DX10 ATI vs NVidia gaming benchmarks

Flying Gribble · 8 Oct 2007 at 13:54

Toms Hardware has published comparative tests on various games here

Shocky-FM · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:07

Thats what you would expect really with those drivers, they used 162.22 when the latest official driver is 163.69.

Scougar · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:10

and 7.9 for ati

Matthew

Shocky-FM · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:12

Scougar said:
and 7.9 for ati

Matthew

Which is the latest official driver available for ATI users, they should have at least used the 163.44 driver.

willhub · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:12

Made me bang my head on my desk that.

Scougar · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:15

lol, opps. Thought 7.10 was released.

Not bad results in Bioshock though at anything other than 1024 for the 2900xt. Other times it is losing over 10fps to the 8800 gts eek.

Matthew

nikebee · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:17

Despite being the UK version of the site, and mentioning it's a UK review... they publish money section of the results in Euro's :-|

Shocky-FM · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:17

Scougar said:
lol, opps. Thought 7.10 was released.

Not bad results in Bioshock though at anything other than 1024 for the 2900xt. Other times it is losing over 10fps to the 8800 gts eek.

Matthew

Performance isnt bad, but bare in mind 163.44 was the driver that provided 8800 series users with a nice performance boost in bioshock and a few increases in other games too.

Scougar · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:21

Sometimes I think performance boost also equates to reduction in quality with these driver updates.

Matthew

Flying Gribble · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:23

Shocky-FM said:
Which is the latest official driver available for ATI users, they should have at least used the 163.44 driver.

They probably started doing the tests mid september. Cat 7.9 drivers were released on 10th Sept, Forceware 163 drivers appear to have been released on 18th Sept for Vista. I guess they just used what was current on the day they started the tests.

willhub · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:25

2900 performance is a discrace with an 8600GTS almost beating it.

Scougar · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:29

Actually just noticed, especially on the WIC benchmark. Where is the 2900xt 1024? Those results are clearly looking like a lack of memory problem, as the 8800 320 gets severely crippled, then the 8800 640 gets severly crippled on a with extra quality, yet the gtx/ultra carry on just fine. Having a 2900 1gb card in there for that test would show if this is the reason, or just that the card doens't work well with that game.

Why don't they ever do a full product review ffs. They don't even show the 2900's in the THG graphics card comparison review, yet they recently recommended the pro. Wish they'd make up their minds or just get it together.

Matthew

Flying Gribble · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:30

willhub said:
2900 performance is a discrace with an 8600GTS almost beating it.

Eh? The cumulative comparison is 1084fps for the 2900 vs 670fps for the 8600. I'd hardly call that 'almost beating'.

Shocky-FM · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:31

Flying Gribble said:
They probably started doing the tests mid september. Cat 7.9 drivers were released on 10th Sept, Forceware 163 drivers appear to have been released on 18th Sept for Vista. I guess they just used what was current on the day they started the tests.

Bioshock was released 21/8, 163.44 driver was made available on the 20/8, if they wanted there article to have relevance when they made it public they should have used 163.44 but as it is it's outdated as soon they released it like many other useless reviews.

Scougar · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:31

willhub said:
2900 performance is a discrace with an 8600GTS almost beating it.

Will honestly mate, stop whinging please. I would say it is not a disgrace. It compares well with the 8800 gts's from what I see on those benchmarks, and sometimes it is actually ahead of them on the benchmarks.

If you think your card is a lemon, then sell it and buy something else.

Matthew

willhub · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:33

Scougar said:
Will honestly mate, stop whinging please. I would say it is not a disgrace. It compares well with the 8800 gts's from what I see on those benchmarks, and sometimes it is actually ahead of them on the benchmarks.

If you think your card is a lemon, then sell it and buy something else.

Matthew

Ermmm, I will say what I think, and when I see the 8600GTS ever beating the 2900XT, I will think thats a discrace, no, the card aint a lemmon, its just crap, and anyone who thinks its better than an 8800 series card is wrong.

Stop trying to defend the card, you dont own one.

Cyber-Mav · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:35

have to agree with willhub here, those benchmarks don;t look good for ati at all, and they even used the nvidia 162.22 driver which is not the latest one to help ati a bit in the tests. not good at all.

Flying Gribble · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:37

Scougar said:
They don't even show the 2900's in the THG graphics card comparison review

Yeah, the one on the US site is more up-to-date.

Scougar · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:49

ah hah.. cheers gribble.

I can see where Will is coming from though, as go on WIC test 2 after the first test where is gives a pretty good performance, then just flops. (the 8600's actually beat it!)

Something can't be right there as the performance is not even in the same league as 8800's at that point.

Oh and btw.. take a look at company of heroes benches. The 8800 640 can't even keep up with an 8600gts, not even an 8400gs 256mb in some of the tests. Should I start screaming that the 8800 series is a total failure and not worthy of my time and should just be thrown into the pit of hell? No.. something is obviously wrong there.

Will > Mind control coming your way

I think 8800's are good cards btw, but I also hold the opinion that Nvidia cheated by not staying with the DX10 spec. I think AMD get slated because they designed to the proper dx10 spec. I am not a fanboy of either I like the best deal, and 2900's seem a good deal to me, although if same price I would go for a 8800 640 over a 2900xt personally.

Matthew

willhub · 8 Oct 2007 at 14:53

Scougar said:
ah hah.. cheers gribble.

I can see where Will is coming from though, as go on WIC test 2 after the first test where is gives a pretty good performance, then just flops. (the 8600's actually beat it!)

Something can't be right there as the performance is not even in the same league as 8800's at that point.

Oh and btw.. take a look at company of heroes benches. The 8800 640 can't even keep up with an 8600gts, not even an 8400gs 256mb in some of the tests. Should I start screaming that the 8800 series is a total failure and not worthy of my time and should just be thrown into the pit of hell? No.. something is obviously wrong there.

Will > Mind control coming your way

I think 8800's are good cards btw, but I also hold the opinion that Nvidia cheated by not staying with the DX10 spec. I think AMD get slated because they designed to the proper dx10 spec. I am not a fanboy of either I like the best deal, and 2900's seem a good deal to me, although if same price I would go for a 8800 640 over a 2900xt personally.

Matthew

As far as I knew the 8800GTS/2900 both follow DX10 specification :confused: