ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
In his initial post I did not see any insults directed personally to individuals by the OP. Whereas the nVIDIA fanboys started to personally attack/ridicule him.
It's shameful, childish behavior.
![[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.
The Quiet Response
- Thread starter Pepsiennis
- Start date
In his initial post I did not see any insults directed personally to individuals by the OP. Whereas the nVIDIA fanboys started to personally attack/ridicule him.
It's shameful, childish behavior.
Public comments on public forums that say very foolish things aren't free from criticism.
Those deserving of ridicule should not pout when it is doled out to them.
AeriaGloris
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 384
how come we can write " fanboy " now? i thought it got blocked
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
You want the facts... i'll make it simple.. and MR Motherboard editor would be wise to read up or at least promote a follow up article of the Radeon HD 2900XT because a lot of peeps here are mis-informed.
At Launch:
Radeon HD 2900XT < GeForce 8800GTX
Radeon HD 2900XT < GeForce 8800GTS 640MB
Radeon HD 2900XT = GeForce 8800GTS 320MB
Since Launch with new drivers..
Radeon HD 2900XT < GeForce 8800GTX
Radeon HD 2900XT > GeForce 8800GTS 320/640MB
Heck in many games it comes within striking distance of the 8800GTX now.
Few things remain, it runs hot and consumes a wackload of power...but it is not a failure as it competes well with the competition from nVIDIA in it's price range (8800GTS 640MB).
So Dan, your comments are old news.. perhaps you need to be a tad more objective since you are afterall a reviewer no?
Read up new Drivers have made a HUGE difference.
Why? Ever heard of "passive aggressive"?
He is posting in the ATI sub-forum a bunch of links about people having issues (mostly minor, or even FIXed in the thread) with their 8 series card.
Based on his past posts, and the fact that this is in the ATI sub-forum and not a "helpful" post in the nvidia sub-forum, he is just trying to bait people.
I reported the OP saying the same thing as above, his post is nothing but flamebait and should be removed from the forums.
So now it's the disagreements over benchmarks that makes us "childish and sick" or whatever it is you were whining about?
If you'd followed pepsi's previous posts (omg alliteration!), you'd know that he has held himself up to ridicule not for enjoying his card or arguing numbers, but for making shit up left and right and saying ridiculously stupid things. If you want someone arguing on behalf of your blessed technology, I wouldn't be choosing this guy.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1122/14/page_13_benchmarks_high_quality_aa_and_af/index.html
Might want to read the review you posted, the 2900 still lags behind the 8800gts when AA is turned on.
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
He's highlighting that there are problems even with the 8800 series. And yes, being a VISTA user and an 8800GTX SLI user I can attest to that (hell most of my games don't even work in SLI thanks to the wonderful nVIDIA VISTA drivers).
He's commenting on the product, not the users.
You guys are attacking the user and not the product. It's childish.
He's commenting on the product, not the users.
You guys are attacking the user and not the product. It's childish.
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
Oh yes by 0.4 to 4FPS...
I'm simply stating it ain't a failure like so many paint it out to be. Some kids here need a spanking and I'm here to deliver.
Go read what the user says all over this forum, and then complain about "unfair" and "mean" attacks.
He is trying to find faults in the 8 series cards, he isn't trying to HELP anyone, he isn't trying to provide solutions to anything, he isn't trying to do anything but bait attacks from people, read my above post and you might understand that.
Also he tries to show that LCD scaling doesn't work right, when its completely broken for ATI users (look at the huge post in these forums) while it does work correctly if you uncheck/check a box in the nvidia settings.
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
"But Mommy Danny is allowed to smoke Crack so why can't I?"
Just because someone else does something and in this case makes posts you dislike doesn't mean you have a moral right to attack him verbally and personally. Discredit the info, use your brain.
Geez...
What about the rest of the ATI owners that have been run out of the forums because of the shit that's being flung in forums. I have thick skin and laugh it off, but there should be some sort of moderation in here.
Oh yes by 0.4 to 4FPS...
