| |
| |
Anonymous
at 19:11 23/4/2006
|
nvidia f**K the lauzy card .ATI good choice
|
buy viagra
at 6:45 31/7/2005
|
http://www.viagrasite.info
viagra online,buy viagra,order viagra
|
Richard Davis
at 15:53 24/7/2005
|
Nice one, but what about der weg ? anywya, congrats from me.
|
Peter Jackson
at 14:24 23/7/2005
|
A heap of wheat, says the Song of Songs
but I've never seen wheat in a pile :)
did you like it?
|
Joe Fuentes
at 19:33 22/7/2005
|
The text was good, but i stil cant find the play ipdates. looking for it dude.
|
buy viagra
at 16:8 19/7/2005
|
http://www.viagra4u.info
Viagra, buy viagra, viagra online
Order viagra, cheap viagra
|
viagra online
at 16:4 19/7/2005
|
http://www.viagra4u.info
Viagra, buy viagra, viagra online
Order viagra, cheap viagra
|
Sonya
at 9:50 8/7/2005
|
soma http://www.bestrxpills.com
|
Anonymous
at 22:31 7/2/2004
|
And dumbass, when a GPU company endorses a game. "The Way it's meant to be played" They pay millions to put their logo on the game box regardless if the game plays well on it or not. It's marketing you fool. Prime example of this. Tomb Raider Angle of Darkness. It's a Nvidia supported game. But plays infinately smoother and faster with better IQ on ATI cards. Unreal 2k. Same thing. ATI cards when full detail and TRUE trilinear filtering is enabled(something you cannot do on Nvidia cards with this game) and AA is on, ATI cards run it faster and look better.
|
Anonymous
at 22:26 7/2/2004
|
Have you played Nvidia supported games lately? They all play better on ATI cards. That's the biggest joke of all. Sad day for Nvidia. The NV40 can't come to soon for them i assume...or they will f**k it up too...
|
Anonymous
at 5:7 7/2/2004
|
hey phreaxor, have you played ati supported games? what a laugh! pure crap i tell ya.
nvidia supported games are the best. cuz the best companies in gaming want their games to look and preform the best, that's why they chose nvidia, not ati.
now go f**k yourself little boy.
|
PhR34x0r
at 0:18 30/1/2004
|
poor call of duty. how can anyone be so dumb and bundle a great game like this with a low end card like nvidias ? those uninformed customers r getting so ripped off. this card wont last for half a year. buy an ati already ...
|
hakim
at 2:56 17/1/2004
|
kan i ikke laver med at lave demo spil
|
Anonymous
at 11:37 14/1/2004
|
Call of Duty bundled with a piece of duty.
|
Anonymous
at 11:36 14/1/2004
|
Yeah, and the NVidia card is a piece of duty, too.
|
Anonymous
at 12:54 12/1/2004
|
"ABIT Partners With ATi:
Big news in the graphics card sector. ABIT has announced a partnership with ATi and will have a 9600XT and a 9800XT to the Abit lineup in the near future. ATi is on fire lately and there just seems to be more and more companies crossing over from the NVIDIA side of the fence to the ATi camp."Poor Nvidia. Losing partners left and right now..
|
Anonymous
at 19:29 8/1/2004
|
"May didn’t really have much to offer in terms of new products, Nvidia announced the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, which was little more than a revamped 5800 with the kinks ironed out. Although the 5900 performed better than the 5800, Nvidia’s reputation was dented due to the lacking performance of the FX series. Nvidia’s marketing and PR for the new videocards had painted a picture on which the actual product was unable to deliver. For now Ati was king of the hill and the former champion with its impressive six month product cycles was forced to take place in the backseat, where they would remain the rest of the year."http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1682.5/ read that article. Poor Nvidia for 2002/2003
|
Anonymous
at 6:56 8/1/2004
|
"Conclusion and Score
I say this a fair bit when looking at derivative products based on reference designs, but we knew what the card would perform like, compared to its peers. It's a monster DX8 class card, conceding the DX9 class crown to ATI's recent 9800XT."Like all other reviews. DX8 and DX7 performance is excellant lik ATI cards. DX9 performance is poor on FX cards. Have fun running those games in the near future on FX cards.
|
Anonymous
at 21:21 7/1/2004
|
This is a old, old issue now. For the year 2002(late in the year) and 2003, the gpu company that took all honours has been ATI. For the first time, ATI has outsold Nvidia gpu cards. All one needs to look at is the various hardware websites that have the "best and worst of 2003"
Nvidia's FX cards are not in the "best" column. Take a guess where ATI cards are? http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/6056
|
Anonymous
at 20:58 7/1/2004
|
...continued...
It also never runs those games in full PS2.0 shader support. It uses shader support from dx7 and dx8. That's PS1.1 and PS1.4. That's a joke. These are DX9 games. Not DX7 and DX8 games. You FX owners are getting hosed. And you will know this when more and more games come out using more ps2.0 features."Comparing the GeForceFX5950 Ultra with the Radeon 9800XT is really a no-brainer. If you want the best IQ, such as AA and AF combined with DX9 performance, the ATI Radeon 9800XT is still HardOCP's card of choice. Both the Radeon 9800XT and the GeForceFX 5950 Ultra are priced at MSRP $499. When we sit here and look back at the performance and image quality obtained in this preview as well as special XT perks, like a full single and multiplayer version Half Life 2, we really can come to only one conclusion. The Radeon 9800XT is the better buy; you simply get more for your money compared to the GeForceFX 5950Ultra." http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTM3LDg= Read that link. Then read the review at techreport.com. Then read the review at Tomshardware.com then read the review at GamersDepot.com. Then go to ANANDTECH.COM. And there are plenty others. They say all the things. Poor dx9 performance. Poor shader performance for the 5900, 5950. And it makes no sense in buying a card that only plays LAST YEAR GAMES properly and not future games.
|
Anonymous
at 20:56 7/1/2004
|
LMAO. Too funny. What review? I bet they benchmarked "old" games like Quake3 engine games, Serious Sam. The only new game out that runs better on the 5900, 5950 is Call of Duty and X2. All other dx9 games run poorly on fx cards. Even dx8.1 games(MaxPayne2)
And Call of Duty is NOT a dx9 game.
Halo, TRAOD, MaxPayne2, Freedom Fighters, Unreal 2k inwhich Nvidia cards DO NOT USE REAL TRILINEAR FILTERING ON FX CARDS. And run better on ATI cards. Sorry buddy. FX cards do not run PS2.0 games properly. It has been proven. And that's the future of dx9 gaming. HL2 is a prime example of this. Look what John Carmack even said of this:"Quote:
In view of recent ATI’s Shader Day event and Gabe Newell’s presentation of Half-Life 2, we asked John Carmack about his opinion. What can we expect from GeForce FX family regarding future DirectX 9 games?"
"Hi John, No doubt you heard about GeForce FX fiasco in Half-Life 2. In your opinion, are these results representative for future DX9 games (including Doom III) or is it just a special case of HL2 code preferring ATI features, as NVIDIA suggests?" "Unfortunately, it will probably be representative of most DX9 games. Doom has a custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the GF-FX, but when you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is a lot slower. The precision doesn't really matter to Doom, but that won't be a reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as a minimum spec."
