Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 32 of 32

Thread: NVIDIA's GeForce 6800 Ultra GPU

  1. #17
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked
    345 times in 190 posts
    On a lighter note. here's a review that's been equally well-researched and compiled.



    <GeForce 6> I'm gonna open a can of whoop-ass on you, f00.
    <9800 XT) Bring it on, honey.



    <GeForce 6) 'ave it, 'ave it. You know you want it.
    <9800 XT> Pot Noodle in NVIDIA flavour, lovely!.

    Seriously though, I think Rys' take is comparing the two cards at their respective maximum settings. It's valid enough methodology.
    Last edited by Tarinder; 15-04-2004 at 01:54 PM.

  2. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Spystar
    Seriously though, I think Rys' take is comparing the two cards at their respective maximum settings. It's valid enough methodology.
    If that was the methodology, it is even more ridiculous that 1600 x 1200 wasn't tested. It wasn't Nvidia's fault Rys didn't have a monitor capable of 1600 x 1200... why punish them for Rys lack of hardware in the review? And again, I ask... what if 8xFSAA didn't work at all? Would those points on the graph just have been left blank rather than testing at 4xAA?

    As far as I am concerend, 8xAA is non-functional right now. At about a third of the performance of 4xAA, I don't know how anyone could disagree. So make a note, chide Nvidia about it, and continue testing with 4xAA. I understand Rys was trying to make a point, but he did so in a subversive way that (I feel) was intended to mislead readers (such as Swafeman).

  3. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    8,629
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked
    268 times in 188 posts
    I think the point is, that at the sort of res that this card is actually going to be used at, i.e pretty much always 1600x1200, it wipes the floor with the current front-runners, the 9800XT and 5950Ultra.

    12,000 3D Marks and a 57% performance increase in Halo over a 5950Ultra is very impressive. If the 9800XT can beat it at a certain setting, or keep up with it at low res, fair enough.

    At the business end, high res, eye candy, and 60fps+, the card seems to do the job very nicely indeed.

    I wouldn't go as far as to say the review was intended to mislead anyone, but I agree that when testing a 6800Ultra, you really should be testing it on a set-up that can do it justice, and having a monitor that can do 1600x1200 would be part of that.

  4. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    One more thing bothers me, namely the results of Call of Duty benchmark as compared with the results that guys at Tomshardware got:

    Call of Duty - 4x FSAA & 8x Anisotopic




    Look at the framerates - at toms tests Radeon 9800XT achieves 2 to 3 times fewer FPS in all resolutions, FSAA, ANIZO, whatever.
    In Hexus test there is considerably smaller difference between the scores.
    This may be proving the fact that the nVidia card was not tested adequately - i.e. it did not had the chance to show it's real potential.
    But such a huge difference in scores on a single game with similar settings is strange anyhow.

    BTW. I am not nVidia fanboy - I'm a happy owner of R9700@PRO

    EDIT:
    BTW2: I have nothing against 1024x768 - thats the highest res that my VDU will run @ 85 Hz (Phillips 107T)
    Last edited by Simplex; 15-04-2004 at 05:27 PM.

  5. #21
    Rys
    Rys is offline
    Tiled
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Abbots Langley
    Posts
    1,479
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 1 post
    What's the big deal about 1600x1200? It's not the maximum 3D resolution either tested board supports, so testing at maximum settings isn't something any site does.

    1280x1024 is a perfectly valid maximum testing resolution, stop taking aim at that.

    Your beef is that I didn't do any 1280x1024 4AA 8AF numbers, which I'm endeavouring to do as we speak and I'll augment the graphs with them as soon as I can.

    The conclusion as it currently stands will be no less valid with the extra numbers, than it is already.

    I show time and time again that their 4X RGMS mode is fast. If you can't see that in the review then you're not seeing it on purpose to make a point. Look at the 1024x768 @ 4AA 8AF data points and watch the 6800U whoop the 9800XT's arse. It does it every single time and I mention it over and over and over again.

    I then test the maximum possible 3D settings at a perfectly valid resolution (ooh look, it's the most common LCD resolution in use today, something the board is targetting with two DVI ports) at the highest possible IQ settings each board can manage. The 6800U gets beaten because it has a slow maximum AA mode.

    You can't say 8AA is non functional. It clearly is, just it's slow. If you don't like it, don't run it, I'm not forcing you to. But a great many people, having sucked in the hype about it being the fastest graphics card on the planet, will want to crank the settings right up, and that means 8AA.

    Take your beef to NVIDIA, not to my highlighting the fact it missed the boat in producing a usable high quality AA mode that gives ATI's 6AA mode a run for its money.

    I won't mislead our readers by conveniently missing out the fact that their maximum AA mode is slow.

