The proof - GTX vs GT

Darkwave · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:31

8igdave said:
thats strange because they seem to not only contradict but also only use 4xaa ive been specificaly saying maxed out. the difference between the hit of 4x and 8x is quite a lot.

Where is the full review?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance

Think that's the link to the review, if it doesn't work then it's on the front page of www.firingsquad.com

MumboJumbo · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:33

@james.miller

Well twisted. Your gaps are closeing due to the amounts of AA being used. In the order and results you picked of coarse it looks like its closing. The game runs better with less AA so the gap appears to be closing as the resolution is upped but the AA is either 0xaa or 4xaa instead of 8xaa.

Fail.

:EDIT:

My typing is appalling there. (fixed some of it to make sence)

MumboJumbo · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:37

Ulfhedjinn said:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance

Think that's the link to the review, if it doesn't work then it's on the front page of www.firingsquad.com

Benchmarks

Company of Heroes 1.71 (running DX9)

MMM perhaps thast why it has good performance in COH considering its not DX10.

james.miller · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:48

8igdave said:
@james.miller

Well twisted. Your gaps are closeing due to the amounts of AA being used. In the order and results you picked of coarse it looks like its closing. The game runs better with less AA so the gap appears to be closing as the resolution is upped but the AA is either 0xaa or 4xaa instead of 8xaa.

Fail.

fail?

of course the gap is closing as the aa goes up, that is what ive been trying to tell you. as for the results ive picked? ive listed the result in the order as they appear in the benchmarks from your link. i could have gone on and typed out the entire list and and worked out the differences, but i assumed you would have got the gist of it what with me listing the first 3 games at at least 2 different resolutions and aa settings.....

obviously not :confused:

There are other people here telling you the same thing, so what was your excuse for saying that im out to destroy everybody elses views?

just for you

:

lost planet @ 8xfsaa not tested

TF2:

1680x1050 8xfsaa

gt - 72.1
gtx - 78.8

difference - 6.8

1920x1200 8xfsaa

gt - 57.0
gtx - 66.0

difference - 9

ET; quake wars 8xfsaa

1680x1050 8xfsaa

gt 42.0
gtx 59.4

difference - 17.4

1920x1200 8xfsaa

gt 35.6
gtx 47.9

difference - 12.3

--------------------

although quake wars does (and im not denying this) show a large difference between the cards at 1600x1200 8xFSAA (17.4 fps), the difference at 1920x1200 8xfsaa drops to 12.3 fps. regardless of the difference at alower res, the gap sill closes as you move further up, like the results from most other games show. these are all tests in your links, you can verify them

MumboJumbo · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:02

james.miller said:
fail?

of course the gap is closing as the aa goes up, that is what ive been trying to tell you. as for the results ive picked? ive listed the result in the order as they appear in the benchmarks from your link. i could have gone on and typed out the entire list and and worked out the differences, but i assumed you would have got the gist of it what with me listing the first 3 games at at least 2 different resolutions and aa settings.....

obviously not

There are other people here telling you the same thing, so what was your excuse for saying that im out to destroy everybody elses views?

You didn't read what i said.

Look at the results you picked.

it will be like 19xx with 8xaa with a big difference.

then 2xxx with 0aa with a smaller differnce or only 4aa.

What im saying is the fact that you cant compare them because the AA is a bigger killer then the resolution. Therefore you failed in trying to say the gap gets smaller.

willhub · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:03

8igdave said:
MMM perhaps thast why it has good performance in COH considering its not DX10.

Why are you always trying to make the 8800GT seem not good?, you're trying to make out its cripple with high amounts of AA and I play at 1680x1050 and in most of my games I use 8xAA-16xAA and I dont notice any slowdown, I guess this means my card is crippled dont it.....

Darkwave · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:04

8igdave said:
MMM perhaps thast why it has good performance in COH considering its not DX10.

They made it clear they didn't run any DX10 tests in that game, and how would that account for the other games? Are you saying the GT is only crippled in high resolutions with AA/AF in DX10 now? :confused:

james.miller · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:06

8igdave said:
You didn't read what i said.

Look at the results you picked.

it will be like 19xx with 8xaa with a big difference.

then 2xxx with 0aa with a smaller differnce or only 4aa.

What im saying is the fact that you cant compare them because the AA is a bigger killer then the resolution. Therefore you failed in trying to say the gap gets smaller.

read the edit then

and anyway, my point is not that the gap get's smaller, that isnt my argument here. my argument is that this significant difference as you move up to high resolutions that you claim to be, is not actually there at all. let's concentrate on that.

willhub · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:06

Ulfhedjinn said:
They made it clear they didn't run any DX10 tests in that game, and how would that account for the other games? Are you saying the GT is only crippled in high resolutions with AA/AF in DX10 now?

Is 1680x1050 classed as a high res? because if so, then the GT is not crippled with AA at higher res.

sunderland · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:06

at the end of the day the gtx is faster than the gt

willhub · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:08

sunderland said:
at the end of the day the gtx is faster than the gt

Yea by some length, but it still does not mean the GT is crippled and when people say the GT is crippled by high amounts of AA they dont know what they on about or have not had the card, in most titles out now the GT can have 8xAA+, its only crysis were the GT needs to have no AA but no one knows for sure if this will be the case in the actual game.

james.miller · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:10

sunderland said:
at the end of the day the gtx is faster than the gt

that it is. but not as much as some people like to think. i dont have a problem with a lesser card being more efficiant (even if it is slower over all). it was bound to happen at some point and about time too - the GTX has had a storming rain at the top, but technology needs to progress and this is the first step i guess lol

Darkwave · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:11

willhub said:
Is 1680x1050 classed as a high res? because if so, then the GT is not crippled with AA at higher res.

Now that you mention it, I don't really know what I consider a "high resolution". I play in 1680x1050 and I like it but I think I'd like 1920x1200 more, just CBA spending that much on displays.

sunderland said:
at the end of the day the gtx is faster than the gt

RavenXXX2 · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:12

its only crysis were the GT needs to have no AA but no one knows for sure if this will be the case in the actual game

No GFX card on the planet today could do crysis on high with AA at a decent rez and get respectable fps, at least not in the demo, final game maybe a different story but i doubt it.

MumboJumbo · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:13

Ulfhedjinn said:
They made it clear they didn't run any DX10 tests in that game, and how would that account for the other games? Are you saying the GT is only crippled in high resolutions with AA/AF in DX10 now?

There is a difference in Dx10 and dx9 performance in all these cards. Dx10 puts more stress on the gpu where as dx9 uses the cpu to do the work which it puts on the gpu in dx10.

Im fed up of saying the same things over and over again now. Nothing has changed since the start of this.

in 6 months when more of the top intensive games are out. We shall see whos right wont we. I doubt you will be running them on the native resolutions of 24+ screens with 8xaa and 16x Af and not be turning down any settings as it will grind to a hault.

I said at the start its a bargin card and a briliant card. But if your going to play on a 24+ screen its not going to be powerful enough to run the games into the future unless you want to upgrade regularly.

willhub · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:13

RavenXXX2 said:
No GFX card on the planet today could do crysis on high with AA at a decent rez and get respectable fps, at least not in the demo, final game maybe a different story but i doubt it.

Oh, I thought the 8800GTX can do 4xAA at 1680x1050 at playable speed? 1280x1024 all high 4xAA is playable for me.

Darkwave · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:14

8igdave said:
There is a difference in Dx10 and dx9 performance in all these cards. Dx10 puts more stress on the gpu where as dx9 uses the cpu to do the work which it puts on the gpu in dx10.

Well I asked you if you're now changing your stance to "the GT is only crippled in DX10" and I suppose your answer means yes?

8igdave said:
in 6 months when more of the top intensive games are out. We shall see whos right wont we. I doubt you will be running them on the native resolutions of 24+ screens with 8xaa and 16x Af and not be turning down any settings as it will grind to a hault.

That time is already here and that includes the GTX. I know for sure I wouldn't even try running Crysis in that sort of resolution with 8xAA and 16xAF.

willhub · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:15

8igdave said:
I said at the start its a bargin card and a briliant card. But if your going to play on a 24+ screen its not going to be powerful enough to run the games into the future unless you want to upgrade regularly.

Yea and a GTX wont too and your GTS SLi proberbly wont be aswell in the future, why do you think people upgrade regularly in the first place?

james.miller · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:16

8igdave said:
There is a difference in Dx10 and dx9 performance in all these cards. Dx10 puts more stress on the gpu where as dx9 uses the cpu to do the work which it puts on the gpu in dx10.

Im fed up of saying the same things over and over again now. Nothing has changed since the start of this.

in 6 months when more of the top intensive games are out. We shall see whos right wont we. I doubt you will be running them on the native resolutions of 24+ screens with 8xaa and 16x Af and not be turning down any settings as it will grind to a hault.

I said at the start its a bargin card and a briliant card. But if your going to play on a 24+ screen its not going to be powerful enough to run the games into the future unless you want to upgrade regularly.

because the gtx is substantially faster in 1920x1200 8xFSAA?

8igdave you have answered none of the relevant questions i have asked you. i put this to you: you are the one here who is out to destroy opinions, and you are the one who just wont listen to reason which is evident by constantly telling us we are all wrong with comments such as "im tired of saying this over and over" and "we'll see who is right, wont we?" (we all know how you meant that).

everything i have said is based on my research of the facts, nothing more. is that fair to say?

my last response to you will be:

in 6 months when more of the top intensive games are out. We shall see whos right wont we. I doubt you will be running them on the native resolutions of 24+ screens with 8xaa and 16x Af and not be turning down any settings as it will grind to a halt.

we wont be doing that on any card available right now. in fact, we cant even do that right now, as has always been the case. i have been polite to you, even when you've insulted me in more than one thread. now i wont bother

RavenXXX2 · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:17

willhub said:
Oh, I thought the 8800GTX can do 4xAA at 1680x1050 at playable speed? 1280x1024 all high 4xAA is playable for me.

I said a respectable fps, where it does not go under 30 fps, I'm sure if you ran the gpu bench with 4XAA, your fps would not look to healthy but if its OK in game then thats all good.