-John Carmack-
http://www.bubblemod.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=601 And unfortunately for you Nvidia owners, those will be all the upcoming games in the new year. It's called TRUE dx9 games with TRUE PS2.0/ Vertex shader support and FULL 24BIT PRECISION. nVIDIA FX CARDS DO NOT RUN DX9 GAMES WITH THOSE FEATURES. Never does. It runs ALL dx9 games in floating point precision of FP12 and FP16. Not the required Dx9 specification Floating point precision of FP24.
It also never runs those games in
|
Nvidia Rule
at 13:19 7/1/2004
|
I went on that review Geforce FX 5900 VS 9800 and 5900 wiped its ass,cant wait for my 5900 to arrive.
|
Nvidia Rule
at 13:11 7/1/2004
|
Nvidia are the best mate.Neway how well do u think call of duty will run on my new pc.Athlon xp Barton 2.8+
gigabyte motherboard 400fsb ddr400
512 original ddr400 memory
Leadtek Geforce FX 5900 2.2ns
|
Anonymous
at 5:24 5/1/2004
|
lmao ati fanboys are such losers. i bet if an ati card is a person, you'll be licking his butt and follow him wherever he goes like a rabies dog. ooh look, there's a letter L on your forehead.
|
Anonymous
at 14:21 3/1/2004
|
...continued...
EXCLUSIVELY PS2.0 and Vertex shader 2.0 features like HL2. Enjoy playing it at lower IQ because they will have to change the shader effects the same exact way they did it forHL2 and TRAOD and Halo. ATI cards ran all those games at full dx9 precision and with FULL PS2.0 support. Something Nvidia cannot do at this time unless they like to see the game run at sub 20 FPS....And that's what you call...BETTER?
|
Anonymous
at 14:19 3/1/2004
|
LMFAO...Keep wishing stupid. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13287 Read that link. Almost ALL games that have the Logo "Way It's Meant To Be Played" play better on ATI cards. ESPECIALLY GAMES THAT USE MORE VERTEX AND PIXEL SHADERS. Funny how you say no one wants to invest in ATI, since they tripled their stock price and have out sold Nvidia with this generation of cards. All one need to do is look at store shelves and see which cards they are stocking more of.....Times have changed. "Best Of 2003:
IPKonfig is taking their turn at telling you who was the Best Of 2003. They cover the usual computer hardware “best of” list but they also threw in a nice picture of a man getting groped by another man for good measure (no, I am not kidding). "Graphics: I think many of you know who we'd name in this market: ATi. We have stressed ATi video cards more in 2003 than previous years, and 2003 brought its best video cards to market, continuing outstanding architecture, moving it well beyond the rest of the market. ATi has also shown huge improvement with their video card drivers, too." So please tell us all fanboy why Nvidia is better. Because it now has been proven that it cannot play FULL PRECISION AND FULL PIXEL AND VERTEX SHADER 2.0(DIRECTX9) GAMES. They have to use partial precision and partial shader effects from directx8 and directx7. Games like X-2...LOL...That they call a DX9 game but Nvidia cards run it in FP12 and FP16 and NEVER USE pixel shader or vertex shader support 2.0(DX9 feature.) Their complier drivers change it to Pixel shader 1.1 and Pixel shader 1.4 (Dx7 nd Dx8 features! And Nvidia has the balls to call their cards DX9 compliant? BULLSHIT)
Look at MaxPayne2. It runs like syrup on Nvidia based cards compard to ATI cards and that game is DX8.1! It uses lots of shader effects. Nvidia's weakness. A weakness Nvidia can no longer lie about as it has been proven. Nvidia fanboys, have fun playing future titles that use EXCLUSIVELY PS2.0 and Ver
|
Anonymous
at 23:48 2/1/2004
|
Aaah yes, nVIDIA games... Great games from the best companies in the market. No one wants to invest on ATI. Why? Because nVIDIA is better. And that's a fact!
|
Anonymous
at 12:48 1/1/2004
|
This game ran fine on my GeForce 3, it doesnt take a 5900 to play this!
|
Rizwan
at 9:27 30/12/2003
|
I want too dwoload this game.Can u give me this games. U just send if by mail.
|
Mario Pasayes
at 13:32 28/12/2003
|
uygjnknk'mkm
|
PhR34x0r
at 5:44 26/12/2003
|
damn right. lets hope they release a shitload of addons and expansions
|
si2k78
at 20:13 25/12/2003
|
yeah... it was short as hell.. but fun none the less.
|
PhR34x0r
at 7:44 24/12/2003
|
just 1 quick question : dont u think the game is f**kin short ? i didnt count the hours but im sure i finished it in like 3 hours. what a ripoff if u buy the game at full price.
|
Proud Joe
at 7:5 24/12/2003
|
From what i've seen if you wan a Good Budget Card $115 to $210 you might wanna go for the Ati Radeion 9600's series or a 9500 PRO.As they clearly smoke away the nVdia's 5600 ultra's and some other.In fact at some benchmarks it even Matchs up against some of new nVidia cards (5900& others).Then nVidia releases the 5700 ultra that is suppose to BEAT the 9600's & XT and it turned out to be a another loser.The 9600 XT still manages to have a slight lead on the 5700 ultra and with pixel & shader it has a good lead. So yea im very dissapointed with nVidia.I used to love the Geforce 2 it was good shit for awhile,Ti was quite impressive for a bit. But now its all a mess with the FX cards.My most recommended budget cards are the 1)Ati Radeon 9600 XT With HALF-LIFE 2 2)Ati Radeon 9600 PRO or 3)Ati Radeon 9500 PRO.Here are some of the best benchamarks website and shit 1)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/index.html
2)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/index.html.I won't mention it again oh and they guy below me ummm are you trying to be funny or something?im not giving a : : lol : :
|
Anonymous
at 0:36 24/12/2003
|
Call of Duty Runs 200FPS on my geforce 2 mx.. and half life 300FPS..
|
Anonymous
at 18:2 23/12/2003
|
They have already proved that running games and Synthetic tests that use heavy shader effects and HDL cripple FX performance. It's been proven across the board. This is why they tell you that the FX cards are amazing for dx7, dx8 gaming, however once games start to use more and more dx9 shader and high dynamic lighting effects(HL2 is a prime example over all other dx9 games right now. And expect to see those games in the new year) Nvidia will no longer be able to use it's complier program to alter shader code without effecting IQ. All one has to do is look at the results of HL2 and what it took Nvidia and Valve to get the game even to run at acceptable levels. It took Valve and Nvidia 5 times as long to code for the FX card as it did on Ati cards. Nvidia themselves even mentioned the length inwhich it takes to code for it's card. And the results were still poor.
DX9 shaders for the FX cards had to be replaced with DX8 and DX7 shaders instead. And dx8 and dx7 shaders do not look the same as dx9 shader effects and especially dx9 lighting effects. This is what FX owners will be getting with future dx9 titles. Running the game in dx7, dx8 MODE and partial floating point precision. HL2 is just the perfect example. It's a warning. A warning even John Carmack mentions:
"Hi John,
No doubt you heard about GeForce FX fiasco in Half-Life 2. In your opinion, are these results representative for future DX9 games (including Doom III) or is it just a special case of HL2 code preferring ATI features, as NVIDIA suggests?""Unfortunately, it will probably be representative of most DX9 games. Doom has a custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the GF-FX, but when you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is a lot slower. The precision doesn't really matter to Doom, but that won't be a reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as a minimum spec."