    You ask if 8AA didn't work at all, what would I do. I'd lambast NVIDIA for screwing up even more than they have done. To not produce a working AA mode over 4X on their flagship product is infinitely worse than producing a mode that does work, but is just slow.

    Get over 8AA being poor and use 4AA if it bothers you so much, it's a rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish hot card at those settings, both in terms of speed and image quality.

    Rys
    MOLLY AND POPPY!

  6. #22
    Rys
    Rys is offline
    Tiled
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Abbots Langley
    Posts
    1,479
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 1 post

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Simplex
    One more thing bothers me, namely the results of Call of Duty benchmark as compared with the results that guys at Tomshardware got:

    Call of Duty - 4x FSAA & 8x Anisotopic




    Look at the framerates - at toms tests Radeon 9800XT achieves 2 to 3 times fewer FPS in all resolutions, FSAA, ANIZO, whatever.
    In Hexus test there is considerably smaller difference between the scores.
    This may be proving the fact that the nVidia card was not tested adequately - i.e. it did not had the chance to show it's real potential.
    But such a huge difference in scores on a single game with similar settings is strange anyhow.

    BTW. I am not nVidia fanboy - I'm a happy owner of R9700@PRO

    EDIT:
    BTW2: I have nothing against 1024x768 - thats the highest res that my VDU will run @ 85 Hz (Phillips 107T)
    You assume that our remit is to show the card to its full clearly visiblepotential at all times. That only comes in the theoretical analysis, which I show clearly. Check the ShaderMark or RightMark scores.

    In games testing, we use our stock benchmarks. If they show certain amounts of CPU limiting, that's great. It shows GPU performance, just in a way that's not obvious. If you're CPU limited, it means the GPU is far faster than it needs to be. That's a good thing, just not as obviously as a 10000fps point on a graph.

    Tom's use a different CoD demo than us, ours is more CPU limited (and arguably a more realistic measure of real world performance, in my opinion) than not. All there is to it really

    Rys
    MOLLY AND POPPY!

  7. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Thx for instant reply
    Your explanation is logical and convincing. I think both types of tests are useful - those cpu limited - because they simulate real world situation, and those on very fast CPUs because they demonstrate the maximum (or near maximum) power and potential of the card

  8. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I guess I didn't notice that Rys went as far as 8xAA & 16xAF and all those other tech sites did not. My apologies to you Rys. I really don't understand why those other sites would not have used those settings unless they were trying to hide the fact of the 6800's dismal performance at that setting. I was under the impression that Anandtech, Techreport & a couple of others were more reputable than that.
    So, does anyone have any insight to this? Is anyone trustworthy anymore or are those other sites waiting for R420 to do a really thorough review?
    Last edited by rogerw99; 16-04-2004 at 06:13 AM.

  9. #25
    Sublime HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Void.. Floating
    Posts
    11,819
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked
    233 times in 160 posts
    • Stoo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2*Xeon 5450 @ 2.8GHz, 12MB Cache
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 1600MHz FBDIMM
      • Storage:
      • ~ 2.5TB + 4TB external array
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI Radeon HD 4870
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Operating System:
      • OS X 10.7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Samsung 244T Black
      • Internet:
      • Zen Max Pro
    Hexus really, most of the others seem biased on some way or another
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  10. #26
    Rys
    Rys is offline
    Tiled
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Abbots Langley
    Posts
    1,479
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 1 post
    They are reputable. I personally hold sites like Tech Report in the highest regard. We all had about 4 or 5 days with the boards and with the amount of testing that needed to be done (I personally ran over 200 benchmarks for our article), you can't really fit in all AA and AF settings at all resolutions, plus get the writing done and the images prepared.

    With two weeks or so, we'd all have tested at all the major display settings. I chose, after initial testing, to highlight their shortcomings with their MS+SS 8AA mode. Other sites didn't, but their approach is no less valid than mine.

    They're not hiding anything, their focus was probably just elsewhere with a limited amount of time to spend with the hardware. It's exciting to focus solely on the giant speed increases, I was tempted to do it too.

    Rys
    MOLLY AND POPPY!

  11. #27
    Sublime HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Void.. Floating
    Posts
    11,819
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked
    233 times in 160 posts
    • Stoo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2*Xeon 5450 @ 2.8GHz, 12MB Cache
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 1600MHz FBDIMM
      • Storage:
      • ~ 2.5TB + 4TB external array
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI Radeon HD 4870
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Operating System:
      • OS X 10.7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Samsung 244T Black
      • Internet:
      • Zen Max Pro
    The thing is, nobody even mentioned it in passing, which gives doesn't really give the whole picture. Your review does, it shows that the card is absolutely rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish hot on most settings, but there is a performance hole at maximum settings which ATi could possibly exploit.

    The other (p)reviews give an impression that it's performance is *always* rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish hot, and it isn't - that's more than a little misleading, at least it is for me personally.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  12. #28
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked
    345 times in 190 posts
    The question is one of valid comparison.

