OH HELL NO! Don't you go try compare yourself to Kyle.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Early Fermi Benchmarks
- Thread starter Mr. K6
- Start date
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 35,395
*waits for lulz to ensue........
You are reading WAY to much into the meaning behind what I said man.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
No we didnt
Fermi is 5-6 months late. There is no way to spin that. That really sucks for nvidia because:
a) They surely lost many sales to the 5870 and 5970
b) They'll have to work *really* hard to prevent this delay from pushing into the 28nm cycle
With that said, anybody claiming that Fermi must be MUCH faster than ATI's offering because its 6 months late simply does not understand how those cards are developed. Nvidia has been busy finalizing the product they wanted to release back in November, this delay time does *not* translate to extra perf (except, perhaps, a bit on the driver side).
So yes, the huge delay sucks for nvidia, but I (and anybody looking for a GPU upgrade after March 26), would still buy it if its a better offering all things considered. It doesn't need to be "50% better" or "10% better per month delayed". That is nonsense FUD.
a) They surely lost many sales to the 5870 and 5970
b) They'll have to work *really* hard to prevent this delay from pushing into the 28nm cycle
With that said, anybody claiming that Fermi must be MUCH faster than ATI's offering because its 6 months late simply does not understand how those cards are developed. Nvidia has been busy finalizing the product they wanted to release back in November, this delay time does *not* translate to extra perf (except, perhaps, a bit on the driver side).
So yes, the huge delay sucks for nvidia, but I (and anybody looking for a GPU upgrade after March 26), would still buy it if its a better offering all things considered. It doesn't need to be "50% better" or "10% better per month delayed". That is nonsense FUD.
Yes you did. My point was I'm not going to give specifics anymore than Kyle would before he is allowed to.
And by the way, I'm still waiting for teh answer as to where ATI is with Havok and OCL GPU based physics. Not that I'm going to hold my breath waiting as I know where it is. Dead in the water like a floating corpse.
No more so than you.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
Bad Company 2 is using Havok Physx
, Looks great, runs great, and its one of the most popular PC titles in a long time.this shows you dont need Nvidia physx to make a great physx game
Bad Company 2 is using Havok Physx
this shows you dont need Nvidia physx to make a great physx game
I said GPU physics, not preprogrammed, adnausium never changing always the same no matter what you do crap.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
So your saying my GPU isnt producing the Physx on my screen?
So I have been playing in software mode all this time?...GOD this explains so much!
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
You know right that DX11 isn't anything more then redone DX10 with optimizations.
You could also rephrase that to i wouldn't know why it would be slower in anything DX11 unless the engine is tailored for the Nvidia GTX 480. Which in gaming is slim to none but benchmarks sure you can have a few doing that stuff.
Btw Tessellation has been available for a good while now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruForm
Its rendering what the CPU is telling it to, NOT ACTUALLY CALCULATING the physics aspects itself on teh gpu instead of teh CPU. You do know the difference between CPU based physics and GPU based right?
No, that's not what happened at all. The HD2900XT was a fine card at launch. In some games it even beat out the 8800 Ultra. It was also the benchmark king for a while. The problem was its drivers and its very inconsistent performance as well as being so late to the party. In some games FPS would tank and it would fall way behind competition. Such is the woe of new architectures and new drivers.
I think it's funny how fanboys are jumping into apologist mode an saying "it's not as bad as the HD2900XT launch!" like it somehow justifies the situation. NVIDIA screwed up, Fermi is "meh," go cry a river while we wait for some real reviews.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,217
GPU physics is EXTREMELY limited to visual effects for the most part, I haven't seen a game that really impacts game play yet, it makes it more "pretty" and somewhat more enjoyable in some games (batman and the new game) other wise it's just pretty
even so, gpu physics isn't at the point yet where things could truly be simulated, even water isn't fully simulated yet :/, currently, gpu physics seems to be limited to having more items on screen, and having them move around with the wind 0.0.
I know BF BC2 isn't that great on actual physics. but the destructible environment, I'd take that over any floating boxes ^^
What fricken reviews did you read? Even Kyle called it a turd because it sucked so badly. It still to this day can't out do the 8800GTS 640. and teh only benchmark it ever won against any G80 was 06. Tell, how fun is playing 06? how many kills/points/rewards do you get playing for 30 minutes, an hour even? Thats what I thought.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,217
how fun is it playing heaven
I dont play sythetic benchmarks programs, I play games. Altho I get the sence many ATI fans play benchmarks.
Go do some reading while you unknot your panties: http://www.techspot.com/review/52-asus-radeon-hd-2900xt/page7.html
Considering benchmarks are the only places Fermi is making a decent showing, I'd think you would hold on to that notion more dearly.
So what GAMES does Fermi excel in?
Herem try one where they PLAYED teh games and not canned benches.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2007/05/13/ati_radeon_hd_2900_xt/8
From teh conclusion pages:
"“A day late and a dollar short.” Cliché but accurate. The Radeon HD 2900 XT is late to the party and unfortunately is bringing with it performance that cannot compete. The GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB is $50 cheaper, performs better, and draws a lot less power than the 2900 XT."