-John Carmack-
http://www.gamer.nl/nieuws/19168 Purchase a FX card but be
|
Anonymous
at 20:27 22/12/2003
|
That's the real sad part. They believe it with all their hearts even when every website has shown that dx9 games will run poorly on them. How sad.
|
Anonymous
at 18:1 22/12/2003
|
yeah.... as soon as half life 2 comes out.. they will all shut up...
|
DesFS
at 17:32 22/12/2003
|
If Nvidia Fan boys believe that Nvidia cards like the FX5700 Ultra can run DX9 games, let them. It's their problem and their loss.
|
MATIAS
at 5:52 22/12/2003
|
DEBERIAN COLOCAR ALGUNOS GAMES
PLEASE
|
Anonymous
at 18:48 21/12/2003
|
FANBOYS ROCK! GO ATI AND NVIDIA FANBOYS YOU R THE SHIT!
|
www.tp.frac.dk
at 17:33 21/12/2003
|
www.tp.frac.dk www.tp.frac.dk www.tp.frac.dk
|
si2k78
at 23:10 20/12/2003
|
i own a all in wonder 9700 non pro.. and its sweeet!... runs all my games perfectly.... except Halo of coarse.. which runs like absolute crap.. might as well just get it for xbox. dammit.
|
Vlado
at 21:11 20/12/2003
|
Hey HAJI, Are you Yugoslavian?
|
SUPREME GOD
at 13:46 20/12/2003
|
I CREATE HALF-LIFE, NVIDIA, ATI, & CALL OF DUTY. I MADE THE VIDEOGAME INDUSTRY THE WAY IT WAS. BOW TO ME LOSER!
|
Anonymous
at 21:17 19/12/2003
|
http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/ati_nvidia_aa_performance/index6_e.phpRead that link if you still believe Nvidia has better IQ. It's great reading. Here's just some of it. "Of course there's a reason for this humiliating defeat of nVidia: since the GeForce 3 nVidia didn't work on anti-aliasing much at all. The GeForce4 Ti's Accuview anti-aliasing is just a very slight enhancement - and the GeForceFX did in fact add nothing to these technologies (yet it did gain some modes). The plethora of new modes offered on the GeForceFX are all driver controlled and are available and just as functional on older cards, down to the GeForce 3, if you're using a tweaking tool such as aTuner.
So when it comes to anti-aliasing, nVidia is still in 2001, the year the GeForce3 was launched. The next generation of graphics chips must change this, as ATi are far ahead already with the R3x0 series and they will certainly try to keep the heat turned up."
Read this review too...
"What to say about the new Gigabyte FX 5950? I can't deny that this card is very good to play the most games and other aplications with high resolutions, but their actual price and their slow performance when using more complex pixel shaders, don't let me recommend this card for those who want this card for long term usage..."
***but their actual price and their slow performance when using more complex pixel shaders*** This is the echoing statement of all fx chips! Nvidiots, still keep that head in the sand. Keep beleiving that they will play dx9 games. Have fun Nvidiots. Don't believe all the facts and proof...
|
HAJI
at 20:40 19/12/2003
|
I NEED TO LICK SOME AMERICAN ASS NOW. I TIRED OF LICKING MUSLIM ASS NOW. TOO MUCH CAMEL SHIT IN MY DIET. NEED OTHER TYPE OF SHIT NOW INFIDELS!
|
jckbl
at 5:26 19/12/2003
|
im ar shur
|
Anonymous
at 17:47 18/12/2003
|
...continued...
"The FX5700 Ultra's texturing quality is a bit worse compared to the Radeon 9600XT: the textures a bit more flat and not as defined. Anti-aliasing quality is pretty good, though a little rough when compared to the Radeon 9600XT in instances. Overall, image quality is good, but not as good as the image you would get from the Radeon 9600XT.In terms of value, the FX5700 Ultra may leave you wanting more. Because the DirectX performance is pretty poor compared to the similarly priced Radeon 9600XT, you will find yourself wanting to upgrade sooner than someone with the Radeon. However, this isn't a big concern if you're not planning on keeping the FX5700 Ultra for long or if you only play OpenGL games..."
FX cards are AMAZING FOR OpenGL games and last year titles. Have fun playing future DX9 titles....
|
Anonymous
at 17:43 18/12/2003
|
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=274&PageID=7Read this link for the people who believe the 5700Ultra beats the 9600xt across the board. "Looking back at the tests we've done here, we can see that the Radeon 9600XT has a lot going for it. The biggest asset to the Radeon 9600XT is its far superior DirectX performance compared to the FX5700 Ultra. In every DirectX game we ran, the Asus Radeon 9600XT came out on top and in some cases by a very large margin. It's worth noting that the Radeon 9600XT is the only card we looked at today that can run Halo with all the features enabled and still be playable. With DirectX being the dominant API used in games these days, it's good to know that the Radeon gives you the extra performance in this department." " GeForce FX5700 Ultra The FX5700 Ultra is decent performer and is probably the more "well rounded" videocard we've looked at today. DirectX performance is not as good as the Radeon 9600XT, but is still very capable at playing every game tested. However, the FX5700 Ultra can't seem to perform well with 4x anti-aliasing which is a little disappointing. So if you buy this card, expect to have to dumb-down details or accept the fact you won't be doing 4x AA. OpenGL performance is great when comparing it to the performance of the Radeon 9600XT. The FX5700 Ultra was able to play Jedi Academy with all the details and with 4x anti-aliasing and 8x anisotropic filtering without any stutters." "The FX5700 Ultra's texturing quality is a bit worse compared to the Radeon 9600XT: the textures a bit more flat and not as defined. Anti-aliasing quality is pretty good, though a little rough when compared to the Radeon 9600XT in instances. Overall, image quality is good, but not as good as the image you would get from the Radeon 9600XT. In terms of value, the FX5700 Ultra may leave you wanting more. Because the DirectX performance is pretty poor compared to the similarly priced Radeon 9600XT, you will find y
|
Prpud Joe
at 16:8 18/12/2003
|
From what i've seen if you wan a Good Budget Card $115 to $210 you might wanna go for the Ati Radeion 9600's series or a 9500 PRO.As they clearly smoke away the nVdia's 5600 ultra's and some other.In fact at some benchmarks it even Matchs up against some of new nVidia cards (5900& others).Then nVidia releases the 5700 ultra that is suppose to BEAT the 9600's & XT and it turned out to be a another loser.The 9600 XT still manages to have a slight lead on the 5700 ultra and with pixel & shader it has a good lead. So yea im very dissapointed with nVidia.I used to love the Geforce 2 it was good shit for awhile,Ti was quite impressive for a bit. But now its all a mess with the FX cards.My most recommended budget cards are the 1)Ati Radeon 9600 XT With HALF-LIFE 2 2)Ati Radeon 9600 PRO or 3)Ati Radeon 9500 PRO.Here are some of the best benchamarks website and shit 1)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/index.html
2)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/index.html.
|
lippity
at 9:28 18/12/2003
|
I want to know where that loser guy SSCREW is these days not defending his beloved Nvidia FX cards? When Nvidia was caught cheating big time f**king up IQ and other shit, SSCREW was there defending Nvidia to the death. Where did this asshole go? Seems there is not much to defend now that everyone knows that these fx cards are shit and the truth is out about it. SSCREW would always say..."i will wait for the nv30...or i will wait for the nv35...then i will wiat for the nv38...they will destroy the ati cards..."
