Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by LedHed, Sep 23, 2009.
Um excuse me but wth you just said? If average FPS gets 20-30% boost, you get goddamn 20-30% boost.
Only 4059-56900% boost. /useless post i has is useless <3/
Panzer: i didn't think that was such a hard statement to wrap your head around. i haven't seen anything about an AVERAGE of a 30%+ performance improvement with DX11 over DX10. Everything i've seen said UP TO a 30% performance improvement. i.e. it could be a 5%-30% range depending on the situation. Kinda like how some promotions will tell you you can get UP TO $4,000 cash back.... but has some insane task that must be accomplished in order to get that much..... whereas you can get as low as like $500. Just using that as an example.
wow 13 pages of bickering:3eyes:
Some people can't accept the fact an 11 month old GPU out does a brand new one (5870) in 70% of titles.
People posting benches with no links makes me laugh :wanker:
Oh, my god, don't you hate it when you go away and have lots to catch up on.
This has descended into even more madness, or maybe me being away from it has made me take a step back, and realise how childish it all is.
I'm not even sure what the argument is even more, you can't even say which card is faster in the majority of games, because you would have to test every PC game to find that out, people need to remember reviews and benchmarks are done with handpicked games to suit whatever preference each mag/site has.
People blindly buying or supporting one card or the other based on brand loyality and not facts are idiots, and belong in the console world, not the PC one.
Yeah - we've really got something going here so we'd be crazy to stop now....
Can ya feel the love brother? It's all around us..
Thats where your thinking went to cafee.
Panzer: LedHed does have a point though. again, there are no averages shown in that graph. I'm assuming it's showing the highest and lowest framerate between the cards? If that's the case.... yes, you gain 7fps on the high end, and gain 4fps on the low end. You can't tell an average framerate just by dividing the high and low. Like everyone knows, it could only be hitting that 46.7fps once in a great while, and hovering more around the 32fps. To be honest, i'd much rather have a much tighter range of framerate, than have a higher framerate. I'd rather have my framerate bouncing between a 7.5fps spread like with the 295 than the 11.7fps spread of the 5870 in DX10 or 14.7 spread in DX11. Haven't we learned something from Crysis? a low framerate can be playable as long as it's not a jumpy framerate.
And before one jumps to conclusions.... no, i'm not saying high framerate = bad. i'm saying larger distances between high's and low's = bad.
That's because it doesn't. It is TWO 11 month old GPU's. Stick with your criteria of a SINGLE CARD or you lose your argument.
not trying to be a smartass.... but HOW often do we here refer to the video card as the GPU, no matter if it's single or dual ACTUAL GPU's on that one card? Did people not say that the 4870 X2 performed better than the GTX 280? Either way it's the same situation.... just seems that more people are annoyed because it's a different generation of ATI GPU and even as a single GPU it's just a hair under NVidia's last-year dual-GPU offering.
Actually, a lot. I've always said this,
As a video card, a 4870x2 is a single video card. But counting GPUs, there are 2 GPUs. It's a single video card with multiple gpus. Same goes with the nvidia cards, like the 7900 gx2, or the 9800 gx2, or the gtx 295. Even though they have done a multiple gpu solution on a single card differently compared to ATI, they're all still a single video card. But when counting gpus, they're 2 gpus. And to be honest, it's no surprise that the 295 still out performs the 5870. The 295 has 2 gpus versus the 5870s 1 gpu. And even so, it's not all that far behind it. Me personally, I never expected the 5870 to greatly out perform the gtx 295 as almost everyone suggested it was. It's hard to believe seeing the past of both Nvidia and ATI. Hell, I'll still be surprised almost if the gt300 series performs better than the 295.
This thread is going in circles, and is a waste of time.
Seems like the Nvidia fanboys are going to flaunt the games the 295 won in, and use the single card reasoning, and the ATI fanboys are gong to pick their select games and use the single gpu reasoning.
Until a GT300 single GPU card or a 5870x2 arrives, this is all pointless, and no-one is comparing apples to apples.
Why not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 5870 put out at this time to compete against the 295?
Both sides have valid points.
Nvidia- They do have the upper hand of 2 gpus instead of 1. It's a numbers game.
Ati- Some games are better optimized for Nvidia cards. This is fact. However, again the 5870 is not that far behind the 295.
I ran the benchmarks again! I replaced the last card with something else. Lol!
There's no need for that now. =\
Did'nt mean anything by it.. Just a joke. Ledhed is right. Overall with the current 5870 drivers, gtx 295 does still hold the crown in alot of games and benches. Just a laugh to ease the tention
But it's not just drivers though. Yes, drivers are a contributing factor to performance, but drivers aren't going to give a magical plus 30 fps unless the driver is optimized to run on one game only really. Driver development is important, but it's not the big problem with the 5870. There isn't any. Except that for an ATI card with 1 gpu, this thing is long. D:
Yeah.. Totally agree it's long.. I think it's pretty neat that it actually performs somewhat close to the gtx 295 and on a few titles that may or may not be optimized for dual cards it leaps ahead by a little. Pretty awesome card for the times right now.