"As it stands right now the Radeon HD 2900 XT, in our opinion, is a flop."
"Here is what it boils down to. If the Radeon HD 2900 XT performed exactly on par with the GeForce 8800 GTS in every game, it would still be a loser because it draws nearly 100 more watts of power, meaning it is very inefficient. The facts are though that it doesn’t even match the 8800 GTS currently. In every game it slides in underperforming compared to the GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB, and it does it while drawing a lot more power, as much power or more as an 8800 GTX. Not only that, but a GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB based video card can now be had for up to $70 cheaper than the Radeon HD 2900 XT. I don’t know about you, but a video card that is cheaper, runs a lot faster and draws less energy just seems like the better value to me."
Or this one a month later:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2007/06/13/radeon_hd_2900_xt_vs_320mb_8800_gts/
With the following conclusion:"We hoped newer driver revisions would improve performance on the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. With the newer driver we used for this evaluation we did not see any “magic” happen when it comes to real world gaming experiences at resolutions at and above 1600x1200. The ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is not even a match for even the much less expensive and much less power hungry 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS."
Have fun.
Last edited:
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
The 2900XT was one of the learning steps ATI took to get to where it is now.
Fermi will be the same for Nvidia...unfortunately they didn't learn enough from the FX release
Fermi will be the same for Nvidia...unfortunately they didn't learn enough from the FX release
A
akotlar
Guest
The 2900XT was one of the learning steps ATI took to get to where it is now.
Fermi will be the same for Nvidia...unfortunately they didn't learn enough from the FX release
Ha ha that's a very optimistic view on 2900xt. I'd say it was the combination of a well-designed but over-engineered product with one major engineering error - the ROP issue. I'd wager that the ROP's would have worked fine on a more mature process. It was a perfect storm of engineering + foundry issues. They certainly learned from that mistake, but a learning process was not what they expected. In fact that 2900xt was supposed to be the result of all the knowledge they gained from Xenos
At least that's how I understand the issue based on what I've read.
IDK about the 2900 series b/c I wasn't in the market for a GPU at that time, but the x1800 launch was pretty lol as well, if you guys remember that....
the 7800 got launched literally 6 months before ATI had any competition out. (IIRC wasn't this due to the 130->90nm transition? nVidia waited a generation and ATI got owned trying to get good enough yields.)
-----
It's funny how the shoe's on the other foot now. Though I'm definitely happy that ATI was able to continue competing with nVidia back then, and I hope nVidia continues to compete with ATI in the future.
They look to be pretty fast in FC2.
Can anyone run a 5870 bench of 3dmark 06 at 1920x1200 0xAA? Preferably with a core i7 at 4.2ghz, I will add it to the thread to compare with the gtx480 benchmark at the same resolution.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 35,395
I don't remember any problems as I was able to get a 1800XT at launch
So wait... physics aren't physics unless it's done on the GPU?
Wouldn't that take strain off of my video card? Isn't that a much better solution?
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 298
The launch itself was delayed a few months. Not because of the process transition, though. The engineers discovered a bug in the chip that affected random boards and required a respin to eliminate.
And none of that negates a single thing I said. Looks like you still need to work on undoing your panties though. I think it's funny how the fanboys come running in here and have a tantrum "well, well, it's not as bad as this other ATI release, so there!" Tons of lolz to be had. It's computer hardware kids, go outside and get some sunshine.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,771
It just depends on how the prices work out at the time. If you could get a triple-5870 setup going for cheaper than a "6870" assuming it stacked up how you said it would then I don't see why that would be a bad option or that people shouldn't consider it.
That's not an argument I ever tried to make. What I was saying is that DirectX11 has built-in downlevel paths for 10 and 10.1 hardware so that compatibility is built-in. This is in contrast to how it has been in the past where if you had a DirectX 9 card you simply could not play a DirectX10 only game at all.
At least I'm still discussing hardware and not blatantly attacking other forum members. Let me know when you actually have something real to discuss that is actually about computer hardware. I never tried to "convince" anyone of anything, I merely pointed out what I felt were the benefits of the card in a thread that was directly asking about those cards.
ATI made a brilliant move by going to 40nm with a cheaper GPU first and then applying everything they learned to the HD5K. Nvidia didn't.
I answered, the fact it doesn't fit your realm of unrealism isn't my problem. The fact remains, it was slower than 8800GTS's and was a huge fricken flop. Hell, the 2900XT review by Kyle started a thread at B3D over making graphs from fraps while actually playing the games or using canned benches like everyone else, including the site you linked to. And Kyle proved canned benches DO NOT represent actual game play frame rates.
So by all means, stick to your canned benches if it makes you feel better about a shitty product, the rest of use will continue to use [H] benchmarking style as the baseline for which all revies are judged.
Last edited:
Majeztik12
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 344
Nice! Well, we will see were the price wars will rage!
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 35,395
that's becuase XMAN245 hasn't taken his viagra yet.....you know he's gotta try his best to keep his e-penis has hard as possoble lol
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 35,395
well I am for one glad that they fixed the bug as we all know what happened to the last company that released a broken card (S3 anyone?)
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,758
He's talking physics. You're talking pre-scripted. HUGE difference there.