Please SSCREW, come back so we can laugh at you and your blind loyality....lmfao.
|
Anonymous
at 9:23 18/12/2003
|
"Update: NVIDIA drivers still do not allow for full tri-linear filtering. As a result, an asterisk noting this fact should be kept in mind regarding the benchmark results. There's really no way of knowing what effect this has on the resulting frames per second since full tri-linear filtering cannot be accomplished in Unreal Tournament 2003 with NVIDIA drivers and therefore no comparison can be drawn. Most "best guesses" that I'm aware of estimate this to be anywhere from a few frames per second to ten or more depending on the map, system, etc."
-nVNews-And this is from a major, major pro Nvidia site. Love that IQ on Nvidia cards. Love how they cut down IQ just to get a few frames faster. REAL generation cards these FX cards are. What a joke.....
|
Beatles
at 9:21 18/12/2003
|
The long and winding road that leads to your door
Will never disappear
I've seen that road before
it always leads me here
lead me to your door
the wild and windy nights
that the rain washed away...
|
jj one
at 8:27 18/12/2003
|
The real crying will happen when DirectX9 games hit store shelves that use all those effects. The crying coming from FX owners.
|
Anonymous
at 7:27 18/12/2003
|
What people need to know about shader performance and fx cards is this. When games use PS2.0, Vertex shader2.0 and HDL effects in full precision nvidia cards cannot run those properly UNLESS their drivers change shader operations. Which in general do not effect IQ. However with pure DX9 games that require extensive use of those effects in minimum floating point precision, like HL2 and even maxPayne2, Nvidia's complier drivers cannot alter those shader operations without effecting IQ.
X2 does not use those effects exclusively, so Nvidia's drviers can run in lower floating point precision then whats required for DX9 and use partial shader effects from years past dx7 and dx8.1 effects without image loss. ATI cards however, run X2 at Floating point Precision of 24bit and use ps2.0 shader effects across the board. The required specifications of DX9 applications.
Nvidia drivers SHOULD run all dx9 games at Floating point fp32...they dont
|
sudharanim
at 0:37 18/12/2003
|
nnnnnnnnnnoooooooottttttttthhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiinnnnnngggggggg
|
Beatles
at 23:57 17/12/2003
|
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup...
|
HAJI
at 23:30 17/12/2003
|
THIS IS A AMERICAN CAPITILIST GAME! BURN AMERICANS! YOU WILL ALL BURN IN HELL FOR WHAT YOU DO! ONLY DIRTY MUSLIMS THAT SUCK SMALL c**k WILL RULE THE WORLD! WE MUSLIMS HATE ALL YOU AMERICAN PIG DOGS FOR LIVING BETTER THEN US MUSLIM TERRORISTS. WE LIVE IN SHIT HOLES LIKE SADDAM, MY LOVER. YOU ARE NOT SO GREAT! WE ARE BEST. SADDAM TREATED ME GREAT! HE LET ME LICK HIS DIRTY ASSHOLE AFTER HE HAD A LARGE RUNNY SHIT. WE HAVE NO TOILET PAPER. JUST OUR MUSLIM TONGUES! LONG LIVE SADDAM AND HIS SMALL p***s HE LOVES PUTTING IN MY MUSLIM WIDE ASSHOLE! LONG LIVE BIN LADEN WHO LOVES WHEN I USE TO LICK HIS SWEATY MUSLIM BALLS!
|
Proud Joe
at 21:42 17/12/2003
|
From what i've seen if you wan a Good Budget Card $115 to $210 you might wanna go for the Ati Radeion 9600's series or a 9500 PRO.As they clearly smoke away the nVdia's 5600 ultra's and some other.In fact at some benchmarks it even Matchs up against some of new nVidia cards (5900& others).Then nVidia releases the 5700 ultra that is suppose to BEAT the 9600's & XT and it turned out to be a another loser.The 9600 XT still manages to have a slight lead on the 5700 ultra and with pixel & shader it has a good lead. So yea im very dissapointed with nVidia.I used to love the Geforce 2 it was good shit for awhile,Ti was quite impressive for a bit. But now its all a mess with the FX cards.My most recommended budget cards are the 1)Ati Radeon 9600 XT With HALF-LIFE 2 2)Ati Radeon 9600 PRO or 3)Ati Radeon 9500 PRO.Here are some of the best benchamarks website and shit 1)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/index.html
2)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/index.html.
|
Anonymous
at 20:2 17/12/2003
|
x2 is totally optimized for FX hardware and uses minimal PS2.0 and Vertex shader 2.0 SUPPORT!(DX9 SHADER FEATUREES)
It also is optimised for Nvidia cards so they can run it in FP12 and FP16. That's not the minimal dx9 requirement! FP24 is! So how can they even classify it as a dx9 game when Nvidia cards are not running it in the specified requirements??????? ATI does all the time. FP24!
Soon as a game uses the specified dx9 application such as the minimal floating point of 24bit or higher, Nvidia cards run super slow. It's only when they use shader effects from DX7 and DX8.1 instead of PS2.0(DX9 SHADER EFFECT) does the fx cards perform well.(HL2 fiasco) This is why games like TRAOD and HL2 and even the DX8.1 game MaxPayne2(which exclusively uses 32bit colour) perform crappy on FX cards.
x2 is a game that uses partial precision and partial shader effects from dx7 and dx8 generations on FX cards. That's not a true DX9 game buddy. And Nvidia is going to get f**ked when games start to come out using PS2.0 and vertex shader 2.0 exclusively like HL2. Just read carmacks statement about that.
http://www.digital-daily.com/video/nvidia-forceware-5216/index07.htm
read that link too.........nuff said....
|
Anonymous
at 17:38 17/12/2003
|
look at the x2 bench, pure dx9
www.tomshardware.com has it
nuff said
|
static
at 17:32 17/12/2003
|
If I had the money I would get the 9800XT, but I dont. That would be funny if Nvidia and ATI just switched their shit to NVIDIA XT 8000 and the ATI FX 8050. No just kidding.
|
HAJI
at 17:13 17/12/2003
|
I USE NO AMERICAN DEVIL CAPITALIST CARDS! JUST MUSLIM VIDEO CARDS. THE BEST! THEY RUN MY 25 YEAR OLD RUSSIAN PC JUST FINE YOU AMERICAN DOGS! YOU AMERICANS THINK YOU ARE SO GREAT! JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN A HOME THAT HAS FOUR WALLS AND WE MUSLIM TOWEL HEADS LIVE IN A SHIT HOLE DOES NOT MAKE YOU GREAT. YOU WILL BURN IN MUSLIM HELL. ALLAH SAYS SO! ONLY MUSLIMS THAT SUCK FARM ANIMALS ASSHOLES AND DIRTY c**k LIKE ME WILL BE BLESSED! ONLY MUSLIMS THAT f**k THEIR FATHERS LIKE ME WILL BE HAPPY!
|
Anonymous
at 17:8 17/12/2003
|
And is dx9 games not the future? Call of Duty uses a antiquated game engine. Who cares if nvidia cards run quake3 engine games 15 fps faster when both ati and nvidia cards run them at a minimum at full detail of 110fps? I want my next generation card to run next generation games. Nvidia cards are having a f**k of a time doing that.
|
asdas
at 16:37 17/12/2003
|
ok.. call of duty is an opengl engine not a dx.. so thats why it runs faster on nvidia.. go check the benchmarks nvidia is better on opengl but still not good enought as ATI vs Nvidia on DX9.
