Crossfire vs SLI ouch AT article

[.::MAGE::.]

Nvidia's 512mb GTX in BF2 single card was around the same FPS as ATI's crossfire terrible .

ATI did horrible with B&W2 but who cares that game isn't great and I uninstalled it after the second day hehe. ATI has no availability apparently with this looking like another paper launch. I was hoping for decent numbers on the crossfire setup for the new series of cards so we could get a better idea of next gen performance. I am really disappointed in the review as if both remain competitive I won't spend as much money but it doesn't look good.

The 512mb GTX keeps up with ATI's crossfire in many situations which also makes me a little more happier that I have two cards that are top notch albeit next time I upgrade though my options may be limited to Nvidia still. I am talking one card though not two of them.

I hope this is just growing pains into a new area maybe ATI should just copy Nvidia here?

Link to article

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2649

Right now there is no point to owning a high end X1800XT or XL unless you run one card exclusively and feel loyal to the company. The pricing of Nvidia's parts and performance just manhandle ATI's offerings still. Crossfire isn't even available even if you wanted it .

Really surprised they would do this all over again!

 

[spaceman]

uh oh. flame on...seriously though I would think ATI should just give up on this gen and pour it on for the refresh. mobos and cards. I hope they get their mojo back.

 

[fallguy]

For a much better review, try FS: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1800_xt_crossfire/

AT didnt even use AF, nor did they test Super/SLI AA. Not to mention other shortcomings. Their reviews have gone wayyy down hill, as most people agree.

Why talk about the lack of Crossfire XT's, and then not mention the severe lack of 512MB GTX's? They have been very, very hard to find for over a month. If you call one a paper launch, then be fair and at least call them both one.

 

[.::MAGE::.]

For a much better review, try FS: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1800_xt_crossfire/

AT didnt even use AF, nor did they test Super/SLI AA. Not to mention other shortcomings. Their reviews have gone wayyy down hill, as most people agree.

Why talk about the lack of Crossfire XT's, and then not mention the severe lack of 512MB GTX's? They have been very, very hard to find for over a month. If you call one a paper launch, then be fair and at least call them both one.

I have to agree on AT's quality they have gone downhill I won't argue over that one but the review does provide information.

I don't agree with you on the GTX512mb being a paper launch especially since it was available prior to the release date and at release when people actually purchased them. I got two of them and calling large demand on something retailers can't keep in stock because they are bought out in droves doesn't mean it's a paper launch. Paper launches are releasing a product and having none around there were 512mb cards around prior and at release and saying well they don't make enough of a ultra high end card that costs more than or around a mortgage payment it's obvious why retailers only have 10 or so each shipment. It's not a mainstream product unlike the X1800XL or XT and the master cards again are NEEDED to run ATI's system.

Don't get upset because ATI is dropping the ball start getting mad at ATI and make sure they know so they start fixing their bad habits. I wouldn't have bought Nvidia if SLI didn't work well or the cards weren't available paper launched as you think because I won't give them my money if I feel it's a bad product.

It's simple Nvidia has the better product they get the money and ATI needs to learn from their mistakes and not make excuses.

EDIT: This same arguement can be had over Intel/AMD I would have preferred Intel but guess what? They aren't putting out a better product for a gaming everyday computer so I bought AMD it's easy. I bought what is the better product at the time of purchase and am quite happy with my decision. Intel starts putting out better then I buy Intel no biggie.

 

[DougLite]

Maybe not a paper launch, but certainly vaporware at this point. I found it in stock in one place (AllStarShop), also checked Newegg, ZZF, Mwave, TigerDirect. Also, the 512MB X1800 has a tremendous price advantage over the GTX 512.

 

[.::MAGE::.]

Maybe not a paper launch, but certainly vaporware at this point. I found it in stock in one place (AllStarShop), also checked Newegg, ZZF, Mwave, TigerDirect. Also, the 512MB X1800 has a tremendous price advantage over the GTX 512.

Doug my carpayment has a tremendous price advantage including insurance over the 512mb GTX hehe I won't disagree it's expensive .

 

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

It's actually kind of impressive. The 1800XT CF can beat a regular GTX in SLi in most of the tests. The price difference between those two are pretty high though, and CF isn't readily available...

 

[fallguy]

I have to agree on AT's quality they have gone downhill I won't argue over that one but the review does provide information.

I don't agree with you on the GTX512mb being a paper launch especially since it was available prior to the release date and at release when people actually purchased them. I got two of them and calling large demand on something retailers can't keep in stock because they are bought out in droves doesn't mean it's a paper launch. Paper launches are releasing a product and having none around there were 512mb cards around prior and at release and saying well they don't make enough of a ultra high end card that costs more than or around a mortgage payment it's obvious why retailers only have 10 or so each shipment. It's not a mainstream product unlike the X1800XL or XT and the master cards again are NEEDED to run ATI's system.

Yes the 512MB GTX was available, before and shortly after launch. However, that has been more than a month ago. They are very, very hard to come by. Calling the X1800XT/PE a paper launch, and not the 512MB GTX is hypocritical. Reviews not even mentioning that the 512MB GTX is very, very hard to come by, and well over MSRP is not telling the whole story. AT dedicated a whole page to the availability of the Crossfire cards, yet not one word about the availability of the 512MB GTX's. Instead they say that a pair of them will be about $1400. I would like to know where they found some in stock for $700. heck, how about in stock at any price.

Don't get upset because ATI is dropping the ball start getting mad at ATI and make sure they know so they start fixing their bad habits. I wouldn't have bought Nvidia if SLI didn't work well or the cards weren't available paper launched as you think because I won't give them my money if I feel it's a bad product.

Who said I was upset? What I am telling in more of the whole story. The 512MB GTX is not even close to easy to come by. They have been unavailable for about a month now, other than a brief stint here and there. Which is the problem I have with these reviews. They test cards, and do not mention the real world prices, or availability.

It's simple Nvidia has the better product they get the money and ATI needs to learn from their mistakes and not make excuses.

"A better product" is very subjective. Especially since the 512MB's are so scarce, and well over MSRP. SLI has certainly gotten much better since it has been out. It had a lot of problems at the start. Now it is ATi's turn to go thru teething pains of sorts.

Both setups have their ups and downs, calling one better is an opinion, and not a fact. One fact is that ATi clearly does SuperAA much better than NV does SLI AA. Not to mention the things the ATi cards can do, that the NV cards cannot. AVIVO is a feature that NV cant touch right now.

It's actually kind of impressive. The 1800XT CF can beat a regular GTX in SLi in most of the tests. The price difference between those two are pretty high though, and CF isn't readily available...

I agree, and this is why I would recommend 2x256 GTX's over 2xXT's, right now. (if money is a huge concern) Once the CF XT drops in price, I wouldnt. Because clearly the XT's are faster most of the time, and have more features. The regular XT came down already in about 6 weeks, from a little over $600 at launch, to under $500 now. In 4-6 weeks, hopefully the CF cards will as well, and thats better for the consumers. The 512MB GTX's are far too much $$ to even consider to me, and since they have been AWOL for about a month, I dont expect that to change any time soon.

 

[Brent_Justice]

seriously though I would think ATI should just give up on this gen and pour it on for the refresh

in an amount of time I cannot disclose come back to this post

 

[PRIME1]

Here is another review that did a good job
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/radeon-x1800-crossfire/index.x?pg=1

Once again price and availability are a big factor here. 2 GTX256's can be up to $300 less and can be found just about anywhere.

 

[.::MAGE::.]

in an amount of time I cannot disclose come back to this post

Brent almost sounds like ATI there with their cards and availability! I KID!

Hopefully we get some info on the next gen ATI stuff mmm tidbits.

