, because it won't play hl5 or doom6 in the year 2020! Screw this card or that becuase it won't!! :dozey:

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by easyrider
Web sites and reviews are exactly like assholes, they are opinions and everyone has one, nothing more.
If you go solely off a web sight and waht they have concluded, well yer gonna get burned eventually, I know I did.
This was in the days of tnt/gf days. I read toms AND anands reviews, and both said the tnt1, tnt2, and gf1 all got high scores and were good cards. Well I figured ok fine I'll go build exactly to THIER specs, mainboard memory vid card, everything the "exact" same so as there would be NO conflicts if I had issues or problems, this was anands specs btw. Well I went out and bought and built TREEE freeking times, to thier specs, and each time, I wasted valuable money and time building these machines because ONLY 1 time out of those 3 did I get exactly what they did, or was on par with what they had score wise. So what's this tell me, it tells me to take reviews with a grain of salt, and to actually do the tests yourself, so as to not get burned like I did, and ever since then, I have done just that, and have been very happy with my results and buys. I tend to believe the majority of the forums people over the web sights, becuase msot times the sites don't exactly coinside with what everyone else says and does.

it is not just the 3 websites, i have tirelessly mentioned i have access to both cards... even using the same term you did "take with a grain of salt" most likely unlike many here (5900 and 9800) and from what i have seen most of the ATI people on this board seem to be going oiff of old information, if you want to form your information mostly from other peoples opinions, that is your choice, as for myself i do my own thinking.

i see this is starting to turn out like many other threads "lets ignore the facts presented and bash Shad0 instead" that is alright such behavior mostly confirms opinions i already have and so i leave this forum to the kids.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Shad0hawK
are you talking about the picture from the 5600 again? that completely different card and since it seems to be a 5600(not identifying it as a 5600ultra) it is a completely different gpu core as well from the one being discussed here LOL!!!

can you stay on topic? we are discussing the 5900 ultra, not the 5600.

They arent that different, but yes they are two different generations. My point was the 44.03 drivers, so magically acclaimed. They where TESTED on a 5600 and UT2k3 where the horrendous loss in quality is. And suddenly its a "Awesome 30% increase over previous drivers". I do not see anything about 44.03 that has to do with the 5900.
Or do you encourage going out and proclaiming 30% increases over previous drivers, when it turns out its on one chip, one game and cheating in AF? It was the driver issue that brought up the 5600.


And another thing, all those reviewing the 5900 Ultra against the 9800 Pro is wrong, making it 5900 vs 9800 Pro is the only right and fair thing. In which case 9800 Pro wins nearly every benchmark, whether its a game or synthetic (well it does anyway ). Reason? The 9800 Pro is cheaper than the 5900 non ultra, though they are in the same range.

 

[A.A]

Here's something for all you HL2 fans, found at rage3d.

"X-bit labs has written an article about the inability of current DX9 cards to enable FSAA with one of the most anticipated games of the year, Half Life 2. The bright side though is that there is a possible solution to the problem for ATI's DX9 cards, from the 9500 to the 9800.

According a Valve officials quoted in forums at HalfLife2.net web-site, there are problems with the way that current hardware implements FSAA. If you enable it, you will see a lot of artifacts on polygon boundaries due to the way that current graphics processors sample texture subjects with FSAA enabled.
Valve continued that this is a problem for any application that packs small textures into larger textures. The small textures will bleed into each other if you have multi-sample FSAA enabled.

Currently both leading graphics chips designers use multi-sampling or hybrid multi-sampling + super-sampling methods to for FSAA.

The developers of the legendary Half-Life game said that drivers are not likely to solve the problem, however, it still can be solved for graphics cards based on VPUs from ATI Technologies, such as RADEON 9500-, 9600-, 9700- and 9800-series. As for NVIDIA GeForce and GeForce FX-series, there are practically no chances to find a workaround, according to Valve.

Some industry sources indicated that the problem with such FSAA is a known one and is to be addressed in DirectX 9.1 and next-generation graphics processors with Pixel Shaders 3.0 and Vertex Shaders 3.0, such as ATI Technologies’s code-named R420 and NVIDIA’s code-named NV40 VPUs and derivatives. Both next-generation products will come later than the Half-Life 2 that is expected to be available by October. "

Read it all and a little more at http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030718155730.html

 

[dawdler]

I thought Nvidia had a full SSAA it could use, that did not have this error? Of course, it would be a terrible loss in fps, but they COULD still use it :

At any rate: Hurrah for centroid sampling!

 

[easyrider]

Originally posted by Shad0hawK
it is not just the 3 websites, i have tirelessly mentioned i have access to both cards... even using the same term you did "take with a grain of salt" most likely unlike many here (5900 and 9800) and from what i have seen most of the ATI people on this board seem to be going oiff of old information, if you want to form your information mostly from other peoples opinions, that is your choice, as for myself i do my own thinking.

i see this is starting to turn out like many other threads "lets ignore the facts presented and bash Shad0 instead" that is alright such behavior mostly confirms opinions i already have and so i leave this forum to the kids.