    Does NVIDIA's card at settings of 4x antialiasing and 8x anisotropic filtering produce comparable or better results than ATI's. The consensus is that it does. In that case, performance from NV's newest card is comfortably ahead of ATI's present best.

    That's a statement of fact.

    What if NVIDIA had implemented a 16x AA mode?. The sheer number of reads would cripple any card.

    Compared on a like-for-like basis, the NV40 is the fastest gaming card on the planet, and by some way. Compared with respective cards set to maximum image quality, NV's settings are just too harsh to be used in conjunction with modern games.

    This is one monster, monster card. What would you be thinking if NVIDIA had limited the AA settings to only 4x?.

  13. #29
    OMG!! PWND!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In front of computer
    Posts
    964
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Does NVIDIA's card at settings of 4x antialiasing and 8x anisotropic filtering produce comparable or better results than ATI's. The consensus is that it does. In that case, performance from NV's newest card is comfortably ahead of ATI's present best.
    but the fact of the matter is that a previous generation of cards beats this one at 8xAA that is what Rys is saying! If you payed £400 for a video card would you want it to be playable at 8xAA??

    He mentioned that its a hot and uber card (not in thoes words) but just fails in one setting.

    he showed this where others did not! WELL DONE!

  14. #30
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked
    345 times in 190 posts
    The 8xS settings is a token gesture from NVIDIA. If you understood the demands imposed by 8x Rotated-Grid Multisampling and 4x Supersampling, you'd soon realise that it's not going to work at any great speed.

    Imagine that on a 1600x1200 setting. It's just a very strange choice of AA. You'll need a theoretical NV60 to run those settings at any kind of acceptable speed.

    Bottom line - it's not a truly usable option right now. You have to understand what the card's being asked to do at 8xS before slating it. It's a driver fault, if anything.
    Last edited by Tarinder; 16-04-2004 at 01:19 PM.

  15. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Applecrusher
    but the fact of the matter is that a previous generation of cards beats this one at 8xAA that is what Rys is saying! If you payed £400 for a video card would you want it to be playable at 8xAA??
    Wouldn't you also want to know how the card performed at 1600 x 1200? How can you applaud the decision to use 8xFSAA settings but ignore the choice of resolutions?

    Also, I feel my comments are constantly being construed that I didn't think 8xFSAA should have been included. This is NOT the case. I also applaud Rys for including it. All I am saying is that he graphs should ALSO show what the card can do with 4xFSAA at high resolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Applecrusher
    He mentioned that its a hot and uber card (not in thoes words) but just fails in one setting.
    He said that in writing, but by just flipping through the graphs, it leaves the impression that the higher the resoultion is and the higher the AA and AF settings are, the worse the 6800U does. With one exception, it is the complete opposite. IMHO, the graphs should have included 1024 x 768 up to 1600 x 1200 at an AA setting of not more than 4, then one data point at the end that showed the 6/8 AA settings. This is would highlight the 6800's downfall at 8xFSAA as well as its dominance at any lower AA setting.
    Last edited by Maui; 16-04-2004 at 09:24 PM.

  16. #32
    OMG!! PWND!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In front of computer
    Posts
    964
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Maui
    Wouldn't you also want to know how the card performed at 1600 x 1200? How can you applaud the decision to use 8xFSAA settings but ignore the choice of resolutions?
    Rys already replied to that one! GO READ THE THREAD!
    or i could shpw you here...
    I then test the maximum possible 3D settings at a perfectly valid resolution (ooh look, it's the most common LCD resolution in use today, something the board is targetting with two DVI ports) at the highest possible IQ settings each board can manage. The 6800U gets beaten because it has a slow maximum AA mode.
    He said that in writing, but by just flipping through the graphs, it leaves the impression that the higher the resoultion is and the higher the AA and AF settings are, the worse the 6800U does. With one exception, it is the complete opposite. IMHO, the graphs should have included 1024 x 768 up to 1600 x 1200 at an AA setting of not more than 4, then one data point at the end that showed the 6/8 AA settings. This is would highlight the 6800's downfall at 8xFSAA as well as its dominance at any lower AA setting.
    but if you were just flipping through the graphs youd not realy notice what the different settings are (i know i only read the first one) and you'd still see the card doing realy porly at the end therefore the same result??

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-02-2004, 07:15 PM
  2. GeForce FX5600 Ultra V2???
    By Weng in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27-10-2003, 02:33 PM
  3. Geforce 5600 Ultra revision2
    By Cuffz in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 31-08-2003, 02:47 AM
  4. MSI GeForce FX5900-VTD256 Ultra
    By Rys in forum HEXUS Reviews
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22-08-2003, 03:43 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2003, 10:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •