Interesting article from Falcon NW

E

Eastcoasthandle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
1,041
What I found interesting about this article is that they make mention of the single card comparisons were g80 beats the R600 in XP. However, there is a lack of HD 2900 XT CF and 8800GTS SLI benchmark comparisons in Vista. Unless I overlooked I haven't found any. Does anyone have a link showing HD 2900XT CF vs 8800GTS 640 SLI benchmarks using vista from more then one source? As it stands now FNW provided you a brief review but were are the other CF vs. SLI reviews from ATI's/Nvidia's best current offerings?
Source
 
Theres an inherent contradiction in the article...

pcmag_xfirescores.gif


Look at the 2900xt bechmarks, they slip in the fact that they have the XTX being benchmarked and not the XT... :rolleyes:
 
How the hell does the 3.73ghz Quad, SLI 8800gtx only score 12k in 3dmark06?? I score 10k+ with my mildly OCed 8800gts and a 3.2 Dual...
 
jmackay said:
How the hell does the 3.73ghz Quad, SLI 8800gtx only score 12k in 3dmark06?? I score 10k+ with my mildly OCed 8800gts and a 3.2 Dual...
Click to expand...

i have no idea...

i get 12k with one 8800GTX and an x2 5400+

definitely not as high end as the test bed
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
No need as I was looking for published reviews more so then anything else. Also, I've been told that SLI is not functioning properly in Vista.
Click to expand...

Well it should be with the drivers he was using, which is why I suggested you contact him.
 
Guys, SLI was tested in vista. That should tell you something about SLI in Vista. Comparing single card vs SLI in vista isn't cutting it here (thus the context of the article).
 
here are the 2 reviews on their website

Both tested in Vista (like previously mentioned)

Crossfire

SLI

I actually got 6 free issues and there was no June 15h issue of the printed magazine(i think)

and it looks like they just used the 2900xt with 1gb of memory (is that called the xtx?)
 
^^ Good find and no, it's called XT from what I know.

To me it only confirms the accuracy of the test in vista. Results will vary based on PC setup. However, (mimicking those setup parameters with CPU and video card clocks) results will not land you 16,000+ in Vista.
 
jmackay said:
How the hell does the 3.73ghz Quad, SLI 8800gtx only score 12k in 3dmark06?? I score 10k+ with my mildly OCed 8800gts and a 3.2 Dual...
Click to expand...

Crap review basically Rig in my sig hits high 13's with one card....
 
RiZnO said:
Crap review basically Rig in my sig hits high 13's with one card....
Click to expand...
Can you find a CF vs GTS 640 or GTX SLI benchmark review conducted in Vista that proves you can do better then 13 (mimicking those setup parameters with CPU and video card clocks)?
 
jmackay said:
How the hell does the 3.73ghz Quad, SLI 8800gtx only score 12k in 3dmark06?? I score 10k+ with my mildly OCed 8800gts and a 3.2 Dual...
Click to expand...

It's called Throttling, it isn't really running 3.73Ghz during the benchmark.
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Ok, found someone willing to test their G80 in vista
Post
It appears that the article is in fact pretty consistent.
Click to expand...

And you can see that there is something limiting his SLI working, as he gets less than 1k gain from a second ULTRA.

So if its 3dmark or vista who knows, but something is limiting his benchmark a lot. Also he got a LOWER score in some of the tests on an SLI system vs a single card, so there is obviously a problem with 3dmark, vista, and/or the driver he was using.

Dunno why you wouldn't want him to test w/ newer drivers though.
 
^^ Because current drivers have been taken off line
Also, there is no indication that it's just a driver problem at this time. Please review his SM 3.0 number and you clearly see him getting a healthy boost using SLI. However, it appears that his SM 2.0 numbers decreased in SLI while using Vista. This could be a HW limitation (not sure but it hints to it). However time will tell. :) In any case it only helps to validate the validity of the article with what's currently available. There is no trickery or foul play here. However, results will vary from one PC to another PC setup.
 
I CALL SHENANIGANS!!!

I scored 15,000 with 8800GTX in SLI and i was using an overclocked E6300 to 3.5 now take that score and give it a quadcore and i dont really think that theres much competition between the two. This benchmark is officially a lie.:rolleyes:
 
RussianHAXOR said:
I CALL SHENANIGANS!!!

I scored 15,000 with 8800GTX in SLI and i was using an overclocked E6300 to 3.5 now take that score and give it a quadcore and i dont really think that theres much competition between the two. This benchmark is officially a lie.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is this just a post of frustration:confused:
As you can see in this post by another user those results are valid. I find it a bit hard to believe anything but what's already been confirmed.
 
