Why is everyone so down on ATI?

[SocketA]

Yea so I'm a noob. I just dont understand why everyone is so down on ATI. Ok, so it doesnt play Doom3 as well as Nvidia but so what! Its only one game that took me 2 days to beat. Did everyone forget this review written by Hardocp. Please read the review
I didnt submit this thread to start a Holy War between which cards are better. I just want to get a better understanding of why Nvidia is so much better. Thanks

Here is the link

compreviews.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html%3Fart=NjEx

 

[|MaguS|]

I don't think its because the card "sucks, because it sure doesn't but mainly its because its nonexistent...

 

[Thatonen00b]

Wll both cards are good, I just think nvidia did a better job this round. Due to availability the battle seems to be between the pro and the GT. In which case I would take a GT over a pro anyday.

 

[Dan_D]

Well in the beginning the X800Pro had more mature drivers than the 6800 series. So in the HardOCP review the X800 series was the faster of the two for most tests. But after a few driver revisions the 6800GT and Ultra have shaped up to be better products. I've got both an ATi Radeon X800Pro and a PNY Geforce 6800GT and the 6800 is the faster of the two at stock speeds. In fact my X800Pro overclocked past XT speeds doesn't match my 6800 stock in most of the games I've tried so far with the 6800. 12 pipelines vs. 16 would be the most logical explaination.

I don't think anyone is "down" on ATi, but the !!!!!!sm has died off significantly due to the fact that the 6800 series has redeemed nVidia in the eyes of many. Nvidia actually has shown no mercy this time around with their product lines. They've brought much to market.

But one thing you can be down on ATi for is not really making a competitive architecture to the 6800 series. The X800's are nothing more than a 9800 core with double the pipelines and transistors. So theres nothing new there. It's just faster than previous generation cards. Eventually the driver speed boosts and the clock speeds of this design will end. Without a newer more scalable architecture ATi may not be able to compete effectively against Nvidia in the short term.

Nvidia is positioned to keep upping the score at everyturn as thier architecture is new and has room to grow.

Nvidia has really done a good job, comming up with a new architecture that actually brings something new to the table. Not to mention with SLI comming back and a new 6600 series that looks promising as well for the lower budget gamers. So Nvidia has done a good job this time around and currently really have the overall performance crown. Not only does it match the ATi's in speed and image quality, it usually surpasses them in speed. Plus with the larger feature set and future upgrade paths for the PCI-Express cards they've really raised the bar once again for what video cards should be.

ATi doesn't have as compelling a product line as Nvidia right now. Nvidia annoucnes one more great product idea after another. ATi doesn't have anything to counter with.

Nvidia's brand new core is available in every price point. ATi on the other hand has the X800's but the X600's are nothing more than PCI-E 9600XT's. The X300's are 9200's.

so I think that's the reason.

 

[bobsaget]

Nvidia's brand new core is available in every price point. ATi on the other hand has the X800's but the X600's are nothing more than PCI-E 9600XT's. The X300's are 9200's.

Yeah, let's not forget those midrange cards... IMO, Nvidia will dominate in the high end and the midrange groups... (which is a big deal to people like me...)

 

[doormat]

ATi struck a big blow with the 9700 and 9800s, combined with the 5800 dustbuster deal. But nVidia came back and stuck hard with the 6800s and 6600s. ATi's choice to just rebadge the 9600 and 9200 with PCI Express also hurt them IMO, the R420-based midrange cards (X700) should have come out instead of the X600s. I guess ATi thought nVidia was going to fumble again on the 6800 series cards. They were wrong. nVidia's driver push also helped out the performance angle.

 

[Moloch]

So the R3XX supports 3DC, SM 2.0B etc?
Maybe if nvidia had a good architecture last round, they could have based their cards on it.
What features does nv have that ati does not?
Ati can do dynamic branching, geometry intranceing, and has some additioncal features like temporal fsaa, and 3dc.
What games besides doom3 does nvidia completely outdue ati?
You may say"every OGL game" well guess what? Even at 1600x1200 with 4x fsaa,both cards are getting well above 60fps in just about every ogl game, so perhaps ati felt they didn't have to do anything with their OGL driver.
HL2 us coming out soon, and will use 3DC, and I'm sure the X800 with be a bit faster than the 6800 series.
To me, termoral fsaa is the icing on the cake.

