Someone explain this to me.

B

beachnut

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
66
I don't prefer one above the other...ATI or Nvidia..I think both make great products. I just made some observations that I couldn't figure out.
I haven't OC'd the cards and run the test as is.

Athlon XP 3200+
512MB Ram

Values are approx as I can't recall a couple of the exact numbers.

3DMark03
6600GT 7234
9800Pro 5593

3DMark01SE
6600GT 14,326
9800Pro 15,576


:confused:
 
Its amazing eh ;) .
The New Midrange cards from ATI and Nvidia hand the old High end cards their ass on a platter. Its goes like this son.
Weakest to Strongest
9800
X700
6600
 
What I was wondering is why the 9800Pro outscored the 6600GT in 01 even though the GT outperforms it pretty much in everything else...from what I've read.
 
Lol Im an idiot!
That is odd but 01 Is mainly CPU limited any ways so 03 is the one that really matters.
 
Other's have noted the relatively weak performance in 3DMark 01 with the current gen. It's an anomaly. Trust me, the 6600GT pretty much smokes the 9800 in anything you'll throw at it.
 
Yeah and who really freaking cares about 01 !?!?!? I don't understand why people even use it... It is kinda like saying "hey lets benchmark on quake1 and see who is better"...
"oh man I got 500fps what did you get?"

IMO JUST LAME

03 still has some minor value due to it being quasi equivalent to alot of games people still play, but really how long do you play a game for? I usually get bored with them after a few months, I don't think I have EVER played a 2 year old game... Have you?
 
I play old games all the time. Nothing like reliving an old favorite ;)

That aside, I agree that 3DM '01 is not a very good benchmark for today's hardware, if it was ever a good one at all.
 
ThomasE66 said:
I play old games all the time. Nothing like reliving an old favorite ;)

That aside, I agree that 3DM '01 is not a very good benchmark for today's hardware, if it was ever a good one at all.
Click to expand...

I am sure there are people like you out there, but really do you ever think "I really need a 6800U to play this four year old game because it will get faster frames than my 9800"
 
J-Mag said:
I am sure there are people like you out there, but really do you ever think "I really need a 6800U to play this four year old game because it will get faster frames than my 9800"
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I just replied to the 'nobody plays old games' comment ;) I buy fast graphics to play today's games and yesterday's games at even higher detail levels. That has nothing to do with the 'day before yesterday's' games :D
 
3dmark 01 is all DX70. There might be some DX80 shaders but I'm not sure. (Could be wrong on this one.)
3dmark 03 is DX90 shaders with a few DX81 shaders.
3dmark 05 is all DX90 shaders.

I believe this to be the reason for the differences. As shader depth gets higher, the newer cards are doing more work on older software than the hardware of the same generation. The 32fp/128bit-color 6600 is working on the old 70 shaders as if they were 32 bit wide shaders, while the 24fp/96bit-color 9800 is working on the shaders as if they were 24 bit wide.

Then again, the 9800 has had more time for driver optimizations on '01 than the 6600 has.
 
ThomasE66 said:
I didn't say that. I just replied to the 'nobody plays old games' comment ;) I buy fast graphics to play today's games and yesterday's games at even higher detail levels. That has nothing to do with the 'day before yesterday's' games :D
Click to expand...

I know you didn't say that :p

I was just posing the question...

My point is there is no reason to benchmark stuff that was created in 01 because even 2 or 3 generation old cards can run the games fine...
 
J-Mag said:
I know you didn't say that :p

I was just posing the question...

My point is there is no reason to benchmark stuff that was created in 01 because even 2 or 3 generation old cards can run the games fine...
Click to expand...

Then we agree on that point ;)
 
J-Mag said:
I don't think I have EVER played a 2 year old game... Have you?
Click to expand...

I still play BF1942 every now and then. ... and its like 3 years old? HL is even older and look at how many CS players there are...
 
J-Mag said:
but I want to disagree!!!! ARG!
Click to expand...