ATI is still the best card you can get.. I just ordered a 9800XT
|
Gangster
at 16:28 17/12/2003
|
Nvidia is desperate here. ATI could do the same thing. Just reduce the price of the 9800 non-pro to $200 and bundle it with MaxPayne2 and call it a 9800FX. DESRERATE MARKETING. Good for all consumers as this will push prices down, but very desperate for Nvidia this holiday season. Which this card won't even hit retail shelves like Anonymous said below until the new year. By then, Call of Duty will be around $19.99-$29.99. A LITTLE TOO LATE......
|
Anonymous
at 16:23 17/12/2003
|
The 5900XT is just a cut down version of the 5900. A 5900non-ultra reduce to mid-range prices.
Which is a good thing!
But i find it funny how it takes Nvidia to release a paper launch product that you will not see until after christmas. Not to mention the fact that this is not a mid-range card but a higher end one. It seems Nvidia needs a higher end card to compete with ATI's mid-range card.
Nvidia is taking a big hit on this card in price. And screws the 5700Ultra in the process which sells for the same price and is slower. Who the hell will buy the 5700 now? And the 9700pro is still the better choice for Mid-range cards. It runs faster then all of these ones.
|
Anonymous
at 14:52 17/12/2003
|
Static, and you want to gamble on the fact that the 9800XT won't play future DX9 games? Have fun. Nvidia still has to go to incredible lenghts just to have their FX cards run those games at acceptable levels. And if game developers do not want to put in that time(some won't as seen) piss poor performance. Now the 5900XT is a paper launch card. The 9700pro beats it straight up because that card is a true 8x1 pipeline card. Not the 4x2 and sometimes 8x1 card the 5900XT is. And the 9700pro cost the same.
Would Nvidia bundle that card with a newer game engine? Not a chance. MaxPayne2? No way. Halo? Nope. TRAOD? Noooo. Because Nvidia cards have a bitch of a time with PS2.0 pixel and vertex shaders in REAL WORLD GAMES.
|
Static
at 14:17 17/12/2003
|
For all the bitchez that say ATI's 9600 XT is better Check this out. http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q4/geforcefx-5900xt/index.x?pg=1
Go there and get the real scoop. The fact is the 5900XT smokes the 9600 due to the pipeline increase averaging 50% faster in every test FOR THE SAME PRICE!!!! And wouldn't u rather get a actual game than a coupon on a game that you dont know if it will ever even come out?!
|
at Dz
|
blackacid@kirba.org
|
"...shadowman..."
at 12:32 17/12/2003
|
The best nVidia graphic cards are Ge-Force 3 and 4 Titanium series!!!!!!!!! FX sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Anonymous
at 9:43 17/12/2003
|
look at any memory intesive game, NWN anyone a $150 vid card wipes the floor with atis flagship the 9800xt, anything that is shader intesive is memory bandwidth intesive, maybe they didnt have the fast write combining turned on in there hardware but , memory bandwidth is the key to getting faster performance and as soon as ati realizes that they will totally pwn nvidia but they are still stuck on gpu clock speeds and not the memory bandwidth/speeds, so untill that day i will continue with nvidia, and about the people saying that the Cg codepath is crap, it may take extra time to code for it but in the long run it provides better performance and image quality, and isnt that what us as gamers go for, and who says that the games now being produced are being optimized for the ati codepath, figurativly speaking who in there right mind is gonna spend $2500 on a system just to play games at 150 fps, seriously you people need to get a woman and spend money on her if you can say yes to that question because im damn well sure you are not gettin any
|
Anonymous
at 9:27 17/12/2003
|
Cody what cheap crack cocaine have you been smoking? Best video card? It's a cut down version of a 5900. Which may i add, still does not play dx9 games properly. And the problem this card is going to cause the 5700Ultra is quite funny. The 5900XT is faster then the 5700 and the same price! Smooth move Nvidia. LMAO. And so far this 5900XT is pure paper launch.
|
Anonymous
at 8:10 17/12/2003
|
best video card? Best game? Good game. Shit video card
|
Cody M
at 3:57 17/12/2003
|
Best game+Best video card, you cant go wrong!
|
Proud Joe
at 1:3 17/12/2003
|
From what i've seen if you wan a Good Budget Card $115 to $210 you might wanna go for the Ati Radeion 9600's series or a 9500 PRO.As they clearly smoke away the nVdia's 5600 ultra's and some other.In fact at some benchmarks it even Matchs up against some of new nVidia cards (5900& others).Then nVidia releases the 5700 ultra that is suppose to BEAT the 9600's & XT and it turned out to be a another loser.The 9600 XT still manages to have a slight lead on the 5700 ultra and with pixel & shader it has a good lead. So yea im very dissapointed with nVidia.I used to love the Geforce 2 it was good shit for awhile,Ti was quite impressive for a bit. But now its all a mess with the FX cards.My most recommended budget cards are the 1)Ati Radeon 9600 XT With HALF-LIFE 2 2)Ati Radeon 9600 PRO or 3)Ati Radeon 9500 PRO.Here are some of the best benchamarks website and shit 1)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/index.html
2)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/index.html. Confused any 9600 or ati 9500 pro will do don't get nVidia don't trust me just check the links above me.
|
Confused!
at 23:14 16/12/2003
|
Hey experts! I need help! I was thinking of getting a Geforcefx 5600 for about AUS$250, (about the equivalent to US$175) that supports Dx9 pixel shader 2.0+, or something, i dunno youre the experts right? Anyways, i started to lean toward ATI, particularly the 9600pro, for about AUS$300 (around US $210). Could somebody please tell me which card i should get, and why. And i dont want any biased opinions. Thx
|
Anonymous
at 21:0 16/12/2003
|
What's scary too, is the fact that Tomshardware is a pro Nvidia and pro Intel site. The most biased reviews ever. And they still say ATI cards are better....
|
Lop
at 19:58 16/12/2003
|
Proud Joe you know..