 

[gordon151]

ATi struck a big blow with the 9700 and 9800s, combined with the 5800 dustbuster deal. But nVidia came back and stuck hard with the 6800s and 6600s. ATi's choice to just rebadge the 9600 and 9200 with PCI Express also hurt them IMO, the R420-based midrange cards (X700) should have come out instead of the X600s. I guess ATi thought nVidia was going to fumble again on the 6800 series cards. They were wrong. nVidia's driver push also helped out the performance angle.

Since when are there rv250 based pcx products? Either way the x600 was meant to compete against the 5750 & 5900 pcx products, despite efforts by some to point to the contrary.

 

[CastleBravo]

ATI vs. nVidia can be summed up like this:

The FX line was, generally speaking, beat up badly by the 9700 and 9800 series cards. Even the 5950 Ultra only achieves parity with the 9800 XT in Doom 3, and loses in everything else (sometimes VERY badly, e.g. Far Cry). Before that it was pretty even, e.g. it is pretty hard to say that a 9600 XT is really different enough from a 5700 Ultra to care.

The x800 XT costs $550+ now, but loses to the <$400 6800 GT in Doom 3... quite badly, in fact. Of course, it is faster in many DX9 benchmarks, but you can actually buy a 6800 GT, and of course it is cheaper by $150+. And the x800 Pro... well, it gets beaten by the 6800 GT in almost every benchmark, and costs just as much as the GT.

Meanwhile, you can overclock a GT to Ultra speeds or beyond... and even if you have to buy a $30 NV Silencer 5 to do it, you are still matching or beating x800 XT performance for $100+ less. Hard to argue against that math.

 

[fallguy]

You mention overclocking a GT, but not a Pro? Or flashing a Pro to get a XT/PE? Try not to make it so one-sided.

 

[mulpsmebeauty]

The X800's are nothing more than a 9800 core with double the pipelines and transistors. So theres nothing new there. It's just faster than previous generation cards.

I'm not certain this is wholly relevant to most buyers. Surely the entire point of a graphics card is that it's 'just faster'. I've got a BFG 6800U OC which I'm very happy with, but I'm pretty sure that I won't be seeing many benefits of the newer architecture until several months from now. Plenty of time for ATI to come up with a competing product.

I'd actually planned to buy an XT-PE, but couldn't get hold of one. This is the obvious problem at the top of the line. ATI DO have a competitive product here. If they could get it to market. I would hate to have the option of buying either as it would probably take me till the next generation to decide!

I agree though that once the practically non-existent XT/PE is taken out of the equation, nVidia does have a very impressive line-up, all of which seem to substantially outperform their equivalent older-gen brethren.

 

[Silverghost]

You mention overclocking a GT, but not a Pro? Or flashing a Pro to get a XT/PE? Try not to make it so one-sided.

Oc'ing a GT is much simpler than flashing a video card. especially for the joe blow consumer.

 

[The Batman]

Oc'ing a GT is much simpler than flashing a video card. especially for the joe blow consumer.

Plus, aren't the Vivos a tab bit more expensive. GTs can be had for $380 right now.

But yes, ATI is defintely loosing this round, and the 6600 series seems to be the checkmate.

 

[fallguy]

Thats silly talk. Saying its checkmate? So you're saying ATi is done for good? Please. Especially since the XT/PE is generally faster than the Ultra. While its hard to get (getting easier now) it certainly doesnt mean ATi is done for good.

Yes its easier to overclock, but the average Joe wont even overclock. While I believe the GT is overall a better card than the Pro, dont point out overclocking on one card, and not the other. Thats just being bias.

 

[Moloch]

Ati chose to give many of their XT/XT-PE to the OEMS, that's the problem.
Yields are quite good, a bit too good I believe(same deal with the 9500/9700) but ati has lots of OEM wins, and nvidia cards are hotter, and draw more power.
I think ati's refresh part should atleast have the issue fixed wiht doom3, the problem, to my understanding, is that doom3 breaks ati's hyperZ, so they're starved of memory bandwidth, which is why at low res, they keep up, but when the memory requirements go up, ati has no bandwidth let.
The hidden surface removal(not sure what the nv = of hyperz is) on nvidia cards are setup for doom3 style rendering, the 6800 series is really the ideal setup for doom3 style rendering, I'm not sure why ati didn't change the setup to be more doom3 friendly, they're getting so much flack for a 500 doller card losing to a 300 doller card.

