Carmack speaks on Hl2

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Alkali
Don't worry who can? He is a geek, who can ever keep up with another geek, except for geeks. Oh hang on that means we are geeks..... Oooops.... lol.

We're geeks?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

[OddTSi]

What I find funny is how some of the nVidiots on NVNEWS are saying in effect "when NV40 comes out it'll give ATi a run for its money". Isn't this what they said for NV30, and NV35?

I guess if I wake up every morning saying "It's going to rain today" I'm bound to be right sooner or later.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: OddTSi
What I find funny is how some of the nVidiots on NVNEWS are saying in effect "when NV40 comes out it'll give ATi a run for its money". Isn't this what they said for NV30, and NV35?

I guess if I wake up every morning saying "It's going to rain today" I'm bound to be right sooner or later.

Of course, they also assume that ATi has done nothing in the last 12-18 months in terms of a new core. Yeah, I'm sure that ArtX team has just been sitting idle, dreading NV40.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: OddTSi
What I find funny is how some of the nVidiots on NVNEWS are saying in effect "when NV40 comes out it'll give ATi a run for its money". Isn't this what they said for NV30, and NV35?

I guess if I wake up every morning saying "It's going to rain today" I'm bound to be right sooner or later.

Of course, they also assume that ATi has done nothing in the last 12-18 months in terms of a new core. Yeah, I'm sure that ArtX team has just been sitting idle, dreading NV40.

Well, I actually DO think that NVIDIA engineers for the past year have been dreading DX9 games coming out

 

[jim1976]

I'm recently new to these forums (even though i first visited them at 1998)
I own or owned better, (because 2morrow i won't have it) an FX5800.(swap it for a 3dprophet 9800pro at a great price)
Ok ppl its CLEAR,UNDERSTOOD AND TAKEN FOR GRANTED if u want to, that Nvidia suffers a great defeat from Ati.
So far so good.
But i find it hard to understand why some ppl use phrases like NVIDIOT. Why do they have to make the others feel bad cauz they made a bad choice? I would like to see how they would have felt if they were in their shoes.And don't tell me that all these ppl that have bought ATI insted of NVIDIA never made a mistake before! After all we are a small comunity sharing ideas,opinions and sometimes criticism but for me this level is unacceptable.
OK be happy that you were well informed or lucky that u made the right choice but do it without this expressions.
If you do that the first one you insult is yourself. Show some dignity in GOD'S name.
As for me i wouldn't change my card if i didn't find that great swap price (only 60 euros), cauz i'm generally happy with this one, but i recognize the superiority of Ati at his point.
So plz let's try and be more careful unless someone is too stuborn to recognize somethin obvious.
Sorry for the long lecture.Take care everyone

 

[Pandaren]

But i find it hard to understand why some ppl use phrases like NVIDIOT

Owning an nVidia card doesn't make one an nVidiot any more than owning an ATI card makes one a fanATIc.

I would define an nVidiot as someone who steadfastly maintains that nVidia is kicking ATI's @ss in performance despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

Why do they have to make the others feel bad cauz they made a bad choice?

Hmm...I'm an Nvidia owner and I don't feel like I made a bad choice. My card has served me very well with no complaints. Although the next vid card is leaning towards and ATI card(God, I can't even believe that I am saying that), But if I get the performance I need for that games I run, then it will be a good choice at the time as well.

 

[nRollo]

Why should you have to wait for a new FX version. The curernt FX is a DX9 card and should run games at about the same speed as a Radeon. But given that NVIDIA skimped on the specs, you get poor performance.

Sure, a revamped core would fix the performance issues, but it seems as though ATI's 1 year old core is tackling things just fine.

NFS4:
This makes no sense whatsoever.

Why should you have to wait?
A: Because nVidia's current generation of parts don't run DX9 as well as ATI, so there's nothing else you CAN do?