I don't feel like signing up on their forums:

Vista not added properly (as you put it) is pretty hard to validate when plenty of people are using SLI in Vista.
Click to expand...

According to steam's numbers, which is a good representation of gamers and we don't have much else to work with... (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html)

Vista users:
Windows Vista 41,743 (6.27 % of total)

Vista + 8800 users:
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 8,319 (1.25 % of total)

Any OS (Mostly XP) 8800 users:
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 25,798 (3.88 % of total)

SLI Users:
NVIDIA SLI (2 GPUs) 8,293

So even assuming that EVERY single SLI user is using Vista, thats still only 1.25% of the total gamer population, and obviously every SLI user does not use Vista.

Edit: And feel free to link that guy to the international (fr) vista drivers that are linked here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1203464
 
RussianHAXOR said:
Really? How does it explain why he's using an XTX to bench it?
Click to expand...

"Some places have called this the "XTX". While technically incorrect, I’ll go with it. Anything to differentiate the winning version from the losing."

Do it yourself next time. :rolleyes:
 
RussianHAXOR said:
No, i just dont believe those benchmarks much.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, PC Magazine, a venerable magazine publishing in the U.S. for oh, 20 years, and Falcon NW, a well known boutique gaming manufacturer, have FABRICATED benchmark numbers. Totally made it up. How do we know? Because RussianHAXOR doesn't believe them. Nope, he just doesn't believe them. You read it here first.

Back to reality for those of us less stubborn, less conspiracy minded and willing to actually read. This was a test done in Vista only for dual card configurations. The piece readily acknowledge that the Crossfire win is the result of weak Nvidia drivers under VISTA AND VISTA ONLY. He recommends Nvidia if you're using an XP-based dual card system. Here is the critical paragraph:

"It’s no secret Nvidia has had huge Vista driver issues, despite being first to market with a Vista-ready DX10 card by 5 months. Under XP, where both Nvidia and ATI have established and polished drivers, Nvidia’s faster hardware wins. For any of our customers running Windows XP, I’d recommend Nvidia’s cards over any of the new Radeons. When you move to Vista, scores start to even out. And when you move to dual card setups under Vista, SLI encounters significant scaling problems. Crossfire scales up performance well. The end result is what you see on that benchmark chart."

Maybe next time it would help to educate yourself before accusing reputable people and publications of lying. I'll take their words over yours any day.
 
purgatory, thank you this clearly shows that the R600 CF/R600 in Vista clearly beats the GTS SLI/GTS. In some cases nipping at the heals of the GTX at a lower price point. Since there are very few CF vs SLI comparisons in Vista I appreciate you taking the time to post these results. Although they are not the HD 2900XT 1024 using BC06 ram this will do for now. I am interested in seeing how other TWIMTBP applications do in Vista, for example:
World in Conflict
Crysis
etc
TWIMTBP found here here
 
purgatory said:
This is the closest your going to find, SLi and Crossfire in Vista
Click to expand...

These results are useful but not exactly comparable to the test run by PC Magazine because the Crossfire setup in it uses the regular 512mb 2900XT. In fact, Kelt Reeves, the president of Falcon, dismisses these cards as poor performers:

"ATI Radeon HD2900 XT- 9" Long, 512 Megs of DDR3 memory. This is the card that’s getting all the bad press. Deservedly so? Possibly. Suffice to say it’s not the high end product that Falcon Northwest’s clients would be most interested in."

Instead, he saying it's the 1024 meg 2900XT with GDDR4 that makes the differences and puts Crossfire ahead of SLI under Vista.

"ATI Radeon HD2900 XT - 9" long, 1024 megs of GDDR4. This is what we’re talking about! Two of these are what walked all over the SLI’d NVIDIA 8800 GTX cards at PC Magazine. Ask for it by name. Wait, that won’t really help. Some places have called this the "XTX". While technically incorrect, I’ll go with it. Anything to differentiate the winning version from the losing. For now, this card will only be available from Falcon Northwest and a handful of other boutiques in new systems."

Reeves admits results will change as drivers improve and in fact, he writes "some benchmarks I ran just days ago have Nvidia catching up on some of the scores PC Magazine saw."
 
ddarko said:
Yes, PC Magazine, a venerable magazine publishing in the U.S. for oh, 20 years, and Falcon NW, a well known boutique gaming manufacturer, have FABRICATED benchmark numbers. Totally made it up. How do we know? Because RussianHAXOR doesn't believe them. Nope, he just doesn't believe them. You read it here first.