 

[lithium726]

Ati chose to give many of their XT/XT-PE to the OEMS, that's the problem.
Yields are quite good, a bit too good I believe(same deal with the 9500/9700) but ati has lots of OEM wins, and nvidia cards are hotter, and draw more power.
I think ati's refresh part should atleast have the issue fixed wiht doom3, the problem, to my understanding, is that doom3 breaks ati's hyperZ, so they're starved of memory bandwidth, which is why at low res, they keep up, but when the memory requirements go up, ati has no bandwidth let.
The hidden surface removal(not sure what the nv = of hyperz is) on nvidia cards are setup for doom3 style rendering, the 6800 series is really the ideal setup for doom3 style rendering, I'm not sure why ati didn't change the setup to be more doom3 friendly, they're getting so much flack for a 500 doller card losing to a 300 doller card.

i read hte first 2 lines and i had to reply. if the yeilds were quite good, then the deminsions with the xtpe wouldnt have the "this may delay your dell ship date" next to it. if yeilds were good, there would be xtpe's on the retail AND oem markets.

and im sorry, but a 500 dollar card loosing a 300 or even 200! (see 6600gt in a couple oGL benches) is a big freaking deal, i dont believe 2-300 dollars has ever been a small deal.

i cant see the refresh fixing doom. a refresh is just htat: a refresh of current hardware. ATi has a hardware issue with Doom3 and a certain way of rendering that drivers just cant fix, and i think it wont be "fixed" until R500

 

[Elias]

You mention overclocking a GT, but not a Pro? Or flashing a Pro to get a XT/PE? Try not to make it so one-sided.

Calling a Pro VIVO an XT PE just because you flashed the BIOS and overclocked is downright gay. It isn't like *poof* and you have a brand new, different model card...

I have a 3700+, and an Ultra Extreme.

TBH, nvidia are just being extremely aggressive this round. Propably unexpectedly so. Shit, I cancelled my PE preorder after months of waiting and got another card. Thats why people are mad at ATI (at least from my point of view). I'd love the company if my preorder was fulfilled when originally claimed.

 

[Worldhammer]

I feel it amounts to which card is available. ATI decided to go with the money and hook up dell, gateway, etc. Leaving consumers like us screwed for months. I intended to get a xtpe. My recent history is 9500 to 9700 to 9800xt with zero complaints and alot of good things to say. When it seemed like ATI was uninterested in my money I started heavily researching the Nvidia Ultra lineup. Now I believe it to be the better card due to the more advanced and slower to age tech. Alas it is still no cakewalk to get either flagship card, (at anything remotely resembling msrp) and I am still waiting on a BFG ultra from outpost, but the Nvidias are unquestionably more attainable, and I am confident I won't be waiting till sometime next month at best like I would be for a PE.

 

[Moloch]

i read hte first 2 lines and i had to reply. if the yeilds were quite good, then the deminsions with the xtpe wouldnt have the "this may delay your dell ship date" next to it. if yeilds were good, there would be xtpe's on the retail AND oem markets.

and im sorry, but a 500 dollar card loosing a 300 or even 200! (see 6600gt in a couple oGL benches) is a big freaking deal, i dont believe 2-300 dollars has ever been a small deal.

i cant see the refresh fixing doom. a refresh is just htat: a refresh of current hardware. ATi has a hardware issue with Doom3 and a certain way of rendering that drivers just cant fix, and i think it wont be "fixed" until R500

Glad you replied.
The demand is quite high, with both oems and everyone else wanting them, yields are good, but there is a limit to how mant they can produce.
And what games does it make a diffrence in speed besides doom3?
The X800 has higher usable AA modes, "temporal AA" i.e you can get 12X effective AA with the cost of 6X AA, or 4x AA with the cost of 2x AA, aslong as the game is running atleast 60fps.
I'm surprised nvidia didn't high have MSAA modes, instead they're resorting to the voodoo5 style AA, super sampling, and it's rubbish, can't use it in any demanding games.

 

[scanido]

Calling a Pro VIVO an XT PE just because you flashed the BIOS and overclocked is downright gay. It isn't like *poof* and you have a brand new, different model card...

Well it basically is!

Having the same core, same 1.6ns memory, same BIOS, same performance makes it a X800XT to my eyes.

IT has everything the X800XT has but the price!

 

[kcthebrewer]

I find 16xAA in Doom3 with Ultra Quality to be very very playable. Only downfall is that due to on-video card memory limits = 800x600.

 

[The Batman]

Thats silly talk. Saying its checkmate? So you're saying ATi is done for good? Please. Especially since the XT/PE is generally faster than the Ultra. While its hard to get (getting easier now) it certainly doesnt mean ATi is done for good.