The current FX is a DX9 and should run games the same speed as a Radeon?
Why is that? Are the engineers at ATI also the engineers for nVidia? Why would two competing firms necessarily have parity? TNT2 Ultras were a lot faster than Rage 32s, especially at 16 bit. GF2s were a lot faster than VIVOs, especially at 16 bit. GF4s pretty much stomped 8500s at EVERYTHING, and here you are saying 5900s should be as fast as 9800s. Remember NFS4: These are competing companies trying to gain a competitive edge on one another. Odds are, sometimes they will.

Hmmm. nVidia "skimped on the specs" ? I don't know about that. They're the first .13 micron gpus, and run at a much higher clock speed. They have the fastest RAM available/most memory bandwidth. They were first with 256MB RAM. Run OpenGL faster.

So what would you have had nVidia do, NFS4? Not release the nV35 because they knew it wouldn't be as fast at DX9, because there will be 2-3 DX9 games out by Christmas? Let ATI erode their market share further because the chip they had done this year wasn't as good as their competitors? LOL- nobody has as good of a truck engine as the Chrysler hemi, you don't see Ford and Chevy withdraw from the market?

You guys all forget that the only responsibility a corp. has is to make money for it's shareholders, and that nVidia does that FAR better than ATI.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: OddTSi
What I find funny is how some of the nVidiots on NVNEWS are saying in effect "when NV40 comes out it'll give ATi a run for its money". Isn't this what they said for NV30, and NV35?

I guess if I wake up every morning saying "It's going to rain today" I'm bound to be right sooner or later.

Of course, they also assume that ATi has done nothing in the last 12-18 months in terms of a new core. Yeah, I'm sure that ArtX team has just been sitting idle, dreading NV40.

Well, I actually DO think that NVIDIA engineers for the past year have been dreading DX9 games coming out

I wonder how it performs decently in 3D Mark 2k3... oh wait, they cheated, nevermind

This is turning into an OT affected forum everyday, lol

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Why should you have to wait for a new FX version. The curernt FX is a DX9 card and should run games at about the same speed as a Radeon. But given that NVIDIA skimped on the specs, you get poor performance.

Sure, a revamped core would fix the performance issues, but it seems as though ATI's 1 year old core is tackling things just fine.

NFS4:
This makes no sense whatsoever.

Why should you have to wait?
A: Because nVidia's current generation of parts don't run DX9 as well as ATI, so there's nothing else you CAN do?

The current FX is a DX9 and should run games the same speed as a Radeon?
Why is that? Are the engineers at ATI also the engineers for nVidia? Why would two competing firms necessarily have parity? TNT2 Ultras were a lot faster than Rage 32s, especially at 16 bit. GF2s were a lot faster than VIVOs, especially at 16 bit. GF4s pretty much stomped 8500s at EVERYTHING, and here you are saying 5900s should be as fast as 9800s. Remember NFS4: These are competing companies trying to gain a competitive edge on one another. Odds are, sometimes they will.

Hmmm. nVidia "skimped on the specs" ? I don't know about that. They're the first .13 micron gpus, and run at a much higher clock speed. They have the fastest RAM available/most memory bandwidth. They were first with 256MB RAM. Run OpenGL faster.

So what would you have had nVidia do, NFS4? Not release the nV35 because they knew it wouldn't be as fast at DX9, because there will be 2-3 DX9 games out by Christmas? Let ATI erode their market share further because the chip they had done this year wasn't as good as their competitors? LOL- nobody has as good of a truck engine as the Chrysler hemi, you don't see Ford and Chevy withdraw from the market?

You guys all forget that the only responsibility a corp. has is to make money for it's shareholders, and that nVidia does that FAR better than ATI.

1) On non DX9 games, the Radeon 9800 Pro and the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra pretty much run neck and neck. They either run pretty close together or they trade top spots back and forth between games. But the difference is never THAT dramatic...until you crank out DX9 titles...

2) When I said skimped on the specs, I meant the actual architecture of the chip compared to what a DX9 card SHOULD be/have. The FX's internal structure is not to kind to DX9. That's why Gabe Newell and John Carmack had to make conessions to get proper performance out of the card (the NV30/35 can't run the standard ARB2 code as fast as the R300/350, so Carmack had to make a special version for the FX cards):


Carmack on Doom III

"The NV30 runs the ARB2 path MUCH slower than the NV30 path.
Half the speed at the moment. This is unfortunate, because when you do an
exact, apples-to-apples comparison using exactly the same API, the R300 looks
twice as fast, but when you use the vendor-specific paths, the NV30 wins.

The reason for this is that ATI does everything at high precision all the
time, while Nvidia internally supports three different precisions with
different performances."

Gabe on FX (what Anand wrote)

- Half-Life 2 has a special NV3x codepath that was necessary to make NVIDIA's architecture perform reasonably under the game
- even with the special NV3x codepath, ATI is the clear performance leader under Half-Life 2 with the Radeon 9800 Pro hitting around 60 fps at 10x7. The 5900 ultra is noticeably slower with the special codepath and is horrendously slower under the default dx9 codepath

The reason for having standards like OGL and DX9 is so you don't have to do vendor specific optimizations...at least that's what I thought

 

[ElFenix]

whoa whoa whoa... doom isn't ogl

 

[Regs]

NFS4 -

- Half-Life 2 has a special NV3x codepath that was necessary to make NVIDIA's architecture perform reasonably under the game

You forgot to mention Anand also said Nvidia is sacrificing noticeable image quality when using its "optimized" path.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
whoa whoa whoa... doom isn't ogl

Of course it is The guy who posed the question to Carmack was just a little "slow"

 

[nRollo]

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

My point was that there is no reason the 5900 should be equal at everything when they are competing brands trying to get a performance edge. ATI just won this round as far as DX9 goes. They've been pretty much equal solutions at DX8.1, but when the DX9 games start coming out, ATI will have the upper hand.

And like I said, nVidia has pretty much owned ATI for 4-5 years before that. It didn't stop people from buying ATI cards, this probably won't stop people from buying nVidia cards.

For example, why would anyone buy an 8500 128 that ran UT2003 at 57fps when the 4600 ran it at 94fps, almost twice as fast?

[L=http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8[/L}

UT2003 was by far the best shooter of the time, but I don't remember ATI going out of business or not selling cards due to this.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

My point was that there is no reason the 5900 should be equal at everything when they are competing brands trying to get a performance edge. ATI just won this round as far as DX9 goes. They've been pretty much equal solutions at DX8.1, but when the DX9 games start coming out, ATI will have the upper hand.

And like I said, nVidia has pretty much owned ATI for 4-5 years before that. It didn't stop people from buying ATI cards, this probably won't stop people from buying nVidia cards.

For example, why would anyone buy an 8500 128 that ran UT2003 at 57fps when the 4600 ran it at 94fps, almost twice as fast?

[L=http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8[/L}

UT2003 was by far the best shooter of the time, but I don't remember ATI going out of business or not selling cards due to this.

The point is, if the FX architecture had been primed to proper DX9 specs, the performance would be similar with the 9800 Pro...just as it is now in current games. I'm not saying that they should be exactly the same, but performance would be in the same "ballpark"

And the 8500 competed with the GeForce3 Ti series. The Ti4600 competed with the 9700 Pro.

 

[OmegaRedd]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

My point was that there is no reason the 5900 should be equal at everything when they are competing brands trying to get a performance edge. ATI just won this round as far as DX9 goes. They've been pretty much equal solutions at DX8.1, but when the DX9 games start coming out, ATI will have the upper hand.

And like I said, nVidia has pretty much owned ATI for 4-5 years before that. It didn't stop people from buying ATI cards, this probably won't stop people from buying nVidia cards.

