THE graphics cards LIST

[anidex]

I sort of suspected this would happen with gxsaurav and it did I noticed a variation in the font at the top that indicates the fps. The demo uses the basic Windows font "Veranda", so the possibility that he doesn't have it is unlikely. So what could've happened ?

Here's the image that gxsaurav posted :-

*img19.exs.cx/img19/144/test45.th.jpg

and here's how it should actually look.

*img19.exs.cx/img19/2754/Screenshot-Proper.th.jpg

As you can see, while the rest of the app renders text with the same font, only the fps count seems to be different :roll:! Care to explain gxsaurav? C'mon, your dear nVIDIA's DX9 compliant card couldn't have given too low an fps that would've made you fire up an image editing tool and...................................................... , could it have? And why does the terrain in your screenshot look so badly tessellated? Has somebody be running a tessellation reductor on the model ?

 

[JAK]

I sort of suspected this would happen with gxsaurav and it did I noticed a variation in the font at the top that indicates the fps. The demo uses the basic Windows font "Veranda", so the possibility that he doesn't have it is unlikely. So what could've happened ?

Here's the image that gxsaurav posted :-

*img19.exs.cx/img19/144/test45.th.jpg

and here's how it should actually look.

*img19.exs.cx/img19/2754/Screenshot-Proper.th.jpg

As you can see, while the rest of the app renders text with the same font, only the fps count seems to be different :roll:! Care to explain gxsaurav? C'mon, your dear nVIDIA's DX9 compliant card couldn't have given too low an fps that would've made you fire up an image editing tool and...................................................... , could it have? And why does the terrain in your screenshot look so badly tessellated? Has somebody be running a tessellation reductor on the model ?

hmm....

Looks like he edited 48.**fps and 5900XT..

 

[gxsaurav]

Cool, U got me

The thing I was also running fraps to capture it as a avi in the background, my FPS sluttered between 17 to 42, so when it took the screenshot it was in fact 19, I editied it to show the max FPS, as the demo ran even after 125 fps, for more true comparision, can U plz recode it so that it can take a Screenshot at every 125 fps & not only after first 125 fps, I had not optimized the PC for gaming at that time, now it is done, soon will be posting it again

The image quality is low, I admit that, this is due to the fact that I encoded the jpg with quality level 5 in Photoshop, I though, only the fps matters so, I decresed the quality, I didn't knew U wanted quality, I have one made of only 70 KB with a really bad sky, the real bmp was 3 mb, the max quality jpg was 577 kb, tell me if I optimized the file size thinking that the fps is all that matters, did I do something wrong,

I only edited 48.88, anidex code it again, make it such that it takes a screenshot at every 125 fps,

Remembar caching, the game I run, any game Far cry, d3 I run with cache, there is no cache, I had reinstalled windows only 2 hrs earlier, comon guys, if U think I m that bad, than Ok, I can't change your thinking

 

[gxsaurav]

Re downloading it, will post results tomorrow morning, or may be ater 30 mins

 

[JAK]

Cool, U got me

The thing I was also running fraps to capture it as a avi in the background, my FPS sluttered between 17 to 42, so when it took the screenshot it was in fact 19, I editied it to show the max FPS, as the demo ran even after 125 fps, for more true comparision, can U plz recode it so that it can take a Screenshot at every 125 fps & not only after first 125 fps, I had not optimized the PC for gaming at that time, now it is done, soon will be posting it again

U cud hav simply re-run the prog again without Fraps runnin..and posted the fps...but then why did u edit 5900XT...

 

[gxsaurav]

Ok, I have done it again, 17 FPs funny, it is using 24 bit presicion, it should use either 16 or 32 cos I m using NVIDIA card not ATI, could it be optimized for ATI, what could I say I don't have the source code

This is tottly untouched, but again compressed, it just gets blurred with Baseline optimisation in Photoshop, again, I don't think anyone will like a 900 KB JPG, besides, if My card is such bad in DX 9c, then Y m I geting nice frames better then before in Far Cry with Patch 1.2 taken from warez

Anidex, do U have any game that U think shows this DX vs OpenGL thing better, not a demo. Which game U think that shows this benchmark good, I will see if I can arrange it

I m using 61.77 Official with everything set to default, & I haven't touched anything in this pic this time other then Compression

Still unsure, I invite anyone at my home to check it your self, or I can post a bunch of screenshots of any game I have, u name it , If I have it I will post screenshot, not benchmark from someone with whom I argued a few days ago for ATI vs Nvidia & ANIDEX, U R also using my previous card

FX card is not so good in DX9 ok, but 5900XT is better then 9600 Pro

*img7.exs.cx/img7/8444/Screenshot0.th.jpg

 

[gxsaurav]

PC is optimized, D3 & Far Cry works fine, this time I had nothing running the background, I was down to 16 services from 22, everything closed

When U learn image editing the first thing U have to maintain is the file size, I had no idea that compression will decrese the image quality this much that membars will jump & say "U R A Lier, U don't have FX5900XT, it su**S" etc

Anything else, again, I m inviting

 

[blade_runner]

Hmm even i though so but dint say anything........i noticed the difference in fonts and plus the scores looked a bit suspicious........I had my mind on the 5900Xt getting arnd 25-30 Fps. But it runs way lower than my estimate !!

@Gxsaurav: Dude try shadermark, the latest verison. thats also a good software to test ur shader peformance. But believe me the fx series in many ways than one. No point in just defending the card just cuz u have brought it. Since i too have a Fx card.......a 5200 albeit.....but i am switching to a ATi card soon, maybe a 9800pro or a 9600XT. But really in the last pic the 5900 XT looks edited !

This is how ur pic looks like, take a look @ 900XT the font is a different

*img18.exs.cx/img18/5879/11057.jpg

And this is how it shud look like

*img18.exs.cx/img18/5167/11058.jpg

Got the difference !!

 

[gxsaurav]

If somebody doesn't want to belive, fine, I can't change their mind,

Shadermark, Downloading it now, I m not defending my card, anidex this made this on Radeon 9600 Pro from Gigabyte, I sold that card, which was my previous card to a friend, so I will again check it at his home,

Since he made this on ATI, DX SDK automatically compiled this according to his Radeon, not his fault, this is the same reason games made on NVIDIA looks better on NVIDIA cards & games made on ATI looks better on ATI

WTH, R We, simple users, I don't care what a game is made on what performance I should get, benchmark is something I prefer but many times games defy it, Till now every game I have played runs really fine at my settings, just this benchmark, which is using 24 bit precision (strange to me,NVIDIA doesn't do 24 bit, while DX gives support for 16,24,32, so if it was not optimized then it should run at 16 or 32 on nvidia cards)

Well, atleast OpenGL does

 

[gxsaurav]

& for the last time 5900XT is not edited aaaaaaaaa

 

[blade_runner]

FX card is not so good in DX9 ok, but 5900XT is better then 9600 Pro

Well u cant compare a 14k 5900xt with a 8.5k 9600pro. The 9800pro is the direct competition to the 5900Xt at this price level. But the 9800pro wud eat the 5900 for breakfast.

& for the last time 5900XT is not edited aaaaaaaaa

Well look @ pics ......anybody will tell u that its edited.

If somebody doesn't want to belive, fine, I can't change their mind,

Hell we cud all care less man, but u know what, such things destroy any credibility that a man's got.

Neways lets get back to the topic, other members plz post ur screenshots !

 

[gxsaurav]

SO now U want me to finda Radeon 9800 Pro & compare with that, woww, man I have money, but not that much

 

[blade_runner]

Did i ?

 

[anidex]

Since he made this on ATI, DX SDK automatically compiled this according to his Radeon, not his fault, this is the same reason games made on NVIDIA looks better on NVIDIA cards & games made on ATI looks better on ATI

I've never heard worse gibbersih. The HLSL compiler compiles the shader at run-time, nothing is pre-generated or pre-optimized. Unlike OpenGL, where you can use vendor specific optimizations, with DirectX it's almost impossible. ATI cards run the demo at 24-bit precision all the time. Lower nVIDIA cards switch to fp-16 due to the heavy load. So, nVIDIA is at an obvious advantage, though it doesn't seem to fare too well even with that !

FX card is not so good in DX9 ok, but 5900XT is better then 9600 Pro

Sure, that's why the 9600 PRO made mincemeat out of the 5900 XT (how many times higher was the framerate again? Three ?). Why don't we watch the 9600 PRO make mincemeat out of the "latest and greatest FX card", the 5950 Ultra ? Or perhaps even the GeForce 6800 GT ? Just shows how dismally nVIDIA cards perform when a graphics application runs fairly without nVIDIA specific optimizations ! This was what turned me against nVIDIA (I was a big time nVIDIOT an year ago).

But the 9800pro wud eat the 5900 for breakfast

Right blade_runner. Actually, here we see the 9600 PRO eating the 5900 for breakfast !

