Tweet
another at high resolution -ish
-
To support your claims, provide references from more than one site (and multiple benchmarks).Comment
-
yet another...
take a look here. at a low resolution te ati card performed a tad better. but in the high resolution, Nvidia outperformed considerably:
edit: wait a minute. in #2 the stats with AA show that the Nvidia performed better than the ATI. that was almost tie with nvidia in the lead due to better performance at higher quality.Last edited by chickeneater; 8 Jun 2003, 11:35 AM.Comment
-
this is for you batman.
oops... something broke... i got the wrong address. fixedLast edited by chickeneater; 8 Jun 2003, 11:29 AM.Comment
-
Some very comprehensive and detailed reviews of NVIDIA and ATI graphics cards.Comment
-
from anandtech:
the chart shows that the Nvidia top line had a 27GBs bandwidth compared to the 22GBs ATI's best hadComment
-
only 22gb of bandwidtH!!??! OMG!
edit >> omly != onlyOGSTH! my webpage
----------------------------
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard, be evil.Comment
-
-
I just got the 3dmark 2000, 01, and 03 and benchmarked my geforce3 ti200. in 2000 I got up to 400FPS in one series. but in 03, I didn't get past the 40FPS mark. and on most tests I got no more than 5FPSComment
-
So thus it is shown that nVidia's FX5800 does not compete with any of ATI's flagship cards when it comes to high-resolution and high-quality rendering.Originally posted by chickeneater
this is for you batman.
oops... something broke... i got the wrong address. fixedComment
-
May I remind you that you were talking about the FX5800, NOT the newer FX5900...Originally posted by chickeneater
edit: wait a minute. in #2 the stats with AA show that the Nvidia performed better than the ATI. that was almost tie with nvidia in the lead due to better performance at higher quality.
Besides, which detonator was used for this benchmark? If this is the 'optimised' (read: cheating) driver that nVidia used to boost its 3DMarks score, this bench result is useless.Last edited by Enchanter; 8 Jun 2003, 02:02 PM.Comment
-
I changed my mind to the top of the line between the two rivaling compaies.
that 1st post of yours (mine) is doing better at teh lower detail. also, if you haven't noticed teh other images, nvidia is better in most of the high resolution high detail.Comment
-
Any way you can provide a reference image of each card's rendering? That was we can see which one looks better. As far as I know nVidia's implementation of Anti-aliasing is no different from the ordinary technique used in the Geforce 3 (or was it 4?). ATI cards render the anti-aliased edges more properly and they can do it at a higher sampling rate than their nemesis.
I still have doubts about the results from your site. Can you provide others from other sites? Just to test you a bit, what memory path does the FX5800 have? 128-bit or 256-bit?Comment
-
the fx5900 is better and faster than the lot:
its 256 bitComment
-
I asked you a question on the FX5800. You were also championing the FX5800 in the previous posts. Don't go jumping around to the FX5900 now.Comment
Comment