 

[fallguy]

Here is another review that did a good job
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/radeon-x1800-crossfire/index.x?pg=1

Once again price and availability are a big factor here. 2 GTX256's can be up to $300 less and can be found just about anywhere.

Up to $300 less than what? Speaking of lack of availability, why not bring the 512MB GTX into the same conversation?

This is exactly what I am talking about. Some people like to look at the benchmarks, and not look at it realistically. Try to be more even. If you call out on cards high prices, and lack of availability, do so for both ATi and NV. Not just your favorite. But since you wouldnt even own a ATi card (your words), perhaps thats too much to ask for.

None of this really matters anyways... as higend cards account for a very small percentage of sales, and multi GPU users are in a even smaller percentage.

 

[Asian Dub Foundation]

i have full confidence that ATI will come back with a punch with the RD600 (wrong name?) chipset and R580 refresh...

then again... nvidia has the answer to that too

 

[phide]

(The 7800 GTX 512 is) not a mainstream product unlike the X1800XL or XT

Since when were $600 graphics cards mainstream? $200-300 is the mainstream price range for cards that are adept at handling gaming apps and represents a price point that has nearly doubled in the past five years or so.

Although the XT launch was pretty horrid (in comparison to the GTX 256 a little while ago), availability is currently here and has been for a little while now. Master Cards may take a bit more time, and may hang around the above-MSRP realm for a couple weeks, but the XT is now settling down to well below MSRP and the Master Card will likely do the same (likely at a faster rate). On the topic of the GTX 512, I think it's fair to call the it a Phantom. It wasn't a paper launch - availability was there, and has been to some (severely limited) extent since the launch, but the time you spend sitting in the cue is absurd. There are plenty of stories of people ordering on launch day (11/14) and not getting shipping confirmation for two weeks. I myself ordered a BFG 512 and pulled out a week-and-a-half later. A waiting list is NOT availability. $200-250 over MSRP is NOT availability.

I still think a dual 7800 GT/GTX setup is the king in terms of high-end performance and stomachable price point, and I don't think new CrossFire boards will change the situation in any significant way, but we need to stop focusing on benchmarks and performance for phantom cards and comparing their performance to cards that are solidly in retail channels.

 

[Richthofen]

Up to $300 less than what? Speaking of lack of availability, why not bring the 512MB GTX into the same conversation?

This is exactly what I am talking about. Some people like to look at the benchmarks, and not look at it realistically. Try to be more even. If you call out on cards high prices, and lack of availability, do so for both ATi and NV. Not just your favorite. But since you wouldnt even own a ATi card (your words), perhaps thats too much to ask for.

None of this really matters anyways... as higend cards account for a very small percentage of sales, and multi GPU users are in a even smaller percentage.

well but the bottom line still remains. ATI is second and Nvidia is first and has been since june. This round has and still is gone for ATI. Nor the X1800XT and nor Crossfire did change that.
They will make their next attempt with R580 sometime in Q1 2006.

 

[fallguy]

well but the bottom line still remains. ATI is second and Nvidia is first and has been since june. This round has and still is gone for ATI. Nor the X1800XT and nor Crossfire did change that.
They will make their next attempt with R580 sometime in Q1 2006.

Really, where can I buy the 512MB GTX? "The bottom line" is that, it is not for sale. And when it is, its at least $250 more. Not to mention if the, "The bottom line" means better IQ, then NV does not come out on top. Yes the 512MB is a very fast card, and generally faster than the XT. However, it is in very, very short supply, and costs at least $250 more. Hardly even comparable.

 

[delusion_2005]

Maybe not a paper launch, but certainly vaporware at this point. I found it in stock in one place (AllStarShop), also checked Newegg, ZZF, Mwave, TigerDirect. Also, the 512MB X1800 has a tremendous price advantage over the GTX 512.

Yeah well thats true but the 512mb GTX woops the X1800 in almost every benchmark and games. I seriously think you a fan boy or some thing you just won't admit Nvidia is going better then ATI, and plus Nvidia don't paper launch their product like ATI.