|
Lop
at 19:57 16/12/2003
|
From what i've seen if you wan a Good Budget Card $115 to $210 you might wanna go for the Ati Radeion 9600's series or a 9500 PRO.As they clearly smoke away the nVdia's 5600 ultra's and some other.In fact at some benchmarks it even Matchs up against some of new nVidia cards (5900& others).Then nVidia releases the 5700 ultra that is suppose to BEAT the 9600's & XT and it turned out to be a another loser.The 9600 XT still manages to have a slight lead on the 5700 ultra and with pixel & shader it has a good lead. So yea im very dissapointed with nVidia.I used to love the Geforce 2 it was good shit for awhile,Ti was quite impressive for a bit. But now its all a mess with the FX cards.My most recommended budget cards are the 1)Ati Radeon 9600 XT With HALF-LIFE 2 2)Ati Radeon 9600 PRO or 3)Ati Radeon 9500 PRO.Here are some of the best benchamarks website and shit 1)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/index.html
2)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/index.html. (TRUST THIS GUY)
|
Simon
at 19:53 16/12/2003
|
Hell, even a DX8.1 GAME that uses complex shader effects like MaxPayne 2 runs piss poor on FX cards."ATI wipes the floor with Nvidia in "Max Payne 2." Interestingly, the Radeon 9600 XT manages to outperform the GF FX 5900 Ultra when AA is disabled.
For gamers who play the latest titles the moment they're released, ATI's cards provide consistently better performance with fewer issues. Although game patches and driver updates have addressed many of our Nvidia woes, the company's current situation doesn't give us confidence."
-TechTV.com-
|
Anonymous
at 19:36 16/12/2003
|
"We still don't have a way to predict what card will be best for you in the future. If you are dead set on getting a DX9 card, we recommend you look to the midrange cards.Neither card can touch the 9700 Pro for price/performance right now. If the 9700 Pro is in your price range and you're looking for a better than midrange performer for a near midrange price, go ahead and pick one up."
-Anandtech.com- You want a card to run future games. Stick witha similarly priced 9700pro or 9800non-pro. 5700 still won't run them. And if you did not know, Anandtech main advertiser is Nvidia. It's not exactly a reliable source. And they STILL say ATI cards run future games better.
|
Anonymous
at 19:30 16/12/2003
|
"It is in game developers' best interest to work with GPU makers to keep image quality top notch for their game's sake. In fact, rather than concentrating on getting raw frame rate to the end user, IHVs should focus on getting powerful and easy-to-use features to the developer community. So far, ATI has a leg up on ease of use (developers have said that programming has gone quickly and smoothly with ATI cards with NVIDIA code paths taking longer to tweak), while NVIDIA's hardware offers more flexibility (NVIDIA allows much longer shader programs than ATI and offers functionality above the minimum of current APIs). At this point, ATI is in a better position because it doesn't matter if NVIDIA offers more functionality, if the only code that can take advantage of it runs incredibly slow after taking a very long time to develop..."-Anandtech.com- What that means? ATI cards are easier to prgram for and not every game developer is going to spend the extra time to specifically code for Nvidia's flawed propietary Cg language. Just like Glide for 3dfx. And when they don/t. And expect it in many DX9 titles, games run piss poor on FX chips. "The Half-Life 2 engine is just the pure HLSV which doesn't bode any good to NVIDIA video cards. As our tests performed with two demo benchmarks (for which a special personal thankyou to Andrey Vorobyov who kindly presented the demo reels for tests) showed, NVIDIA card simply proved to be crushed by the ATI counterpart. Although ForceWare 52.16 shows a large performance boost, it doesn't improve the situation at all." Just as buddy below me. Read the digitlife link.
|
Anonymous
at 19:29 16/12/2003
|
for sheer polygon and fancy whizbangs go for the radeon 9800 pro or whatever.but this comes with call of duty!
|
Anonymous
at 19:26 16/12/2003
|
I wish i was Proud Joe his just a smart dude who dosen't really care bout if it's nVidia or Ati.Just bout the card's capability's and peroformance's.I recomend what his saying check tomshardware and stuff.Im not rich im thinking bout buying a Ati Radeion 9600 PRO it's price just bout to drop to thanks to the Xt series.
|
Proud Joe
at 19:20 16/12/2003
|
From what i've seen if you wan a Good Budget Card $115 to $210 you might wanna go for the Ati Radeion 9600's series or a 9500 PRO.As they clearly smoke away the nVdia's 5600 ultra's and some other.In fact at some benchmarks it even Matchs up against some of new nVidia cards (5900& others).Then nVidia releases the 5700 ultra that is suppose to BEAT the 9600's & XT and it turned out to be a another loser.The 9600 XT still manages to have a slight lead on the 5700 ultra and with pixel & shader it has a good lead. So yea im very dissapointed with nVidia.I used to love the Geforce 2 it was good shit for awhile,Ti was quite impressive for a bit. But now its all a mess with the FX cards.My most recommended budget cards are the 1)Ati Radeon 9600 XT With HALF-LIFE 2 2)Ati Radeon 9600 PRO or 3)Ati Radeon 9500 PRO.Here are some of the best benchamarks website and shit 1)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/index.html
2)http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/index.html.
|
angel94
at 19:11 16/12/2003
|
Oh anonymous, look at Nvidia cards and Unreal2k and the fact you CANNOT use trilinear filtering. Ever. Even when you force it. Better IQ huh? Not cheating huh?
|
Anonymous
at 19:6 16/12/2003
|
Have fun pal playing pure dx9 games. Those games run hell of alot slower and have less IQ. The 5700 right on up have the same flawed shader engine. So same performance.
IQ less on ATI cards? You need to do research pal. The only thing Nvidia is concentrating on with perfromacne and IQ is Synthetic benchmarks. This is to satisfy OEM's. Synthetic marks mean shit. And remeber fanboy. Nvidia themselves said back in Feb. of last year that Synthetic benchmarks were useless. Only real world games matterd. Yet they STILL optimize for them. Can we say full of shit? And guess what? Those real world DX9 games are coming out and some are out now! And FX cards STILL perform poorly. What's Nvidia's excuse now?
We want those results in REAL WORLD GAMES. Not just LAST year titles. And this is where Nvidia's achillies heel shows itself, over and over and over again. Future games it suffers."i am a fanboy you are sorely mistaken i am a loyal nvidia person but have used ati cards in the past and was not satisfied with both performance and image quality" Your not satisfied with ATI's IQ and performance? LMFAO. You are a FANBOY. Just look around the web for reviews about ATI cards vs. FX cards.In every review, IQ and performance still goes to ATI. Go do your research as you say. Like i said and many before me. Who cares about last year titles running at 120fps on a FX based card compared to 110fps on a ATI card. The FX cards are great for yesterdays games. You will be crying when DX9 games come out and Nvidia can no longer use it's Complier program in it's forceware drivers to alter shader instruction AND NOT EFFECT IQ. http://www.digital-daily.com/video/nvidia-forceware-5216/index07.htm Read that link. Because there are too many more like it all over the web. Keep that head in the sand. You are a walking example of a fanboy and Nvidia's own PR department. www.gamer.nl/nieuws/19168
Read that link too from Carmack....
|
SexxMaster ICE
at 18:12 16/12/2003
|
to anon 3 below you are completely incapable of talking and reasearching, i have 2 gaming machines one witha 9600 xt and one witha 5700 ultra, the fx line had a rocky start but with the forceware drivers gaming performance went up 50 percent, the ati card performed at par for the price, the nvidia card would have been better if it werent for its narrow meory bandwicth of 128-bit memory, but then again if they would have used 256-bit it would perform just a well as the 5950, the xt series of cards run much more hot because they didnt have any hardware change they are just over clocked and thats why you dont really notice too much of a difference in the two xt versus pro comparisson, now look at the 5600 ultra versus the 5700 ultra, in most apps you can see that the 5700 actually doubles the frames in most apps and sometimes even triples them, this card is theoretically better; the nice 356 tri/sec and the 14.4 gb/s mem bandwicth, those who say that the fx series is slow they are totally wrong because with a simple driver release improving performance by up to 60 percent in some cases seems like more advnacement to me that anything else, play games with a 5700 ultra and a ti4600 you will see that the 5700 ultra totally pwns the 4600 in both framerate and image quality. the 5700 ultra is not an enthusiast card but an extreme gamers budget card unlike atis 9600xt witch is an enthusiast card but not made for the extreme 3d apps and mad FSAA and AF. and aout atis cards running cooler, hmm the 9800xt runs at 60C at full load while the 5950 runs a nice 10C cooler at about 50C.I hate stupid nubs/fanboys that dont do their research before posting, by the way if any of you say i am a fanboy you are sorely mistaken i am a loyal nvidia person but have used ati cards in the past and was not satisfied with both performance and image quality. and those of you thinking that nvidia cheats on driver optimazations for games, look at aquamark3 with ati hardware then switch to an
|
Anonymous
at 17:34 16/12/2003
|
Great game. But not worth buying a video card that is incapable of running future games. Just buy the game separately. It will cost you $49.99
|
Anonymous
at 16:35 16/12/2003
|
i find ati cards not working correctly(9XXX series) and FX slow
ebay+TI+GEforce
|
Ricki
at 16:11 16/12/2003
|
is this a good game?
|
Anonymous
at 13:36 16/12/2003
|
And what adds insult to injury for Nvidia FX cards is they don't run quieter then ATI cards. Or are smaller in size. And this is real sad because Nvidia cards are running on a smaller die-size (0.13) (0.15 for ATI high-end cards) which should make this happen easy. Not in Nvidia's case. Horrible engineering. Absolutely brutal. They also run hotter. Which should not happen also on a smaller die size. And that includes the 5200, 5600, 5700, 5800, 5900, 5950.
|
xxx
at 13:32 16/12/2003
|
The FX cards are fantastic cards. If you want to play yesterdays games. If you want to upgrade to play DX9 games and other shader intensive games you better look elswhere. You will be sadly dissapointed as all gaming tests have proven
|
Anonymous
at 13:29 16/12/2003
|
The scary part is the Gforce4 series of cards have the same exact architicure design as the 5800, 5600 and the 5200. They share the same exact memory interface. The very same memory controller. The very same pixel pipelines. This is why the 4200, 4600 beats the 5600 in most tests not running FSAA and AA. Also a reason Nvidia could not just flip out another card with a 256bit memory interface for those cards. They had to redisgn it(5900, 5700, 5950) Their the same cards! Just clocked faster. Contray to "popular" belief Nvidia's PR department pused that the 5800 and other FX cards were more cutting edge then the R3xx series has proven to be quite false. That's why Nvidia took so long to let reviewers "dissect" the 5800. Because Nvidia's PR department said it was a true 8x1 pipeline card. It's not.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=7642
|
Anonymous
at 13:13 16/12/2003
|
The only reason nvidia fanboys want you to get an FX card is ONLY because its made by nvidia. Not because its good. Not because its price effeciant. Not because its quite. Not because its small. I have no problem with nvidia, only there FX line, I just met a friend at school today who bought an FX card, I bursted out laughing. He will return it today, lol.
|
DaDemonLives
at 12:32 16/12/2003
|
Yeah the Ti series are an awsome card. the Ti4200 8x 128mg beats a 5600. the only reason why they stopped producing them was to sell their crappy FX cards. L8Rz
|
Anonymous
at 12:8 16/12/2003
|
"nvidiots, f**k off. talk to me when nvidia releases a good series of cards, like they did with the geforce3 series."... or the gef4ti series...
|
Anonymous
at 11:21 16/12/2003
|
Quick! buy this card so you can get 110fps instead of 100fps than an ati on old games! then you can even buy new games, and get 30fps and old game effects rather than 80fps and bran new graphics on an ati! isn't that a treat??nvidiots, f**k off. talk to me when nvidia releases a good series of cards, like they did with the geforce3 series.
|
Anonymous
at 10:2 16/12/2003
|
Nothing buy a hype to get Nvidia Card. I ain't buying just for a stupid card.
|
Anonymous
at 9:58 16/12/2003
|
"If u want to buy a good card for atlest now, just close ure eyes and go for nVID AGeforce fx 5700 XT, bcuz its faster then competetors ATI 9600card for this prices range"It is faster then the 9600pro and 9600XT...in DX7 and DX8 games! So is this the reason you want to upgrade your video card? To play last year games? Because the FX cards play those games great as do ATI cards. But i feel sorry for you when all those DX9 games start to come out. And their coming out NOW! FX games need major special coding for those games even to run at acceptable levels. So the idea of ugrading to play last years games is quite....f**ked....
|
Anonymous
at 8:26 16/12/2003
|
I would definately go for ati really because nvidia is really going to suffer once all these dx9 games start to appear. special changes had to be made to the game code just to get HL2 runing at a playable speed on an nvidia card, and apparently these changes will be needed on all/most dx9 games, yet the changes for each game are going to be different, meaning you cant have 1 simple fix for nvidia dx9 performance they will have to figure a seperate workaround for each new game!!
I was about to buy a 5950 to play doom3 on, then i saw the HL2 gameplay video - which changed my mind in less than 5 seconds!! I would rather doom3 suffer a bit of performance and have hl2 running great than doom3 running great and half life2 running complete shit. Also I expect a lot of games to use this new hl2 engine in the next year, and prehaps not so many games using the doom engine. At the end of the day i can only reccomend an Ati card for now (i have always been nvidia supporter), as with the next cards from both manufacturers quite a way off yet - next winter at least i'd say & the only hope for nvidia so far seems to be some kind of driver update which may or may not fix the problems they are facing.
Tbh i dont see why nvidia released their current cards how they are now, they should have spotted these problems in development, unless they only tested them on dx8 or something.
|
DaDemonLives
at 4:18 16/12/2003
|
i still got a crappy MX440 DDR :'( but after christmas with the money i get off of ma daddy. i gonna buy a GeCube 9600XT ... also can anyone tell me if this is a true Dx9 card :s cause im confused. L8Rz
|
Anonymous
at 3:16 16/12/2003
|
If u want to buy a good card for atlest now, just close ure eyes and go for nVID AGeforce fx 5700 XT, bcuz its faster then competetors ATI 9600card for this prices range
|
Newbie
at 2:25 16/12/2003
|
Will someone tell me which card should i really buy $120 $180.Oh and yea how come Nvidia's 5600 5700 ultra's have a bit more of memory than the 9600's.Im thinking bout buyin that Radeon 9600 XT with HL 2 for just $164 on ebay so which its better Nvidia's 5600 or 5700 XT,ultra,whatever or Ati 9600's?
|
Anonymous
at 1:43 16/12/2003
|
http://www.digital-daily.com/video/fx5600ultra-vs-radeon9600pro/index02.htm
|
Anonymous
at 1:36 16/12/2003
|
These are 2 previous card released by both company. IF you are someone that needs a good budget cards check these benchmarks and stuff.Hmm pixel and vertex shadn is truly a win for ati.
|
Wise
at 23:47 15/12/2003
|
Nvidia, how pethetic, what are you trying to do?