I'm simply stating it ain't a failure like so many paint it out to be. Some kids here need a spanking and I'm here to deliver.
You were saying that the new drivers were helping increase performance, I'm showing you they haven't done jack when using AA:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1123/7/page_7_benchmarks_high_quality_aa_and_af/index.html
Thats comparing new -> old ATI drivers.
People who don't want to accept facts and then get mad when people point them out aren't victims of anything but their own stupidity.
You might as well say that because people got mad at the two [H] reviews of the 2900, that Kyle should be banned for posting them in this forum. Oh the humanity....
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
Then Mr Mackay that's how you respond! You don't attack him you point out to the ATi side of the flaws he's accusing nVIDIA cards as having.
Simple. If people can't formulate an intelligent debate then it really degrades the atmosphere of a forum. In this case it makes HardOCP look like Fanboy Central. I hadn't posted here in a while and quite frankly ya'll are sounding like newbies by attacking other users personally.
If you ain't a bunch of kids then prove it. Discredit him.. don't attack him personally.
I agree, and your point is very clear.
Precisely what is your problem with me? I wasn't even talking about 8800GTX SLI vs. HD 2900XT Crossfire. I haven't read the review yet. I don't know what it will say. I have my suspicions of how that review will go based on the technical information I have seen for myself.
(Deleted X1950XTX vs. 7950GX2 comments because I got my threads mixed up.)
I've read plenty of data on the HD 2900XT and I have formed my own opinion about that card and the rest of the HD 2000 series. I am entitled to share my opinions just as anyone else is. I do not review video cards, and even if I did, I'd base decisions for recommendations off of my experiences with those cards regardless of whether the cards are designed by NVIDIA or ATI.
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
Ok.. but that's still 0.6-4FPS difference while upwards of 20ish FPS difference (in favor of the Radeon HD 2900XT) without AA.
Either way you look at it.. Radeon HD 2900XT > GeForce 8800GTS 640MB now (overall).
Still not competition for the 8800GTX though.
I did, the problem is this thread should have been locked a long time ago.
His OP was no better than someone else posting in the nvidia section: "ATI IS TEH LAMERZ" with links to random posts where people are having problems.
People post up problems because this is a TECH FORUM. They know they can get help here, and 99% of them do.
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
How can you base recommendations when you don't have all of the information available to you? As you said you haven't read that review.
You're in a position of authority (like it or not) users look up to you for insight. Claiming the Radeon HD 2900XT is a failure based on a HardOCP review published a while back doesn't paint the entire picture. That's where I'm coming from.
I've haven't always been a fair person, I used to be a rabid nVIDIA fanboy during my younger years. But at least now, when I'm in a position of authority, I seem to realise my responsibilities are to ensure that people are properly informed thus I keep myself informed.
This thread should have been locked from the get go though.
I've read a number of reviews stating the HD 2900XT isn't as fast as the 8800GTS 640MB and a number of them that shows the card in a superior light. What's your point? Even though the cards trade blows with each other in games, the HD 2900XT uses more power and runs hotter. I am not saying the card is a piece of shit. However I don't recommend them for the above reasons. My reasons for not recommending the HD 2900XT echo those in the HardOCP reviews of that card. I do this in light of having read many other reviesws, because I trust the testing methods used by the [H]. I am entitled to do that. If you don't agree with my take on things, then that's fine. You are certainly entitled to disagree.
I think I've looked at the HD 2900XT as objectively as possible. I wanted the card to be a success. I was hoping to be able to go back to an Intel chipset based board and get a video card performance upgrade to boot. Sadly, I can't do that at present. Additionally, I've seen the data, I've come to my conclusion, and if and when I see newer data that challenges my assessment of the HD 2900XT, I will change my recommendations.
The fact is that historically SLI has usually scaled better than Crossfire most of the time. Therefore, even if the cards are dead even, there is a good chance that the HD 2900XT will turn out ro be the loser in such a review. I do not know as I haven't seen the data. I suggest that you, like everyone else read the article when it's published. I know I will.
CrimandEvil
Dick with a heart of gold
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,670
And this is important cause we all buy $300-500 cards to play games without AA.
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
And this is important cause we all buy $300-500 cards to play games without AA.
Is a 0.4 to 4FPS loss a reason to not enable AA?
Many folks don't enable AA when they game. I'm not one of them but the pro's don't. When gaming at such high resolutions AA becomes less important anyways.
I'm just stating that the card has a far worse rep then it deserves but as a whole my point was that if you want to argue with someone post some information to discredit the person.. not rabid personal attacks.
When the GTS is cheaper than the 2900 and is faster it makes the 2900 a bad deal for a card.
And RE: high resolutions, this has also been beaten to death, but its only true for small pixels/dot.
EG: If you are on a 22" and running @ 1680 x 1050 you would need AA more than if you ran @ 20" 1680 x 1050 because each pixel would be larger on the 22" screen.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,300
simply put, I don't play any games currently that I Can't run AA on =p
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
The GTS 640MB and the Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB are priced about the same. Today the Radeon HD 2900XT is cheaper tomorrow it might be the 8800GTS 640MB.
and yes each monitor has a native resolution. Especially true for LCD's. 19" WD usually is 1440x900, 20" is 1680x1050 while 22" usually supports 1920x1200 natively. At those resolutions natively AA makes only a small difference. Most folks run 1440x900-1680x1050 these days though (Widescreen LCD's are concerned) while some folks still use standard LCD's (19") that do 1280x1024 natively.
Right, and at that point we should personally attack them for their purchasing decisions. And after we're done doing that, we should ban them for being victims of their own stupidity.
What are you smoking?
Newegg:
2900xt - $389-$399 ($379 AR) is the cheapest
8800gts (640) - $369-389 ($359 AR) is the cheapest (Sides the $339 AR MSI - OOS)
Out of the 42 LCDs sizes 21.3", 22" and 23", not a SINGLE one supported higher than 1680x1050. You have to have a 24" to get 1920x
And my point still stands, because the dot pitch (pixel size) is still what matters as the monitor size increases, you still see jaggies, ESP when you have monitors like the 22" which have the same resolution as 20". Now the jaggies are BIGGER, meaning you need MORE AA on a 22" than a 20" (same with 24" vs 27"... same resolution, bigger jaggies on 27").
I'm not sure specifically what 42 displays you're talking about, but the 23" Apple Cinema Display clocks in at 23 inches and runs natively at 1920x1200. This monitor uses an LG panel that I'm almost certain other displays (possibly HP) use or have used in the very recent past.
I agree entirely with your point, of course. Higher dot pitch (lower pixel density) yields more obvious aliasing, as well as a somewhat less "pleasing" image.
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
Oppps got it partially wrong with the 22" (as the other user pointed above).. rest of my post stands confirmed. Also you can't really game at those high resolutions with 4xAA it's kinda slow (some games dipping in the avg 40FPS at 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 16xAF). Therefore your entire argument is out the door.
For peeps wanting to run higher resolutions then you need an 8800GTX or even an SLI rig if you want high AA levels to boot. Some older games you may get by with but most of the newer games won't run at high res with high AA on an 8800GTS or Radeon HD 2900XT. So this whole argument about AA being a factor is out the door.
And where I'm at (Canada) the Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB is cheaper here today. And like my comment said.. varying on the day one is cheaper then the other so again... where's your argument?
Obliv maxed settings @ 1600x1200: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM1MSwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
BF2142: Maxed Settings @ 1600x1200 (Oh yeah, 16xAA to boot):
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM1MSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
Stalker: Whats that? Runs like complete garbage on the 2900?
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM1MSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
WoW: (Another fan favorite) 1600x1200, again 16xAA
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzOCw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
So whats that about not being able to run anything past 1280x1024 with more than 4xAA?
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
You have a selective reading problem man..
By Newer games one would conclude those that are Next Gen like Supreme Commander or Company of Heroes or those on the horizon for example.
BF2142 is almost a year old, Wow is very old and Stalker had been delayed it is nothing more then a simple SM2.0b style game (like Half Life 2 level graphics).