For example, why would anyone buy an 8500 128 that ran UT2003 at 57fps when the 4600 ran it at 94fps, almost twice as fast?

[L=http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8[/L}

UT2003 was by far the best shooter of the time, but I don't remember ATI going out of business or not selling cards due to this.

Nvidia was found cheating on iq for speed in ut2003
and recently made edios pull a patch that had fixed problems as well,bashing gabe tampering with 3dmark. (ect you get the idea) If they are telling the truth about the fx why can't the cards bench without a pr team in damage control mode. I don't expect ati & nvidia to score the same, but nvidia wants you to belive their cards are alot better by any means necessary.

 

[0roo0roo]

omg total ownage for all those that thought valve was ati's whore or something. nvidias fx is sh*tty is now confirmed.

devastating...

 

[OmegaRedd]

To see how FX benches on a game optimized for it Edios hurry pull the patch here's more money LOL and this is NVIDIA"S optimized game. Bash gabe will you Hl2 is Da-bomb!!

 

[0roo0roo]

not that anyone cares about angel of darkness. it gets pretty near being worthy of the title of worst game ever

 

[Nebor]

I bet my 5900 will be just as fast as a 9800 in HL2 benches.

 

[OmegaRedd]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I bet my 5900 will be just as fast as a 9800 in HL2 benches.

And then he wakes up

 

[Nebor]

Sorry, I meant as good as a 9800 PRO. We'll see. I'll post 3dmarks and HL2 benches when I get my new card. Should be right around the end of sept.

 

[OmegaRedd]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Sorry, I meant as good as a 9800 PRO. We'll see. I'll post 3dmarks and HL2 benches when I get my new card. Should be right around the end of sept.

The only way to bench (with full iq) as fast as a 9800pro is to GO HERE!!!:disgust:

 

[NFS4]

THe guy that posted the original story posted in my front page news post:

Maybe for you BonusWeb.cz is a site noone has ever heard of, but this site is a most popular and respected gaming web in Czech Republic. I assure you, its reputation doesn't aloow it to post any fakes.
Regarding the DX9/OpenGL matter, my words "including Doom III" refer to previous word "future", not "DX9". Moreover, as #41 already explained you, Carmack's words about GeForce FX are relevant for both DX9 and OpenGL shader intensive games.

David Hanousek
david@bonusweb.cz

 

[nRollo]

I'm not saying that they should be exactly the same, but performance would be in the same "ballpark"

And the 8500 competed with the GeForce3 Ti series. The Ti4600 competed with the 9700 Pro.

You're an "ace reporter"? Why should performance be in the same ballpark? Is S3/Intel/Matrox/Trident performance in the same ballpark? But nVidia's should be because you say so and it would be better for them if it was? Like I said, they are competing companies trying to gain a competitive edge, and sometimes they will.

The 9700Pro came out 6 months later than the Ti 4600 and would have competed with the 5800 Ultra if TSMC could have delivered as promised to nVidia. In any case, I don't think you can say an 8 pipeline DX9 card that came out half a year later was ever meant to compete with a 4 pipe Dx8 card. It was meant to compete with the nV30.

So, for those 6 months ATIs best product was half as fast at the best FPS game available at the time. We're in a similar situation now:
If HL2 comes out on 9/30, there will be a 3-6 month period where nVidia will be half as fast as it's competitor. I fail to see the difference?

BTW- it used to be ATI that was months behind the product cycle in performance, genereation after generation.

Even with all cheats disabled, nVidia 5900 Ultras have been basically equal performers at all available games for the last 3 months. HL2 isn't out yet, and 3dmark isn't a game. The difference in performance on any game at up to 4x8X could only be seen by benchmarking as framerates are high and fairly equal. 5900 wins some, 9800 wins some.

You people need to get a grip and a hobby other than pimping ATI cards for free. It doesn't help anyway, they can't seem to earn a dime to save their lives.