I didn't say ATI was dead for good. Go back and read what I wrote. I said:

But yes, ATI is defintely loosing this round, and the 6600 series seems to be the checkmate [for this round].

Bolded with Director's Commentary for your pleasure of course.

And why are you a noob again? Don't tell me I missed another banning. Yeesh people, I take a break for a few days and miss the blowout clearance sales. Blah.

 

[Moloch]

I find 16xAA in Doom3 with Ultra Quality to be very very playable. Only downfall is that due to on-video card memory limits = 800x600.

hate to break it to you, but ultra quality does not warrent the memory cost vs high quality.
and 800x600 is horrible.. 1024+ or bust!

 

[lithium726]

Glad you replied.
The demand is quite high, with both oems and everyone else wanting them, yields are good, but there is a limit to how mant they can produce.
And what games does it make a diffrence in speed besides doom3?
The X800 has higher usable AA modes, "temporal AA" i.e you can get 12X effective AA with the cost of 6X AA, or 4x AA with the cost of 2x AA, aslong as the game is running atleast 60fps.
I'm surprised nvidia didn't high have MSAA modes, instead they're resorting to the voodoo5 style AA, super sampling, and it's rubbish, can't use it in any demanding games.

demand is higher than expected, but still not *high*. not alot of epople are willing to pay 500 dollars for one of these cards, and to say that yeilds are good on a practically non existant card is ludacris.

as an example... there are x800pro's avaliable everywhere. if the yeilds were good on the PE (or even the XT vanilla) they would in the same place as the pro's right now.

generally, the nvidia cards have a lead in everyting o-gl, i cant remember what game specifcally the 6600gt beat it in, but i know it exists. might be a firingsquad reveiw... maybe a hothothardware, but i dont feel like seaching for it right now

12xaa does not make an IQ diff over 6x or even 4x, really... and on that note, nvidia has higher quality AA with their 8x supersampling. sure, its a huge perf hit, but it is higher quality. and since they DO use a diff kind of AA on lower modes, one that gives better perf than SSaa, supersampling is only found on 8x.

 

[Worldhammer]

I find 16xAA in Doom3 with Ultra Quality to be very very playable. Only downfall is that due to on-video card memory limits = 800x600.

Hmmm....how does that look in comparison to higher res lower qual settings? Is there justification there, or merely academically interesting like I suspect.

 

[joemama]

I don't think anyone is really "down" on Ati right now but (this has probably already been stated) but at the high end the 6800 Ultra is more available than the X800XTPE and as far as the mid range goes the 6800 GT has slightly higher performance (except Doom 3 where it dominates) than the X800pro for the same or even lower price. Another factor is that Ati doesn't really offer anything to compete with the plain 6800 which generally is faster than the 9800XT from last generation.

To sum it up: the performance of the Ati cards is not really that much of an issue (especially the super fast XTPE) but rather availability and product placement at certain pricepoints.

 

[Mojo]

Because people around here upgrade every 6 months to the next generation of the latest and greatest video card. For this generation, Nvidia takes the cake with it's 6800GT. A cost effective and ultra high end product capable of beating ATI's flagship model, the x800XT.

I'm not against ATI, but I do agree that Nvidia has one this round. The only card really worth buying is the 9800pro still. As for MSRP $299 and $399, the 6800nu is the best, and the 6800GT. Why pay the same price for a x800pro with 12 pipes and ps2.0 when you can get a 6800gt for the same price that has 16 pipes and ps3.0. It's just logical to get a 6800GT. The 9800pro still offers great performance at a lower price than a 6800nu.

I think ATI's next generation cards are going to rock. A totally new chip, not another optimization of the aging r300 core. ATI will give Nvidia a run for it's money fairly soon. Maybe the same thing will happen as what happend with the release of the 9700pro, heh.


In short: [H]'ers upgrade to new generation and Nvidia is the winner. New found "fan boys" put down ATI.

 

[Worldhammer]

I think demand is much higher at the 500 point then they ever anticipated in a million years. How many Pro's and GTs got sold to peeps who really wanted an Ultra or PE and couldn't take the wait any longer and consoled themselves with OCing the card to those specs? Judging from the number of threads based on those subjects around the web I am seeing, Alot more than either company wants to know.

 

[Critofur]

Why talk about the high end anyway, only nuts buy $500 video cards. In the $300 ("enthusiast") and under range it's even MORE once sided towards Nvidia now, a flip-flop from last round when 9800 was the clear winner.