You really don't read any of my posts but I know where you're coming from... you're defending your purchase (you own an 8800GTS 640MB).
Now think Alan Wake and Crysis... those are the games I'm getting ready for. Then we get into comparing Minimum Framerates (which pretty much decide how playable a game is). Newer games bring these cards to their knee's (8800GTS/Radeon HD 2900XT) I've even felt it under Supreme Commander.
Also I never said anything about 1280x1024.. I simply showed you a bench where the cards are brought to their knee's at that res (and it's an older game too). I said High res and High levels of AA. I consider 1680x1050 and higher to be High res.
CoH they are very close together.
http://www.techspot.com/review/52-asus-radeon-hd-2900xt/page6.html
And how is STALKER old? Its one of the more demanding games out there.
And I linked to the [H] reviews first because I trust them more than other random sites. I forgot that oblivion was too old for you, because you want to base your opinion on future games that haven't been tested yet like Crysis
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
CoH they are very close together.
http://www.techspot.com/review/52-asus-radeon-hd-2900xt/page6.html
And how is STALKER old? Its one of the more demanding games out there.
And I linked to the [H] reviews first because I trust them more than other random sites. I forgot that oblivion was too old for you, because you want to base your opinion on future games that haven't been tested yet like Crysis
No I base on Next Gen games. I posted two new titles that were recently released. Stalker is about as demanding as Half Life 2: Lost Coast. See a parallel? HL2 is old, Stalker also uses older technology (so much so it looks outdated almost looking HL2ish). Also to point out Stalker there's a known bug that had been partially addressed in Catalyst 7.5 but that remains in that particular title (which effects the Radeon HD 2900XT).
But to be frank your post was pulled out of your butt seeing as you took a quote out of thin air (the 1280x1024 I never claimed you just assumed). You seem to be doing that a lot so far.
Also the Techspot review you posted was made back in May... ATi have released drivers since then that have addressed a multitude of problems.
Lemme show you...
May: ? who knows they don't say.
June: Drivers: ATI Catalyst 7.5 and DX9c
See a Difference? Settings are of course a tad different but AMD have addressed issues in their drivers for this game.
Oh and..
And for the Conclusions:
TechSpot:
Priced at $400, the Radeon HD 2900XT becomes a very good value as this price tag places it alongside the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB graphics card, which it appears to dispose of in almost every game we tested.
Tweaktown:
AMD’s ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT graphics card really does continue to show how it can be a dominant card in the market and that the next offering from AMD/ATI should be a strong competitor, we think.
So it is Radeon HD 2900XT > GeForce 8800GTS 640MB now. I'll be able to tell you soon as I have a pair of Sparkle Calibre P880s on the way (8800GTS TEC) and will bench it with the latest drivers against my friends Radeon HD 2900XT. Once and for all we'll have an answer.
OCZ GameXStream 700WATT SLI Power $148.00 1 $148.00
Supply
Sparkle Calibre P880 Geforce $525.00 2 $1050.00
8800GTS 640mb PCI-E Video Card
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 S775 i965P $145.00 1 $145.00
ATX MB (Raid/GbE/SATAII)
nicepun
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,208
It keeps amazing (well, maybe not) me how quickly nVidia owners quickly jump on these type of threads. And even if it didn't have the AA problems and it would beat the 8800GTS 640MB you would still get the same lame excuses for problems with the card:
Yeah it runs so hot, it draws so much power, the fan is so loud...blah blah blah blah.
Yeah it runs so hot, it draws so much power, the fan is so loud...blah blah blah blah.
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
I'm an nVIDIA user..
But unlike Fanboys I sorta can differentiate regardless of brand names.
don't know why everyone thinks the 2900 runs hot
my 2900 runs idle 45c to 47c load 67c max 71c
my x1950 in same computer runs idle 57c and max load 85c
and at 2560 x 1600 with a dot pitch of .2505 i have to look hard to
see a difference with aa on or off
my 2900 runs idle 45c to 47c load 67c max 71c
my x1950 in same computer runs idle 57c and max load 85c
and at 2560 x 1600 with a dot pitch of .2505 i have to look hard to
see a difference with aa on or off
nicepun
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,208
Because they automatically assume it does (you know, talking out of their asses) without experiencing it first hand, unlike those that actually OWN one that know it doesn't run hotter and the HSF is not louder. It does more power who has some less than a 75W PSU with a High End system since the PSU is had holds everything together and you should never skimp on the PSU.
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
A little laws of physics/thermodynamics here.
If a card consumes X watts of power, it produces X watts of heat. That X watts isn't some how magically recycled. For closed system electronics (like video cards)...almost all the power consumed = HEAT (there is a little bit of power that is terminated at the monitor, but that is minor at best).
However, if the card produces X watts of heat, that will correlate to a rise in temperature on the die. For most modern day devices this number is ~20-30C/W from junction to ambient without heatsink (usually called theta-JA). Therefore if the GPU of the card is consuming 100W of power, the rise in temp would be 2000-3000 degrees (air is horrible conductor of heat). We have all read about this with old AMD procs that didn't have the thermal diodes and the heatsink came loose.
However, there is a way to fix this problem...it is called a heatsink (usually metal). What the heatsink does is take that 20-30C/W Theta-JA and make it almost 0.5! (think of it like two resistors in parallel) so that 100W of consumed power is now only a 50C rise from ambient or 70C as quite a few of us read from our GPU tools (this is with a fan of course, more on this below).But, the fact still that that heat that is taken away via the heatsink must be exausted somehow and away from the GPU in order to keep that wonderful 0.5 value near 0.5. This is typically done by a fan. What the fan does is then move enough poorly conducting air past the high surface area of a heatsink to make it appear like a "good conductor" of heat. In the case of ATI, what they do is "duct" the heat right out. This is why it feels so damn hot when you put your hand back there.
But...this is where people get logic all screwed up. For some reason people equate the GPU temp to power consumption and then make them equal between two different brands. This is WRONG. If the cooling solution for a similar sized GPU was exactly the same and applied to both cards and one card consumed more power (which the ATI card does), the exaust heat from the card that consumed more power would be hotter. PERIOD.
What ATI did (compared to nVidia) is developed a very good method of getting the heat consumed by the card OUT OF THE BOX. The result of this is that their GPU temp is lower (you remember that theta number above). The solution by nVidia is a bit poorer as they dont' exaust heat out of the box as well as ATI. Some leaks inside the case and the theta value is higher and thus the board gets warmer (higher GPU temps).
The short of the story is, the ATI card still consumes more power and thus produces more heat...but they are better and removing it from the case/card. Still..it consumes more power at about an additional $5 per year.
ElMoIsEviL, stop hotlinking images, half the time they aren't even showing up unless you have been to the site already.
Yet above, you posted HL2:LC benchmarks as YOUR argument as a game that can't be run @ high settings.
W/o the image (which didn't show because I hadn't been to their website), that looks like a blanket statement, which I proved wrong.
And I showed a link from [H] showing that stalker could be run at pretty high settings.
So which is it, is Stalker like HL2:LC or not? Because first you say that games can't handle it, and then its too old to be used, and then its a driver problem...
Most people with a 8800gts/2900 will be running @ 1600x1200 or below, higher res demand more expensive video cards. These users will also want to turn on some eye candy, and the 2900 fails to provide decent frame rates in most games once you turn up the AA and AF.
Yet above, you posted HL2:LC benchmarks as YOUR argument as a game that can't be run @ high settings.
W/o the image (which didn't show because I hadn't been to their website), that looks like a blanket statement, which I proved wrong.
And I showed a link from [H] showing that stalker could be run at pretty high settings.
So which is it, is Stalker like HL2:LC or not? Because first you say that games can't handle it, and then its too old to be used, and then its a driver problem...
Most people with a 8800gts/2900 will be running @ 1600x1200 or below, higher res demand more expensive video cards. These users will also want to turn on some eye candy, and the 2900 fails to provide decent frame rates in most games once you turn up the AA and AF.