Bah! Stay on topic :p

The point to this thread is that 4 or 5 year old benchmarks are not a good way to judge the performance of a modern GPU :D
 
J-Mag said:
Yeah and who really freaking cares about 01 !?!?!? I don't understand why people even use it... It is kinda like saying "hey lets benchmark on quake1 and see who is better"...
"oh man I got 500fps what did you get?"
Click to expand...

Driverheaven cares :(
 
ATI owned the last generation of video cards. nVidia owns this one. If you're going to by the current generations then go with nVidia.
 
adamadekat said:
ATI owned the last generation of video cards. nVidia owns this one. If you're going to by the current generations then go with nVidia.
Click to expand...

But if you make it that simple then people won't have anything to get into silly arguements over! ;)
 
The reason is that the new generations of cards are optimized for 03 and 05 functions and commands because those are the new thing and what people want to perform well. They stopped optimizing for 01 fuctions and commands thus the scores just wont do well.

I dont know what 01 is DX 7 or DX8 (probably not 8.1) but they aren't going to waste time on optimizing old dx when dx9 is out.

~Adam
 
adamadekat said:
ATI owned the last generation of video cards. nVidia owns this one. If you're going to by the current generations then go with nVidia.
Click to expand...

This isn't true, the xtpe still reigns as the best card on the market. Just because 9800pro was replaced and the X800pro isn't as popular as the 6800gt, it doesn't change the fact that if you want the best performance ATi still owns it.

~Adam
 
adamadekat said:
ATI owned the last generation of video cards. nVidia owns this one. If you're going to by the current generations then go with nVidia.
Click to expand...

Then ATI will own the next gen

R5** SERIES FOOLS!!!!!

(can't wait)
 
CleanSlate said:
This isn't true, the xtpe still reigns as the best card on the market. Just because 9800pro was replaced and the X800pro isn't as popular as the 6800gt, it doesn't change the fact that if you want the best performance ATi still owns it.

~Adam
Click to expand...

No, dual 6800 Ultra's in SLI mode own the performance crown right now. Before you go on about SLI problems, note that the list of supported games not only keeps growing, but users who want to make their own profiles are having a lot of luck with 'unsupported' games as well.

It's cyclical. ATI will have a lead, then NVidia, then ATI, ad nauseum. It's a good thing for prices and the advance of technology. I have and do own vidcards from both vendors, and I've been more or less happy with all of them.

I get so much amusement out of people who treat computer hardware like it's a religion, or their favorite sports team. They are tools, nothing more and nothing less :)
 
ThomasE66 said:
No, dual 6800 Ultra's in SLI mode own the performance crown right now. Before you go on about SLI problems, note that the list of supported games not only keeps growing, but users who want to make their own profiles are having a lot of luck with 'unsupported' games as well.

It's cyclical. ATI will have a lead, then NVidia, then ATI, ad nauseum. It's a good thing for prices and the advance of technology. I have and do own vidcards from both vendors, and I've been more or less happy with all of them.

I get so much amusement out of people who treat computer hardware like it's a religion, or their favorite sports team. They are tools, nothing more and nothing less :)
Click to expand...

You forget that SLI costs an obscene amount of money, for that kind of cash I expect 200FPS in HL2 with max quality, 1600x1200, 6xaa and 16xaf
 
Hate_Bot said:
You forget that SLI costs an obscene amount of money, for that kind of cash I expect 200FPS in HL2 with max quality, 1600x1200, 6xaa and 16xaf
Click to expand...

I didn't forget. We weren't talking about cost, we were talking about the best performance.
 
Tre dat, ya I agree, SLI Ultras or 6800GTs are the fastest. But not the smartest choice ;)
 
ThomasE66 said:
No, dual 6800 Ultra's in SLI mode own the performance crown right now. Before you go on about SLI problems, note that the list of supported games not only keeps growing, but users who want to make their own profiles are having a lot of luck with 'unsupported' games as well.

It's cyclical. ATI will have a lead, then NVidia, then ATI, ad nauseum. It's a good thing for prices and the advance of technology. I have and do own vidcards from both vendors, and I've been more or less happy with all of them.