Ok so, you say what's the significance of "only" being faster in Doom 3? Well several things: Doom 3 IS a big game, the ATi cards are significantly slower, not just a little bit, particularly in the under $300 cards. Also, another reason is the 6800 is no slouch in other games too, so, why not get the boost in Doom 3 speed if everything else runs pretty well too? But here's the BIG reason: Doom 3 is not just Doom 3, think of all the other games that will be based on the Doom 3 engine? Those games will (most likely) also run a lot faster on the 6800 cards too.

Unless you got money to burn, just doesn't make sense to spend $500 ~ the $200 you "save" buying the regular 6800 can be applied to a card that's even faster than the Ultra next year when some games come out that actually need more than a 6800 to run nicely. I got my 6800 for about HALF the price of an Ultra, $239, and I've seen more for sale at that price (open box at Micro Center).

 

[Moloch]

Why talk about the high end anyway, only nuts buy $500 video cards. In the $300 ("enthusiast") and under range it's even MORE once sided towards Nvidia now, a flip-flop from last round when 9800 was the clear winner.

Ok so, you say what's the significance of "only" being faster in Doom 3? Well several things: Doom 3 IS a big game, the ATi cards are significantly slower, not just a little bit, particularly in the under $300 cards. Also, another reason is the 6800 is no slouch in other games too, so, why not get the boost in Doom 3 speed if everything else runs pretty well too? But here's the BIG reason: Doom 3 is not just Doom 3, think of all the other games that will be based on the Doom 3 engine? Those games will (most likely) also run a lot faster on the 6800 cards too.

Unless you got money to burn, just doesn't make sense to spend $500 ~ the $200 you "save" buying the regular 6800 can be applied to a card that's even faster than the Ultra next year when some games come out that actually need more than a 6800 to run nicely. I got my 6800 for about HALF the price of an Ultra, $239, and I've seen more for sale at that price (open box at Micro Center).

Have you even played doom3?
Doom3 is fun for about 20 hours, then it's over.
Why not get the card with 3DC(halflife 2), has better anti aliasing, and is atleast as fast in every other game?
Or have you bought into the SM3.0 hype?

 

[gordon151]

I don't think anyone is really "down" on Ati right now but (this has probably already been stated) but at the high end the 6800 Ultra is more available than the X800XTPE and as far as the mid range goes the 6800 GT has slightly higher performance (except Doom 3 where it dominates) than the X800pro for the same or even lower price. Another factor is that Ati doesn't really offer anything to compete with the plain 6800 which generally is faster than the 9800XT from last generation.

To sum it up: the performance of the Ati cards is not really that much of an issue (especially the super fast XTPE) but rather availability and product placement at certain pricepoints.

We're already seeing the retail x800xt situation take a turn for a better with many sites which have them in stock now and are selling them for more reasonable prices. The 6800u situation, though better than the old x800xt situation isn't improving much and I think within the next few weeks youll find it more easier to find a x800xt. Dunno about the $299 spot though as thats a mystery I wouldnt like knowing about. Be cool if they did a 128mb x800 pro as such a card would probably own that spot.

 

[Kevin Lowe]

Have you even played doom3?
Doom3 is fun for about 20 hours, then it's over.
Why not get the card with 3DC(halflife 2), has better anti aliasing, and is atleast as fast in every other game?
Or have you bought into the SM3.0 hype?

You do realize there's going to be tons of games using id's engine for years to come, right? Look at Call of Duty - it's using the Quake 3 engine, for god's sake. Quake 3. Think about that. Carmack and Co.'s engines are the gold standard in this industry, and any card that runs them well is a solid bet for the future.

Of course, the next most common engine I see in licensing deals is Unreal. And Tim Sweeney's already come out saying the 6800's are the first cards that can run the next-gen Unreal at a decent framerate.

I don't give a crap about vendors - I only care about getting the fastest card for my money. Last time, that was ATI, but this time, it's Nvidia.

 

[Impulse]

The only thing that changes every time one of these threads starts up is the fact that people seem to spell wore and worse on each one.

 

[vsyncer]

I just dont understand why everyone is so down on ATI. Ok, so it doesnt play Doom3 as well as Nvidia but so what! Its only one game that took me 2 days to beat.

... but there are crazy people like me who buy a new system just for that game. I wait for it several years and i play it everyday since the release. After i have seen the benches in FarCry i want buy an ATI ... then came the benches of d3 i decided to get as fast as i can a 6800 gt. And now i'am very happy at all with that card in the actual games (d3, farcry)!!

so i'am not down on ATI, but for the actual games i play (especially d3) the 6800 gt is the perfect card (for me !!) ...