Finally though gxsaurav, I appreciate your partial honesty. Coming forward to admit the truth was pretty brave. But you're only fooling yourself thinking that the GeForce FX 5900 (Ultra even) is a better card than the Radeon 9600Pro.

OK people, out with the screenshots . Time we got back to the topic at hand.

 

[gxsaurav]

Again, Y don't U post your 3DMark scores, I guess that is not NVIDIA or ATI optimized my score is 4108

As said earlier, I mcalling anyone in LKW to benchmark for more accuracy, if U don't belive me how do U think I can belive U, I don't know weather U have done any ATI optimisation or not, I m not there to see, 3DMark it is a fair benchmark, we both haven't made it, post your last 3DMark screenshot where the marks are written

I had the same card U r using & this benchmark does works good on Radeon, the friend I sold it to, I ran it at his home, with Catalyst 4.8 it worked higher, when he saw my scores even he was amazed cos Far Cry Works better at my home then it does at his PC, now tell me is far cry optimized for NVIDIA, no it works better on Radeon 9800 pro but only marginally, so I guess Radeon 9600 Pro should beat my card too, but it doesn't care to explain

Oh! & can any one post a link to download shadermark, the link on fileshack want me to register

 

[gxsaurav]

I even do 3D rendering work, in Maya & 3Ds Max 6, blender, even there FX beats my old radeon, so again they are made for NVIDIA cos NVIDIA bribed them, oh! wait they are OpenGL based, which is dead for gaming na

As long as a Single game works better in my PC with FX then Radeon, I will say FX is better, Radeon 9800 Pro, sure it is better , FX5900 nUltra was made to beat it, 5900XT beats 9800non Pro

Besides I throw whatever I want at this card & it works fine, except for this benchmark, even better then on Radeon

 

[anidex]

Have you been sleeping for the past 2 years? nVIDIA has highly optimized their drivers for 3DMark. About 2 years ago, FutureMark made it public that nVIDIA is cheating in 3DMark benchmarks. Then, they backed down because nVIDIA secretly threatened a lawsuit against FutureMark. nVIDIA simply doesn't play fair, they don't like to loose. From then on, 3DMark allows fp-16 in all nVIDIA cards. Don't you know that a 1000 mark increase in the score for the 5950 Ultra with the 3DMark 330 build mysteriously disappeard when FutureMark released build 340? It came back again with the new drivers. That's enough proof that nVIDIA's cheating.

Anyway, here's an article by FutureMark that describes all of nVIDIA's cheats! (Right click and select SaveAs...).

[url]*www.angelfire.com/trek/startrekindia/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf
[/url]

Also, 3DMark has one DX7 test, 2 DX8.1 test and a single partial DX9 test. Why don't you post that "Elephant Rhino" pixel shader 2.0 test scores? Afraid that it might again reveal nVIDIA's dismal performance?

My score in the game tests :- 3386
My pixel shader 2.0 score :- 36.2 fps

It's obviously clear that asking you for the latter score is meaningless since you're only going to fake it again. Why don't you post your ShaderMark 2.0 scores? It's the only fair benchmark around currently. Wanna see how my card gets 5 times the fps as yours?[/url]

 

[blade_runner]

This is the link for Shadermark.......

*www.hwsetup.it/files/download/benchmark/shadermark_install.exe

 

[gxsaurav]

Thanx techno,

If U guys remembar a few months ago I baughta Radeon 9700 Pro for 4 days from my friendly shop, I tried it over my Radeon 9600 Pro, for 3D Rendering purpose, what I see, there is no feature that can make me buy a Radeon 9700 or 9800, Y do U think I went for FX5900XT insted of Radeon, simple, FX Supports more features when it comes to 3D Rendering & animation

My game play is only 40%, 60% I m in Animation & Rendering, & for that FX performas better then both 9600 Pro & 9800Pro, it is about the same in rendering speed compared to 9800 Pro, but supports a hell lot of features, Ultrshadow in hardware rocks in Room & Outdoor sceans

 

[anidex]

FX Supports more features when it comes to 3D Rendering & animation

Like what? Nobody needs 1024 pixel shader instructions for offline rendering since that doesn't even matter. The FX only supports more features for real-time stuff.

If I remember correctly, you said that you went for the FX card since it appeared to be faster in games. So, you seem to be contradicting yourself !

I m in Animation & Rendering, & for that FX performas better then both 9600 Pro & 9800Pro

Proof? I'd prefer something like that Futuremark disclosure that I posted !

Anyway, I still wonder why none of you have been troubled by that Futuremark report !