I get so much amusement out of people who treat computer hardware like it's a religion, or their favorite sports team. They are tools, nothing more and nothing less :)
Click to expand...


We were talking about CARD (no s), maybe 1% of ppl will use SLI.

The fastest card maker is still ATi. (not fastest sli maker)

~Adam
 
CleanSlate said:
We were talking about CARD (no s), maybe 1% of ppl will use SLI.

The fastest card maker is still ATi. (not fastest sli maker)

~Adam
Click to expand...

Will you still maintain that position when ATI has their version of SLI out? I just want to make sure that your arguement is based in logic and not fan-boi-ism ;)
 
Even if ATI releases an SLI solution I prolly wont get it. Unless you can get 2 budget cards and there performance blows an extremely high end card out of the water, its not worth it (unless say 2 budget cards, that cost $400, get the same (exact same) performance of a high end card that could cost the same, or a bit more)
 
I dont like the idea of two Video Cards at all. Who knows maybe one day it will be the only choice we have but untill then I go with the fastest single slot cards I can get.
 
Unless SLI gives what it should give (double the performance, meaning something like 160FPS in HL2 max settings, with 2 6600GTs) then its not worth it and never would be (unless it went over 60% performance boost, but seeing as how it's 10-15%, its a rather bad choice)
 
Hate_Bot said:
Unless SLI gives what it should give (double the performance, meaning something like 160FPS in HL2 max settings, with 2 6600GTs) then its not worth it and never would be (unless it went over 60% performance boost, but seeing as how it's 10-15%, its a rather bad choice)
Click to expand...

Which is it? First you say unless it gives double the performance, then you say 60% is ok. Also, it's hardly 10-15%. Most of the 'supported' games show a 50-80% increase. Im not sure about other games because I haven't taken the time to bench them with and without.

I'm not saying it's a solution for everyone, but it's certainly not useless technology :)
 
ThomasE66 said:
Will you still maintain that position when ATI has their version of SLI out? I just want to make sure that your arguement is based in logic and not fan-boi-ism ;)
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I'd not allow such useless bias as fanism into my life.

You just overstepped a distinction as to what I was speaking.

~Adam
 
CleanSlate said:
:rolleyes: I'd not allow such useless bias as fanism into my life.

You just overstepped a distinction as to what I was speaking.

~Adam
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. If I misunderstood you then I'm sorry :)
 
{NG}Fidel said:
I dont like the idea of two Video Cards at all. Who knows maybe one day it will be the only choice we have but untill then I go with the fastest single slot cards I can get.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It is bad enough that the top end cards cost $500+...

... im pretty pissed off with the current state of affairs as it pertains to video card cost and availability. I'm equally pissed at BOTH ati and nvidia... so dont start with me fan-boys.
 
Card availability needs to be stepped up right now, I'd agree, by both companies tho nvidia has been better than ATi as of lately, especially with the GT's.

~Adam
 
ThomasE66 said:
Bah! Stay on topic :p

The point to this thread is that 4 or 5 year old benchmarks are not a good way to judge the performance of a modern GPU :D
Click to expand...

HEH, sometimes I find myself arguing just to argue, then when I realize I am arguing the same thing... Heh...

Anyway I am going to continue for "argument's sake" (why is that phrase in existence?)

I believe that These old benchmarks are not even a good way to judge 4 year old cards.
Reason (belief, no proof): I would think that most people who even have the ability to use a benchmark are probably not diggin around in thoose bargain bins b/c they heard Deer Hunter was a Kewl game.

Yeah u r right that there are prob many people out there who like to play older games, but I would have to guess that they newer games get more play time...

Argue? Bring it! :p
 
Hate_Bot said:
You forget that SLI costs an obscene amount of money, for that kind of cash I expect 200FPS in HL2 with max quality, 1600x1200, 6xaa and 16xaf
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, ATI's X850XT Phantom Edition also casts an obscene amount of money for about the same performance as an 6800 Ultra, assuming you can actually find one without having to pay even more for it when the place where you found it updates their website with the fact that they were already out of stock.

Side note:
ATI Mobility 9600 rox better than a rocket powered rocking chair... :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top