By buying out suckers who "know there brand names and without question is the best!
Fortunatley I do my research and I am poor so I do not want to make a mistake, I know between performace and this cheap skate Nvidia are using to lure you Nvidiots into "cool bonus!".
|
Loser
at 23:39 15/12/2003
|
Man, Call Of Duty gets boring and is one hell of a crap game unforntuatily. I hate these types of games e.g. MOHAA, MOHAAS, MOHAAB, COD!
|
matriXBOXsucks
at 22:59 15/12/2003
|
great move by nVidia...COD is actually one of the gems this year. then again, it's not enough to top what'll come next year...ATI's bond with VALVe.
|
Anonymous
at 22:57 15/12/2003
|
Not a hard chpice really is it...... buy a 5900 & call of duty or a 9800 & hl2. hmmm wonder which i chose :p
Got my 9800xt the other week and so far it runs call of duty and all other games excelent (xept halo).
|
matrixXBOXrocks
at 22:51 15/12/2003
|
why the hell are they bundling this game with their latest card?? it has no special graphics or anything. And its a pretty cool game with average graphics, normally they only bundle shit games with fancy graphics with thier other gfx cards. Beats the hell outa me, but hey
|
Anonymous
at 20:5 15/12/2003
|
""By and large, it doesn't matter whether it will be achieved through tricky optimizations, or if the performance is originally high in the very architecture of the GPU. What really matters is the image quality. But here is another problem coming up: no matter how energetic NVIDIA is working with game developers, the company is unable to grasp ALL the developers who in turn would have to resort to writing the HLSV code which, as the practice of writing real gaming applications has shown a number of times, executes faster with ATI boards. That is why, in our view, NVIDIA chose a bit wrong policy in this case. There are many examples of that. Take, for instance, Half-Life 2 at which NVIDIA boards demonstrate appallingly low performance and rank on par with ATI's middle-end solutions Needless to say, Half-Life 2 is, without overstatement, a framework of future DirectX 9.0 games, and NVIDIA worked in quite close touch with Valve to optimize the game for the GeForce FX architecture. Of course, we can't claim to what extent the leaked beta version is optimized for NVIDIA boards or whether it is optimized at all, but it is a fact that GeForce FX 5900 is an ignominious failure at all the tests performed on the base of beta Half-Life 2 and it lags far well behind the ATI's contender. It is also a fact that game optimization for NVIDIA video cards is in practice a very troublesome job, which once again confirms the formerly made conclusions that NVIDIA can't artificially tune the performance of its cards to the "ATI's level".
With the release of new games that make increasingly intense use of version 2.0 pixel and vertex shader processing techniques, NVIDIA boards based on GeForce FX chips will look the more unconvincingly as compared to ATI boards (the examples are numerous). In our view, the most sound decision for NVIDIA would be the release of a new chip with the architecture pre-optimized"http://www.digital-daily.com/video/nvidia-forceware-5216/index07.htm
|
zero hero
at 19:58 15/12/2003
|
Anonymous it does not matter what you say. These Nvidiots and 12 year old fanboys have blind loyality even when they got royally f**k up the arse with the release of the 5800 and now all the other FX cards. "The Radeon killer" LMFAO. Still waiting. I just finished reading both links and the choice is clear if you want to play dx9 games or anyother games for that matter. This game bundle is a move to sell more fx cards. Too bad it won't. The 5700Ultra is the same price as the 5900XT! Talk about f**ked!
No amount of evidence will convnce the stupid. Evidence is all over the web now on Nvidia's harware and software issues with shader games and dx9 games. But die hard Nvidiots will still buy and cry when those dx9 games come out and their top end FX card runs the game slower then the Mid-Range ATI cards. HL2 anyone? How much more evidence do people need? HL2 is the only true 100% DX9 game out. And Nvidia cards cannot run it.
|
Anonymous
at 19:51 15/12/2003
|
Anonymous is right. This card will excel for older games but suffer with the new DX9 games. Full precision and full shader support kills performance on Nvidia cards. All Syn tests and dx9 Game tests have shown this. This is why Nvidia uses it's drivers(Forceware) to run all games in lower floating point precision and combination Shader support...IE: PS1.1 and PS1.4 to get "acceptable" DX9 game performance. Gee, and we all though this was a DX9 card! Nvidia, RUN DX9 games in the required SPEC! Anything else is ripping off your costumers you "say" you hold dearly.(And those are DX7 and DX8 shader effects! Not PS2.0 which all ATI cards run in Full specified precision.)
I assume must people know Nvidia has forgone the "Cg, CineFx" programming? It has been found to be too labour intensive to program games for and offers sub-par performance to ATI cards. Hardware issue, Nvidia. Not a software issue. Your "new forceware drivers" still offer slower performance then ATI offerings. And wait until IQ is compared with pure DX9 titles. Running those games in lower spec will show IQ loss. John Carmack even mentions this....
http://www.gamer.nl/nieuws/19168
|
Anonymous
at 19:38 15/12/2003
|
"ZZZ Nvidia is better, less technical difficulties"What difficulties? Can't wait for you Nvidia FX oweners AND FANBOYS to try and run "pure" dx9 games on those FX cards. Then you can talk about ZZZ Nvidia is better, "technical difficulties"
Oh, and notice how Nvidia releases a cut down version of the 5900 with a DX8 game. Why not a DX9 game like the 9600XT or the 9800XT? Oh, forgot, FX cards been having MAJOR issues with those titles. It still uses pseudo-eight-pipe graphics core. So SHADER performance will still suffer. http://www.digital-daily.com/video/nvidia-forceware-5216/ Read that article and you will know why you need to look for a 9700pro instead. 5900XT is great for OLD games like those dx7 and dx8 titles, however, is that why you buy a new generation GPU? To play Last generation games......Have fun
|
Ichi the Killer
at 18:59 15/12/2003
|
now you can have an ok game with an ok card for the price of a great card with a great game ie 9800XT & Half life 2. =) start the discusion that leads nowhere...wait..wait..NOW!!
|
Anonymous
at 18:52 15/12/2003
|
ZZZ Nvidia is better, less technical difficulties
|
T Man
at 17:14 15/12/2003
|
Ok now seriously, I think this is a smart marketing plan that will help boost nVidia out of thier hole that thier FX familly had dug for them, and even though this game is with an FX, they arent tha bad by themselves, just not quite as speeds as ATI.
|
T Man
at 17:13 15/12/2003
|
First post! I never thought that I would get the first post on a story like this!
|