 

[delusion_2005]

"A better product" is very subjective. Especially since the 512MB's are so scarce, and well over MSRP. SLI has certainly gotten much better since it has been out. It had a lot of problems at the start. Now it is ATi's turn to go thru teething pains of sorts.

Both setups have their ups and downs, calling one better is an opinion, and not a fact. One fact is that ATi clearly does SuperAA much better than NV does SLI AA. Not to mention the things the ATi cards can do, that the NV cards cannot. AVIVO is a feature that NV cant touch right now.

QUOTE]

Well i can say the same thing about NV's Pure Video, and the graph you shown witht eh Hl2 benchmark is biased to ATI, atleast try to make it fair and use a game like BF2 or something.

 

[PRIME1]

Up to $300 less than what? Speaking of lack of availability, why not bring the 512MB GTX into the same conversation?

Because the 256GTX's are sufficient enough to compete with the XT's and they are less expensive. I have seen several people on this board with GTX512's, I have not seen any with XT Crossfire.

But since you wouldnt even own a ATi card (your words), perhaps thats too much to ask for.

In my 15+ years as a computer geek I have probably had 4 or 5 ATI cards. My laptop has a ATI GPU right now and I play Guild Wars on it. Now before I outright call you a liar, please post a link to "my words" where I said I would not even own one.

None of this really matters anyways... as higend cards account for a very small percentage of sales, and multi GPU users are in a even smaller percentage.

Small percentage of sales, but a large profit. They make way more off a high end card than they do a low end.

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

Well i can say the same thing about NV's Pure Video, and the graph you shown witht eh Hl2 benchmark is biased to ATI, atleast try to make it fair and use a game like BF2 or something.

So instead of using a game that nearly all reputable gamers own and has a scalable engine but is 'biased' because it's an ATI GITG sponsored, you'd rather have the poor resource using game which demo was released with nVidia optimised drivers and is a TWIMTBP (I know it's a demo and just marketing but it's still shows more bias than Half Life 2 and ATI)

 

[[RIP]Zeus]

So instead of using a game that nearly all reputable gamers own and has a scalable engine but is 'biased' because it's an ATI GITG sponsored, you'd rather have the poor resource using game which demo was released with nVidia optimised drivers and is a TWIMTBP (I know it's a demo and just marketing but it's still shows more bias than Half Life 2 and ATI)

Do you forget valve made hl2 for ati cards.....So yes i would say BIASED towards ati....

Not all reputable gamers own hl2.... Fuck my whole clan which is 60 of us hate hl2... We play better games like FEAR, Quake4, Doom3, UT2K4, Guild wars, and whatever we can get our hands on....

 

[.::MAGE::.]

Since when were $600 graphics cards mainstream? $200-300 is the mainstream price range for cards that are adept at handling gaming apps and represents a price point that has nearly doubled in the past five years or so.

Although the XT launch was pretty horrid (in comparison to the GTX 256 a little while ago), availability is currently here and has been for a little while now. Master Cards may take a bit more time, and may hang around the above-MSRP realm for a couple weeks, but the XT is now settling down to well below MSRP and the Master Card will likely do the same (likely at a faster rate). On the topic of the GTX 512, I think it's fair to call the it a Phantom. It wasn't a paper launch - availability was there, and has been to some (severely limited) extent since the launch, but the time you spend sitting in the cue is absurd. There are plenty of stories of people ordering on launch day (11/14) and not getting shipping confirmation for two weeks. I myself ordered a BFG 512 and pulled out a week-and-a-half later. A waiting list is NOT availability. $200-250 over MSRP is NOT availability.

I still think a dual 7800 GT/GTX setup is the king in terms of high-end performance and stomachable price point, and I don't think new CrossFire boards will change the situation in any significant way, but we need to stop focusing on benchmarks and performance for phantom cards and comparing their performance to cards that are solidly in retail channels.