 

[JHefile]

ATI is more stable than nVidia at the moment. Just look at the post. Most posted problems are from the new 6800 cards. I'm not a whore one way or another but recently I don't like seeing people pay big dollars and nothing goes right for them.

 

[server_error]

Have you even played doom3?
Doom3 is fun for about 20 hours, then it's over.
Why not get the card with 3DC(halflife 2), has better anti aliasing, and is atleast as fast in every other game?
Or have you bought into the SM3.0 hype?

Have you even played Half-Life 2?
Half-Life 2 is still just one game, which now seems to be pushed back to November.
Why not get the card with SM3?
Or have you bought into the 3DC hype?

God these arguements are so useless, you can say the same thing about either side. Basically just buy the card that gives the best price/performance ratio, and in this round it has been nvidia so far, the GT can beat or equal the x800 pro in just about everything stock, and can be easily overclocked to Ultra levels for most. Overclocking a VIVO to an XT PE isn't the same as taking a GT to an Ultra (and usually beyond), VIVO's cost significantly more. Last round I had an ati, before that an nvidia, before that a Voodoo..... this round I'm going nvidia, they just have the better product for the money this time around, if only slightly. Plus I've been getting into Linux lately, and ATI's Linux support is simply horrible, while Nvidia's is top-notch.

 

[finalgt]

I think the reason is that there are a bunch of people that really have no idea about hardware (i.e. performance) besides how to put a PC together (which, let's be honest, is not "hard" by any stretch of the imagination) and who therefore need to turn to some authority to designate for them what hardware offers "good" performance and which offers "bad" performance (to the non-geeks, these qualitative analyses would be known as "best" and "slightly less fast, but still impressive," but evidently there can only be black and white in communities like these). For a large number of the people who go to this forum, the "authority" to assign these labels is, of course, HardOCP. And as soon as Kyle, or Brent, or Steve reviews a generation of cards and points out which one is fastest, everybody instantly assumes the other one sucks and isn't worth it. This happened when the R9700 came out...for a solid year or so there was nothing but threads praising ATi and complaining about nVidia problems, people saying they'd never buy nVidia again, etc. And it kept on happening when the FX5800 came out, since it didn't beat the R9700 by 2x, or at least the same margin that the 9700 beat the previous generation of nVidia cards by.

The same sort of thing happened with Futuremark / various system benchmarks of the sort. For the longest time 3D Mark 2001 was considered a great app to compare your system to others, and for awhile 2003 was as well...but then Kyle and Co. released an article saying that there were flaws in the way those benchmarks produced results, and now you'll be hard pressed to not find a post by somebody in a thread by a guy asking if his 3DMark<version number here> score is high enough saying, "Whatever, it's just a number. If it runs the games you like fast enough then that's fine. Why do people care about benchmark numbers, anyway?"

Note: No offense to Kyle, Steve or Brent (or the various other hardware testers), I suppose it's admirable that their reviews are good enough to warrant sycophantism.

 

[rancor]

Glad you replied.
The demand is quite high, with both oems and everyone else wanting them, yields are good, but there is a limit to how mant they can produce.
And what games does it make a diffrence in speed besides doom3?
The X800 has higher usable AA modes, "temporal AA" i.e you can get 12X effective AA with the cost of 6X AA, or 4x AA with the cost of 2x AA, aslong as the game is running atleast 60fps.
I'm surprised nvidia didn't high have MSAA modes, instead they're resorting to the voodoo5 style AA, super sampling, and it's rubbish, can't use it in any demanding games.

Also have to look at AA as a moot point as resolutions of monitors go past 1600x1200 the pixels are small enough that AA going that high is pretty much a non factor. Not saying its a bad thing, its very usable but also to use temporal AA you have to be going at high frame rates 60+ so at lower resolutions its becomes very useful, but then again if you turn of AF to its fullest how many newer games at even 1200x1024 go at 60 fps?

 

[Azzkikr1337]

It's called revenge by Nvidia. Ati pwned Nvidia from Aug. 2002 till July 2004 (when the 6800 cards actually became available to purchase). So, Ati deserves to get bashed now. Then they are 1-1. Game starts all over again next year.

 

[ohgod]

Have you even played doom3?
Doom3 is fun for about 20 hours, then it's over.
Why not get the card with 3DC(halflife 2), has better anti aliasing, and is atleast as fast in every other game?
Or have you bought into the SM3.0 hype?

So you saying that 3dc is a good feature is just like other people saying SM3.0 is a good feature. Your a hypocrite.