Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

S

Socos

New member
Review after review I read paints the 5900 in a very good light. Although I think it is just criminal for tweaktown to post a review and only do 1024x768 with no AA/AF. I think even with those two options enabled the 5900 is still faster than a stock 9800, however that is not the point. These are high end cards that should be benched with high end settings. Just because the 5900 scores xxx frames and the 9800 scores yyy frames only tells me that both cards are really fast. Show me eye candy.

I believe that [N]ivida tells reviewers if you want a card this is how you will review it, and you must paint our card in a good light or you can't have it. I don't think [N]ivida wants anyone to look at IQ. Cinimatic rendering indeed.

Funny don't you think?:bleh:

http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review&dId=483Tweaktown 5900 review
 
Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

Socos said:
Review after review I read paints the 5900 in a very good light.
Click to expand...

Well, the 5900 is a good product. I agree that some of the reviews haven't been particularly well written, and of course there is the whole nVidia cheating scandal to put into the equation.

In general though, the 5900 Ultra is at least the equal of the 9800 Pro - Better in some respects, worse in others, but overall a pretty even match-up.
 
Re: Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

Re: Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

Hanners said:
Well, the 5900 is a good product.
Click to expand...

Well, the FX5900 is a good product as long you avoid DirectX9.0 native games and benchmarks. The DirectX9.0 implementation on the whole FX series leaves much to be desired. It's sad, but it's true. The 9800 is much more future proof because it's DX9.0 implementation is top notch.
 
Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

Socos said:
Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"
Click to expand...

Neh.. they should change it to "the way you are played" ;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

Re: Re: Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

tech9 said:
Well, the FX5900 is a good product as long you avoid DirectX9.0 native games and benchmarks. The DirectX9.0 implementation on the whole FX series leaves much to be desired. It's sad, but it's true. The 9800 is much more future proof because it's DX9.0 implementation is top notch.
Click to expand...

True, Pixel Shader 2.0 performance on the entire FX range does seem to be sadly lacking, but with true DirectX 9 games still a long way off it's really anything but a terrible performer.

Of course there's the whole FP32/FP16 debate as well, but nVidia seem determined to force FP16 as much as possible, so for your average end-user they won't even notice.
 
blackphoenix said:
I thought the whole DX9 pixel shader speed problem was "correct" or atleast made much faster with the 5900?
Click to expand...

nVidia made it faster by reverting to cheats and to low-quality 12/16 bit FP rendering to improve preformance in DirectX 9.0/PS2.0 tests... not due to a more efficient nv35 design.

Edit: What they really did improve was mainly the heat issue the original nv30 design suffered from.
 
Last edited:
blackphoenix said:
I thought the whole DX9 pixel shader speed problem was "correct" or atleast made much faster with the 5900?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not - We thought they had when the first 5900 Ultra benchmarks were released, but it seems that nVidia have been cheating in all tests for Pixel Shader 2.0. Once those cheats are removed, NV35 is only very marginally better than NV30 was in this respect, and still a long way down on the R3x0's speed.
 
5900 is a good card.

5900 is a good card.

It's just the 9800 Pro is better and nVidia can't handle it so they're trying to change the rules to MAKE it better.

Unfortunately, it's working so far.... :(
 
Well i read a Greek magazines that says

FOR THE GAMERS
"The 9800 surely is good but better wait the 5900 ultra which Nvidia has made a real progress these time..It seems faster and with same money"

Sad :(
 
The 9800 surely is good but better wait the 5900 ultra which Nvidia has made a real progress these time..It seems faster and with same money
Click to expand...

uhh, maybe in greek currency, but over here in the U.S. theres quite a difference.
 
Its not that I think the 5900 is a bad card, obviously it is much faster than my 8500. My issue with the whole Nivida thing is they are taking us back to the days of glide with this whole CG thing. They need to go with the standards so dev's can lower their development time and just either do standard OGL ARB2 or stragiht up DX9 standards. Screw the special NV specific extensions. If ATI starts doing this it will be the death of PC gaming. Then MS XBOX might pick up the slack but I hate playing games on my TV.... Ho hum I guess.
 
I don't think the CG thing will really catch on. They are hyping the hell out of it.. but that's probably because that's all they have to hype for now.

Why do their CG demos run better on a 9500 than it does on a 5800Ultra if it's really all that special?
 
Its really a misconception when people say that 16bit FP performs better than 32bit FP on the NV3x. The main increases come from running FXxx precision (integer), usually FX12. The NV30 is really slow at anything FP.
 
I guess I am still just shocked at how effective [N]ivida's PR machine is. I mean its like because they said it it is so. Sort of like the Borg.... Thats it they are assimilating everything and everyone!!!:eek:

Hopefully the general public will make out the real deal. I just see so many people saying how good the 5200 is, and compared to ATI's offering I don't see how they can say such a thing. Sure its DX9 but how can you say it is future proof if you can only run the game at 5fps.:rolleyes:
 
this cg thing seems the old S3TC, which is now part of directx under DXTC. It also reminds me when MMX first came out and only intel processors with mmx would run certain titles. I think cg may become in some part of directx or will be ignored altogether. However, even though i am an Ati owner i like what nvidia is doing with CG on workstation graphics apps like maya and 3d Studio Max
 
Socos said:
IHopefully the general public will make out the real deal. I just see so many people saying how good the 5200 is, and compared to ATI's offering I don't see how they can say such a thing. Sure its DX9 but how can you say it is future proof if you can only run the game at 5fps.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well how can they say such thing?
Because its a fact!
ATI's low end offering is not competetive.
The FX5200 is better than the 9000 and 9200, costs the same or lower price and gives you DX9 as a gift with no extra money to pay for it.

http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Budget_Roundup/index.php
 
Socos said:
Its not that I think the 5900 is a bad card, obviously it is much faster than my 8500. My issue with the whole Nivida thing is they are taking us back to the days of glide with this whole CG thing. They need to go with the standards so dev's can lower their development time and just either do standard OGL ARB2 or stragiht up DX9 standards. Screw the special NV specific extensions. If ATI starts doing this it will be the death of PC gaming. Then MS XBOX might pick up the slack but I hate playing games on my TV.... Ho hum I guess.
Click to expand...

why?
With CG you can stick to the standard but give NV cards a better optimization.
Just fine with me. There is no difference between CG and HLSL.
You program your shader and then choose the profile you wanna compile it into.
That can be standard DX9 or NV3x.
So from a developer perspective you write your shader once and compile it via 2 profiles et voila you have good support for most cards on the market.
Further on you have the possibility to choose between OGL or DX9 without rewriting your shader.

The CG toolkit is nothing else but great. It helps to reduce developing time because you can compile to 2 APIs (DX9 and OGL) and further on can optimizie a little more for Nvidia hardware. All other hardware will get what it gets with MS's HLSL - standard code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top