My use of mainstream was off but my point and meaning were they make more 6600GT's or 7800GT's etc etc or lower cards more than the higher end due to demand in most cases. I don't think eVGA and BFG and other partners expected the 512mb GTX to be a hit. I mean here you have eVGA getting dozens of step up requests from GTX 256mb cards to 512mb which you know they might take a hit on due to inventory. I mean what more do the rest of you (fallguy) want? If I can sell my monitor that I bought for 100 dollars at a markup for 300 dollars I am going to don't think for a minute if ATI's partners had XT's in such a high demand situation where they could charge over MSRP for them they wouldn't because they would it's business.

Nvidia is the best performance and price it's a fact not an opinion. When ATI comes out with better than I am going to buy ATI which is a fact because I will.

Avivo? Nvidia has had purevideo for awhile and ATI played catch up. ATI has had missing features so does Nvidia and again I love the AIW line from ATI and I hope Nvidia comes out with something similar so prices stabilize more.

 

[.::MAGE::.]

Oh and back on topic Crossfire when are they getting rid of the dongle? Why don't they just do copy Nvidia on this?

 

[Brent_Justice]

Oh and back on topic Crossfire when are they getting rid of the dongle? Why don't they just do copy Nvidia on this?

Personally, I wish they'd drop the dongle also. I find setting up SLI much faster and easier, and it's less of a mess and less chance of monitor signal degradation.

 

[fallguy]

Well i can say the same thing about NV's Pure Video, and the graph you shown witht eh Hl2 benchmark is biased to ATI, atleast try to make it fair and use a game like BF2 or something.

What can you say about NV's Purevideo? That is costs between $20 and $50? And isnt as good as ATi's, which is free?

The difference is still large, no matter what game. Calling HL2 bias against NV is pertty silly. Check the same link for another game, in which SuperAA has much better performance than SLI AA.

Because the 256GTX's are sufficient enough to compete with the XT's and they are less expensive. I have seen several people on this board with GTX512's, I have not seen any with XT Crossfire.

In my 15+ years as a computer geek I have probably had 4 or 5 ATI cards. My laptop has a ATI GPU right now and I play Guild Wars on it. Now before I outright call you a liar, please post a link to "my words" where I said I would not even own one.

Small percentage of sales, but a large profit. They make way more off a high end card than they do a low end.

Sufficient? So the 256MB GTX is close enough to compete with the XT in performance, but the XT isnt close enough to the 512MB GTX? Yes the 256MB GTX is less expensive, not anywhere close to the $300 you claimed. Since several people on these forums have a 512MB, that means they are available? Give me a single link that has them in stock.

I thought it was you, perhaps I was mistaken. Sorry. Now that I think about it, I think it was zues. Several of you tend to post alike, and blend together.

Large profit says who? Where are these numbers to show the large profit?

Do you forget valve made hl2 for ati cards.....So yes i would say BIASED towards ati....

Not all reputable gamers own hl2.... Fuck my whole clan which is 60 of us hate hl2... We play better games like FEAR, Quake4, Doom3, UT2K4, Guild wars, and whatever we can get our hands on....

You would say? Where is the proof that it is bias towards ATi? It was voted best of last year, by more people than not. The fact is, according to FS, a single 512MB GTX is faster than a single XT in HL2. But then when Super/SLI AA is tested witht he same game, and two cards this time, the results are thrown out, because its bias towards ATi? Please.

 

[DocFaustus]

You would say? Where is the proof that it is bias towards ATi? It was voted best of last year, by more people than not. The fact is, according to FS, a single 512MB GTX is faster than a single XT in HL2. But then when Super/SLI AA is tested witht he same game, and two cards this time, the results are thrown out, because its bias towards ATi? Please.

You dont remember the whole fiasco about people doing tricks to make thier Nvidia cards report as being ATI cards to increase performance in HL2? Showing HL2 to pimp an ATI card is like showing Doom3 to pimp nVidia cards (although the latter had to do with openGL performance, not exclusionary code)

I know you are too busy trying to contradict every post from everyone, but instead of dodging the question and dancing around the proof shown with 1 graph of 1 game, why not post other results too?

 

[[RIP]Zeus]

You would say? Where is the proof that it is bias towards ATi? It was voted best of last year, by more people than not. The fact is, according to FS, a single 512MB GTX is faster than a single XT in HL2. But then when Super/SLI AA is tested witht he same game, and two cards this time, the results are thrown out, because its bias towards ATi? Please.

I never said anything about throwing out some benchmarks....


And i am to lazy to look up the 8mil dollars ati put into making hl2 for there cards and not optimizing nVidia's...

 

[fallguy]

You dont remember the whole fiasco about people doing tricks to make thier Nvidia cards report as being ATI cards to increase performance in HL2? Showing HL2 to pimp an ATI card is like showing Doom3 to pimp nVidia cards (although the latter had to do with openGL performance, not exclusionary code)

I know you are too busy trying to contradict every post from everyone, but instead of dodging the question and dancing around the proof shown with 1 graph of 1 game, why not post other results too?

Link, proof? The "whole fiasco" was that FX cards were running as DX8 cards, and people could trick HL2 to run them as DX9 cards. While performance plummeted. As I have already said, the 512MB beats the XT with AA running in single card tests, yet with dual cards, the XT is faster with SuperAA than NV is with SLi AA, by far. Same as in every other game. So if you're going to call it bias based on that, then thats just silly.

Dodging what question? Look at reviwes. I linked the FS review in my first post. Look at the techreport review, that has been posted several times in the last week. Not all reviews show results for the tests (another reason that some review sites are slipping), however, every single one shows SuperAA performing much better than SLI AA.

And i am to lazy to look up the 8mil dollars ati put into making hl2 for there cards and not optimizing nVidia's...

That argument didnt work then, and doesnt work now. That money was because HL2 was bundled with a lot of ATi cards. Do you think Valve was just going to let them do it for free? Money was exchanged for Farcry, CoD2, and others to be bundled with some NV cards. That doesnt mean they coded it to be favorable to NV.

 

[PRIME1]

What can you say about NV's Purevideo? That is costs between $20 and $50? And isnt as good as ATi's, which is free?

Actually several card makers include it for free in the retail box. Plus you can use WMV support for free by downloading the latest WMP. Plus the MPEG decoder works on all 6xxx & 7xxx series cards, not just the ones released in the last few months. Plus the stand alone NDVD player will work on Matrox and ATI cards.

And I would not say that AVIVO is any better.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2551

The difference is still large, no matter what game. Calling HL2 bias against NV is pertty silly. Check the same link for another game, in which SuperAA has much better performance than SLI AA.

Cherry picking one game benchmark does not make for a good argument.

Yes the 256MB GTX is less expensive, not anywhere close to the $300 you claimed.

I was referring to a SLI setup vs. A crossfire setup. Not a single GTX vs. a single non-mastercard XT.

Large profit says who? Where are these numbers to show the large profit?

Where are the numbers to show the profit margin on any card? These are not numbers released to the public. But it's as standard in the industry to make a larger profit on a $500 card than you make on a $50 card.

 

[[RIP]Zeus]

Link, proof? The "whole fiasco" was that FX cards were running as DX8 cards, and people could trick HL2 to run them as DX9 cards. While performance plummeted. As I have already said, the 512MB beats the XT with AA running in single card tests, yet with dual cards, the XT is faster with SuperAA than NV is with SLi AA, by far. Same as in every other game. So if you're going to call it bias based on that, then thats just silly.

Dodging what question? Look at reviwes. I linked the FS review in my first post. Look at the techreport review, that has been posted several times in the last week. Not all reviews show results for the tests (another reason that some review sites are slipping), however, every single one shows SuperAA performing much better than SLI AA.



That argument didnt work then, and doesnt work now. That money was because HL2 was bundled with a lot of ATi cards. Do you think Valve was just going to let them do it for free? Money was exchanged for Farcry, CoD2, and others to be bundled with some NV cards. That doesnt mean they coded it to be favorable to NV.

Now that you have made me want to shut your hole...here ya go

http://techreport.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x?pg=1

Here is a forum i found...i haven't looked it through.. but it links the link up top.
http://forum.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=21082

here is some more on that
http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/HL2_benchmarks/001.htm


Also google this (halflife 2 biased towards ati)...and you will find some more things about the ati/valve sleeping with each other...

 

[fallguy]

Actually several card makers include it for free in the retail box. Plus you can use WMV support for free by downloading the latest WMP. Plus the MPEG decoder works on all 6xxx & 7xxx series cards, not just the ones released in the last few months. Plus the stand alone NDVD player will work on Matrox and ATI cards.

And I would not say that AVIVO is any better.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2551

Speaking of cherry picking, that article is dated Oct 5. The new AVIVO came out a few days ago. Try looking at those reviews.

Cherry picking one game benchmark does not make for a good argument.

Sure it does. I was showing someone who claimed that NV has "a better product", that its not always the case. And that its an opinion, not fact.

I was referring to a SLI setup vs. A crossfire setup. Not a single GTX vs. a single non-mastercard XT.

Then you need to make yourself clear. Going back and forth between the master, none, 512 GTX, 256 GTX. Also, where is the $330 256 GTX? Since its $300 cheaper and all.

Where are the numbers to show the profit margin on any card? These are not numbers released to the public. But it's as standard in the industry to make a larger profit on a $500 card than you make on a $50 card.

I didnt bring it up. You claimed the top end cards have a higher profit margin, not I. Since you post this things as fact, I just assumed you could provide some facts to back it up.

 

[fallguy]

Now that you have made me want to shut your hole...here ya go

http://techreport.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x?pg=1

Here is a forum i found...i haven't looked it through.. but it links the link up top.
http://forum.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=21082

here is some more on that fatass
http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/HL2_benchmarks/001.htm


Also google this (halflife 2 biased towards ati)...and you will find some more things about the ati/valve sleeping with each other...

None of those links show that Valve is bias towards ATi. At the time of those articles, they were testing the FX series and 9800 Pro. As we learned, the 9800 Pro is indeed much faster than the FX cards, because the FX cards suck as high shader DX9 cards. As other games show. Heck, in the recent BF2 patch, with the FX cards, the config auto sets it as "low".

 

[[RIP]Zeus]

None of those links show that Valve is bias towards ATi. At the time of those articles, they were testing the FX series and 9800 Pro. As we learned, the 9800 Pro is indeed much faster than the FX cards, because the FX cards suck as high shader DX9 cards. As other games show. Heck, in the recent BF2 patch, with the FX cards, the config auto sets it as "low".

you replyed that my post quick didn't you?

Did you even read those?

 

[jokerx225]

..... tissssssssss........ smokes clears........ is the war over'?

I Also agree Ati performes better then Nvidia when it comes to HL2


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PUTS BACK WARHELMET !!!! GET READY!

 

[Russ]

Then you need to make yourself clear. Going back and forth between the master, none, 512 GTX, 256 GTX. Also, where is the $330 256 GTX? Since its $300 cheaper and all.

I thought it was clear. No one is gonna claim that a 256mb GTX is $300 cheaper than anything but a 512mb GTX.

330 x 2 = 660 + 300 = 960. X1800XT is 520 on average, that means you think you can find a X1800XT mastercard for 440. As far as I've seen it, those things are $600.
600 + 520 = 1120 - 300 = $820 / 2 = $410. Now, you CAN get refurb GTX's on newegg for $399 each, but obviously the more common price is $450. Thats not quite $300, but it's still more than $200 cheaper.

------

Now that you have made me want to shut your hole...here ya go

http://techreport.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x?pg=1

Here is a forum i found...i haven't looked it through.. but it links the link up top.
http://forum.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=21082

here is some more on that
http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/HL2_benchmarks/001.htm


Also google this (halflife 2 biased towards ati)...and you will find some more things about the ati/valve sleeping with each other...

Those benchmarks don't show anything to me, and I'm a bit biased to the green. We all know the FX series sucks. bad. Benchmarks of the x800/x850 series and 6X00 series are what counts. Got any of those? In fact gabe denied that the deal w/ ATI caused the benchmark performance, it was apparantly the other way around. I got this from one of the sites you posted. FX series just plain sucks balls.

 

[AtomicMoose]

You guys better bring it down a few notches....this will be your only warning.

 

[arabdon1203]

Can I say pwnt? Pretty much all of the review showed x1800xt and 7800gtx even till the super aa/sli aa and uber high res (2048) where the x1800xt wins

 

[Russ]

Can I say pwnt? Pretty much all of the review showed x1800xt and 7800gtx even till the super aa/sli aa and uber high res (2048) where the x1800xt wins

who wants to play at 1024x768 though? In my opinion upping the res is just as good as or even better than using AA.

 

[fallguy]

I thought it was clear. No one is gonna claim that a 256mb GTX is $300 cheaper than anything but a 512mb GTX.

330 x 2 = 660 + 300 = 960. X1800XT is 520 on average, that means you think you can find a X1800XT mastercard for 440. As far as I've seen it, those things are $600.
600 + 520 = 1120 - 300 = $820 / 2 = $410. Now, you CAN get refurb GTX's on newegg for $399 each, but obviously the more common price is $450. Thats not quite $300, but it's still more than $200 cheaper.

Yes the GTX is much cheaper in SLI, especially because you need a master card in Crossfire. He was not clear in what he was trying to say was $300 cheaper. As I said earlier, at this point I would go with SLI if buying new. Until the price drops on the master card, and some things get worked out. At this point, with the prices as they are, I believe SLI is the better deal.

The whole thing about HL2 being ATi bias, was brought up because I posted a shot of SuperAA performing much, much better than SLI AA. I posted it because someone claimed SLI is "a better product". I posted that showing that is not always the case. And because of this, HL2 was called bias. Nevermind the fact that the same is true, from the same site, in Quake 4. Super AA performing much better than SLI AA.

In the single card review, it went like this, 512MB GTX>XT>256MB GTX>7800GT>XL for HL2 from the same site. Which is about the same for every game out there. There are a few exceptions, but that is the norm. So the 512MB GTX beats the XT when in single card, yet when they test SuperAA and SLI AA, Crossfire is faster. And for that HL2 is called bias? I just dont understand that logic. Which is all I was saying. If HL2 was bias towards ATi, then the XT would beat the 512MB GTX in single mode as well. But that is not the case. And thats all I am saying on that.

 

[Banko]

Link, proof? The "whole fiasco" was that FX cards were running as DX8 cards, and people could trick HL2 to run them as DX9 cards. While performance plummeted. As I have already said, the 512MB beats the XT with AA running in single card tests, yet with dual cards, the XT is faster with SuperAA than NV is with SLi AA, by far. Same as in every other game. So if you're going to call it bias based on that, then thats just silly.

Dodging what question? Look at reviwes. I linked the FS review in my first post. Look at the techreport review, that has been posted several times in the last week. Not all reviews show results for the tests (another reason that some review sites are slipping), however, every single one shows SuperAA performing much better than SLI AA.



That argument didnt work then, and doesnt work now. That money was because HL2 was bundled with a lot of ATi cards. Do you think Valve was just going to let them do it for free? Money was exchanged for Farcry, CoD2, and others to be bundled with some NV cards. That doesnt mean they coded it to be favorable to NV.

Regarding the SLi aa vs SuperAA, isn't NVidia SLi aa method superior image quality wise compared to SuperAA? I swear I read that somewhere.