Back to reality for those of us less stubborn, less conspiracy minded and willing to actually read. This was a test done in Vista only for dual card configurations. The piece readily acknowledge that the Crossfire win is the result of weak Nvidia drivers under VISTA AND VISTA ONLY. He recommends Nvidia if you're using an XP-based dual card system. Here is the critical paragraph:

"It’s no secret Nvidia has had huge Vista driver issues, despite being first to market with a Vista-ready DX10 card by 5 months. Under XP, where both Nvidia and ATI have established and polished drivers, Nvidia’s faster hardware wins. For any of our customers running Windows XP, I’d recommend Nvidia’s cards over any of the new Radeons. When you move to Vista, scores start to even out. And when you move to dual card setups under Vista, SLI encounters significant scaling problems. Crossfire scales up performance well. The end result is what you see on that benchmark chart."

Maybe next time it would help to educate yourself before accusing reputable people and publications of lying. I'll take their words over yours any day.
Click to expand...

Even so, this is HEAVY manipulation of the way the article is laid out to make it appear as if ATI has some last hope of not being a total failure this cycle. The article is presented such that the bulk is supporting ATI initially with a little paragraph at the end as sort of disclaimer that they don't actually recomend ATI at all only in this one instance.

Thing is, we all KNOW that this is just an SLI scaling issue which is largely down to infant drivers in a new operating system, if these people really were reputable they would state their opinion on WHY it's slow and give advice to potential buyers on what is not only faster NOW but also what is going to better serve them in future months.

Their intention is clear, boost the publics opinion of a card which gives users no reason to purchas it (faster cards from Nvidia exist which are cheap, quieter and cooler)
 
Frosteh said:
Even so, this is HEAVY manipulation of the way the article is laid out to make it appear as if ATI has some last hope of not being a total failure this cycle. The article is presented such that the bulk is supporting ATI initially with a little paragraph at the end as sort of disclaimer that they don't actually recomend ATI at all only in this one instance.
Click to expand...
This is not correct as there is no proof of manipulation here. What it does show is that HD 2900 XT's arch design does better in Vista while the G80 arch does better in XP. These are pure facts given the reviews, the user confirmations, etc. In this paragraph you have no provided any evidence to support your opinion other then just giving an opinion.


Frosteh said:
Thing is, we all KNOW that this is just an SLI scaling issue which is largely down to infant drivers in a new operating system, if these people really were reputable they would state their opinion on WHY it's slow and give advice to potential buyers on what is not only faster NOW but also what is going to better serve them in future months.
Click to expand...
Actually, I find that a little hard to believe because the same can be said about how long the G80 been on the market. This is not a "just released" product. Also there have been several vista drivers released (beta or otherwise) that attempt to address this problem. Yet, the HD 2900XT has only been released to the public for a solid month now (add a few days) and yet it's doing far better. This alone should tell you something is wrong with your assessment.


Frosteh said:
Their intention is clear, boost the publics opinion of a card which gives users no reason to purchas it (faster cards from Nvidia exist which are cheap, quieter and cooler)
Click to expand...

You know this whole "conspiracy" is getting old. It's time to start accepting the fact that:
-G80 SLI doesn't do well in Vista with current drivers
-There are several drivers released for Vista already (some do better while others don't)
-Are we looking at a HW limitation?
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
This is not correct as there is no proof of manipulation here. What it does show is that HD 2900 XT's arch design does better in Vista while the G80 arch does better in XP. These are pure facts given the reviews, the user confirmations, etc. In this paragraph you have no provided any evidence to support your opinion other then just giving an opinion.
Click to expand...

Please read my post, I'm not suggesting that the information they give is false, I'm saying it's a manipulation, as others have mentioned this information is selected to show Crossfires strong point in these games, where as other games SLI does just fine.

You don't have to manipulate actual facts to change peoples opinions of things, just merely alter the way you present it to them.

Actually, I find that a little hard to believe because the same can be said about how long the G80 been on the market. This is not a "just released" product. Also there have been several vista drivers released (beta or otherwise) that attempt to address this problem. Yet, the HD 2900XT has only been released to the public for a solid month now (add a few days) and yet it's doing far better. This alone should tell you something is wrong with your assessment.
Click to expand...

It's no secret that Nvidia are struggling with Vista drivers right now, they publicly announced they were aiming for compatability first then once things were running correctly they would focus on optimisation and improving frame rates.

You know this whole "conspiracy" is getting old. It's time to start accepting the fact that:
-G80 SLI doesn't do well in Vista
-There are several drivers released for Vista already with similar results (some do better while others don't)
-Are we looking at a HW limitation?
Click to expand...

Either way, my point remains. This review is recomending ATI for Vista if you're aiming for a multi video card setup based soley on the fact that SLI does badly in Vista right now, there is no specific evidence that it's a permenant problem, or some kind of hardware fault.

How anyone can think these guys are reputable when they're basically telling us that we might as well buy an inferior performing card for the sole reason that theres issues with the competitors product.

Anyone getting Crossfire 2900 cards for this reason is going to feel pretty stupid if Nvidia fix these problems in the coming weeks and suddenly they realise they bought not only one but two cards which are inferiour in price, performance, heat and noise level to the 8800 counterparts. Performance with SLI in vista is an anomaly that lies of the graph of expected performance, it's obvious this is for some reason.

Nothing here points to a hardware problem as these issues do not appear in other operating systems such as XP, if you have evidence that points to a hardware based issue then please post it, otherwise you are also just posting your opinion.
 
Frosteh said:
Please read my post, I'm not suggesting that the information they give is false, I'm saying it's a manipulation, as others have mentioned this information is selected to show Crossfires strong point in these games, where as other games SLI does just fine.

You don't have to manipulate actual facts to change peoples opinions of things, just merely alter the way you present it to them.
Click to expand...
Manipulation you say? Without evidence to back it up? All that has been shown and proven is that the R600 CF in Vista works better. You have supplied no proof to say otherwise.

Frosteh said:
It's no secret that Nvidia are struggling with Vista drivers right now, they publicly announced they were aiming for compatability first then once things were running correctly they would focus on optimisation and improving frame rates.
Click to expand...
7+ months later..ok you are being optimistic...


Frosteh said:
Either way, my point remains. This review is recomending ATI for Vista if you're aiming for a multi video card setup based soley on the fact that SLI does badly in Vista right now, there is no specific evidence that it's a permenant problem, or some kind of hardware fault.
Click to expand...
If the 7+ month delay in improve support for Vista is any indicator, why would anyone continue to wait? Go with what works.

Frosteh said:
How anyone can think these guys are reputable when they're basically telling us that we might as well buy an inferior performing card for the sole reason that theres issues with the competitors product.
Click to expand...
Based on what information? As it stands right now in Vista R600 CF is not an inferior product.

Frosteh said:
Anyone getting Crossfire 2900 cards for this reason is going to feel pretty stupid if Nvidia fix these problems in the coming weeks and suddenly they realise they bought not only one but two cards which are inferiour in price, performance, heat and noise level to the 8800 counterparts. Performance with SLI in vista is an anomaly that lies of the graph of expected performance, it's obvious this is for some reason.
Click to expand...
Again, no actual proof to back this up.

Frosteh said:
Nothing here points to a hardware problem as these issues do not appear in other operating systems such as XP, if you have evidence that points to a hardware based issue then please post it, otherwise you are also just posting your opinion.
Click to expand...
Please re-read my post as I presented the comment as a question.

What I find a bit disturbing is that you have not posted any research to substantiate your claims. Yet, you believe you can post them on a factual bases. You have not shown any research to actually show any foul play with these results. The simple fact of the matter is very, very simple. As it stands now (with the drivers used) this is what a user can expect in Vista. There is nothing manipulated about it. I see it "AS IS". Now if a driver release sometime in the near future changes that, so be it. However, as it stands now (again using those drivers) that is what you get. Please read a few posts earlier were I linked a post of one user who also obtained similar results which confirms this. Also take note of the bit-tech review. There are very few Vista based reviews of the R600Cf vs G80 SLI. However, what we do have so far clearly shows that the R600 CF as a strong competitor.
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Manipulation you say? Without evidence to back it up? All that has been shown and proven is that the R600 CF in Vista works better. You have supplied no proof to say otherwise.

7+ months later..ok you are being optimistic...

If the 7+ month delay in improve support for Vista is any indicator, why would anyone continue to wait? Go with what works.

Based on what information? As it stands right now in Vista R600 CF is not an inferior product.

Again, no actual proof to back this up.

Please re-read my post as I presented the comment as a question.