So your telling me 1 of 2 things here:
1: You can't actually see the blur in the 44.xx and compared to the 43.xx difference in the drivers
2: you prefer the blur in the drivers and no jags over the crisp and clearer pics of the 43.xx set
You never did say if you saw a difference. I own ati, but I have also owned nvidia as well, so I'm not being biased in any way, I am just pointing out that maybe, just maybe, you might step back and take another look, instead of posting web sights all the time. If your as you say, and I quote "as for myself i do my own thinking" why do you keep insisting on posting the web pages, show pics maybe? instead of posting somone elses finding.
If you prefer nvidia new driver set over the older, then hey, I'm all for that, we all have different eyes, and see different things, but if you actually read and look, you'll see it's not just me saying the 44 drivers have blur, and are not as crisp and clear, if it was jsut me then I would probably be doing some thinking and researching myself, to see maybe, just maybe, that I may be a little off, that my monitor may be to old, that I may be mising a driver setting etc.......but it's not jsut me. Do what you wish, but to say it's better, then post a bunch of web sites and say "see looky, they said it was better" isn't hardly thinking for yourself. I still have yet to see picture comparisons in both 44 and 43 sets of drivers and compared to radeon 9800 pics to compare to. So all we have to go by is your word, and a some web sites.

 

[A.A]

Originally posted by Shad0hawK
it is not just the 3 websites, i have tirelessly mentioned i have access to both cards... even using the same term you did "take with a grain of salt" most likely unlike many here (5900 and 9800) and from what i have seen most of the ATI people on this board seem to be going oiff of old information, if you want to form your information mostly from other peoples opinions, that is your choice, as for myself i do my own thinking.

i see this is starting to turn out like many other threads "lets ignore the facts presented and bash Shad0 instead" that is alright such behavior mostly confirms opinions i already have and so i leave this forum to the kids.

What makes you more believable then? Have you ever sat down, taken some time, cleared your mind of and biased thoughts and watched this, as you claim, big IQ increase?
That wich make me thinking is that they really needed to improve their IQ, doesn't that make one think? That proves that previously the people who claimed they had worse IQ, where right.
You seem to take this personally and you opinions not resembles that of an Nvidiot.
Could I guess that you are talking about me?
You do? Haha..good one!
Are you going to cry now?
"such behavior mostly confirms opinions i already have and so i leave this forum to the kids." Because you can't play with ous anymore?
Are you going to tell on ous now?
"Mom, the other kids won't play with meee! *whine whine whine*"

 

[Shad0hawK]

again the subject is the 5900U and how the drivers improve the IQ AND speed on the 5900U if the only counter argument that can be presented is on based from a different card with a different GPU core i can only assume there is no real counterargument based on the performance and quality of the 5900U i do not really care about the 5600.

did i repeat 5900U enough times?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by A.A
What makes you more believable then? Have you ever sat down, taken some time, cleared your mind of and biased thoughts and watched this, as you claim, big IQ increase?

uhhhh yes, after doing a side by side comparision, then having my results confirmed personally

Originally posted by A.A
That wich make me thinking is that they really needed to improve their IQ, doesn't that make one think? That proves that previously the people who claimed they had worse IQ, where right.?

in other posts i have already said the ATI looked slightly better, you must have missed it.

Originally posted by A.A
You seem to take this personally and you opinions not resembles that of an Nvidiot.
Could I guess that you are talking about me?
You do? Haha..good one!
Are you going to cry now?
"such behavior mostly confirms opinions i already have and so i leave this forum to the kids." Because you can't play with ous anymore?
Are you going to tell on ous now?
"Mom, the other kids won't play with meee! *whine whine whine*"

think whatever makes you feel better about yourself! as far me taking things personally, i learned a long time ago not to let kids on forums really bother me. my issues is a comparision of the 5900U all you guys seem able to talk about is the 5600, a completely different card and core, that would be like me comparing a TI4600 to a radeon 7500 if you cant factually dispute my claims and the evidence presented by 3 major long establised review sites then i suppose all you have left if hyperbole such as in your last quote wgich many of the moronic minded may find entertaining, but does not really mean much to me.

have a nice day!







[/B][/QUOTE]

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by Shad0hawK
ROFL!!! unlike many here i actually read the WHOLE review...i am not taking anything out of context. if i am, can you DEMONSTRATE me to be doing so from the 3 articles from anandtech, hardOCP, and toms. so far the only website givin to supossedly counter (beyond3d) has not even done an actual review of the 5900U or a direct compariosn between the 5900U and the 9800 pro! ROFL!!!

let's look at some quotes from the article since many aTI fanboys seem to scared to actually read it!

from toms
"NVIDIA has completely reworked the filtering method in the Detonator FX driver. While the old driver only uses a bilinear anisotropic filter for the most part in Quality mode, the Detonator FX offers excellent filtering quality. The new Quality mode using trilinear filtering does a fine job. It only shows some minor weaknesses around 45° angles. The two Performance modes only employ bilinear filtering.

oh then there was this...

"We were only able to test ATi's Quality mode, since the program was unable to initialize Performance mode.


hmm it seems it is not just a speed increase

from anandtech

"Both ATI and NVIDIA's quality modes are virtually identical, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the two."

Finally, NVIDIA's claim that their "performance" mode offers equal to or greater quality than ATI's is actually true. The benefit here is that NVIDIA actually does some (albeit a small amount) of trilinear filtering in their performance aniso mode, which smooths the transitions between the different mip levels. The tables have turned and now it's ATI's turn to play catch-up and make their performance mode look better."

again, this sure sounds lik an IQ increase, not just a speed increase.....

You can qoute from some review sites.......you are special.


I can spend 5 minutes using google and come up with a list as long as my arm(my arms are pretty ****ing long) that would say one is better than the other.

If you knew that the 5900U was so superior ....you wouldnt be here arguing about it........

:thumbs: everything you have said has been proven wrong by other people 20 times over.

5900U = waste of space in my computer

 

[Pr()ZaC]

LOL, this guy takes infos directly from the most biased sites ever ([T]ardOCP and Tom) and he even wants to prove points!
Check here what Pete has to say about Anand's review:
http://www.anandtech.com/talkarticle.html?i=1821

I feel sorry for you ;(