What I find a bit disturbing is that you have not posted any research to substantiate your claims. Yet, you believe you can post them on a factual bases. You have not shown any research to actually show any foul play with these results. The simple fact of the matter is very, very simple. As it stands now (with the drivers used) this is what a user can expect in Vista. There is nothing manipulated about it. I see it "AS IS". Now if a driver release sometime in the near future changes that, so be it. However, as it stands now (again using those drivers) that is what you get. Please read a few posts earlier were I linked a post of one user who also obtained similar results which confirms this. Also take note of the bit-tech review. There are very few Vista based reviews of the R600Cf vs G80 SLI. However, what we do have so far clearly shows that the R600 CF as a strong competitor.
Click to expand...

I rather think the pictures above showing Nvidia SLI beating ATI Crossfire in the bit-tech review is a good indication that this article cherrypicked games to run their benchmarks on.

What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that there is a difference between the facts and how you present them to your audience who are going to inteperate your facts in different ways depending on how you manipulate your results. Not factual numbers, you can stop harping on about that right now, what I'm talking about is the layout and presentation of the review, how it selectivly posts a handful of benchmarks out of a large range of games which are either untested or deliberately left out.

The reviewers job is to inform the public to help them make a good purchasing choice. Recomending a video card simply because a competitor has driver issues is certainly NOT good practice especially if theres every reason to believe it will be resolved in the coming weeks, there's plenty of evidence that Nvidia are simply lagging with drivers right now, 7xxx range SLI wasn't working for months after release, SLI with 4Gb of RAM in Vista 64bit was months more again, 88xx SLI was delayed longer, and Quad SLI still isn't supported to this day (not as far as i've seen at least)

Taking "facts" totaly out of context isn't doing the customer of these products any favours and so religiously stating facts with no context is an easy way to manipulate your results.

For example: It's easy to state that the 8800 Ultra is the fastest card available and give benchmark numbers to show it, but no good video card reviwer would actually recomend this card due to such a stupidly high mark up in price, the extra few percent performance isn't worth the increase in price. If you forget to mention this in a review or in a similar vein, you mention it but you make sure that it's a relatively small footnote in comparison to 8 pages of harping on about how good the card is, then you're misleading your readers.

It's my OPINION that the review is a misleading pile of bollocks, I think they've cherrypicked benchmark numbers from a possible pool of results and used drivers which do not show good SLI performance on Nvidias side, they're also quiet about the reasons as to why SLI performs so badly and offer no opinion on how future proof this setup might be to possible fixes on Nvidias side. Are they deliberately misleading or are they just fools who managed to whack this together by accident, I dunno, doesn't make any difference to me.

Is there strictly any proof? No.
Is there any proof that they're not just lying about the whole thing? No.

I'm using benchmark numbers from other setups as comparisons, I'm using trends in SLI and Crossfire performace scaling that we've seen in the past to gain an idea about how we should expect this to perform, I'm gathering information and thinking for myself rather than blindly believing what these guys try to tell me in what I think is a badly put together and misleading review.
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
What I find a bit disturbing is that you have not posted any research to substantiate your claims. Yet, you believe you can post them on a factual bases. You have not shown any research to actually show any foul play with these results. The simple fact of the matter is very, very simple. As it stands now (with the drivers used) this is what a user can expect in Vista. There is nothing manipulated about it. I see it "AS IS". Now if a driver release sometime in the near future changes that, so be it. However, as it stands now (again using those drivers) that is what you get. Please read a few posts earlier were I linked a post of one user who also obtained similar results which confirms this. Also take note of the bit-tech review. There are very few Vista based reviews of the R600Cf vs G80 SLI. However, what we do have so far clearly shows that the R600 CF as a strong competitor.
Click to expand...

It "clearly shows" nothing. You continue to boost what you want to see and nothing more. This review shows CF scaling better than SLI, yet the bit-tech review shows SLI doing better than CF. Making a fair judgement would be that they are pretty much equal in Vista. Only with more reviews, can we say it's not a draw.

In fact, here's a review, using Vista and also comparing SLI and Crossfire setups:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/radeon-hd-2900xt/index.x?pg=11

The Crossfired XTs only win in Half Life 2 Episode 1 and Oblivion (in this one by 3 frames only). The rest is a win for SLI'ed 8800s.

Since there was a draw before, should we say SLI is better now ? Not quite, but according to what you said, it's what we have so far, so it must mean SLI is better...

What I find more disturbing is that even 2 months after the launch of the HD 2900 XT, you're still trying to prove that the HD 2900 XT is amazing. Since it didn't work with single card, you've turned your attention to the dual card setups. Are you being paid by AMD/ATI or something ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top