I think that nVidia did not fiddle anything with doom3 but the drivers that were used to benchmark doom3, in a manner of speaking, just look how ATI's drivers are obviosly what hinders the Radeon in Doom3.
Originally posted by: Cat
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: CastorTr0y
Yea, but I saw somewhere on here benchmarks for DOOMIII comparing the two, and the 5900 f-ed the radeon up the ass. I think its just directed more towards next gen gaming(DIII,HL2,DX2)
That's because ID Software re-worked the Doom III demo to work best with NV35 just for that press release.
I don't know about that. The stencil shadow culling technique present on the NV35 core, coupled with the stencil and z-fill optimizations on the card make those Doom III benchmarks plausible*. I highly doubt Carmack would optimize this just for a press release. His history is to make generally unbiased statements about video cards, not lie about them for money.
*I write in OpenGL for a living, so I've done a fair amount of technical research into stencil shadows. If you want to argue about it, feel free
EDIT: The rest of AT's NV35 benchmarks are damn shady, though.
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Some of you might be interested in this mud slinging going on between nVidia and ATi representatives over at Beyond3D.
Enjoy
Edit: Read the posts by DaveBaumann
Take the N and A out of Nvidia and you get Vidi which means 'I saw', I'm sure they based it off veni, vidi, vici. I came, I saw, I conquered. So as of late They lose, they cheat, they get lawyers .
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
the 4x2 architecture seems to help it at the ultra high detail levels.
Still, when you can buy a 9700 128mb that outperforms the FX 5900 256mb in many cases . . . . . . .
why would you go FX?
Still, the gap between nVidia and Ati is narrowing. It will be interesting to see how the next next-gen cards compare. I hope they are about equal . . . maybe competition will drive prices down because then neither will be 'better' than the other. Oh well, i can always hope.
I believe he meant 9800 pro, as he mentioned "9800 128mb" is almost as good as the 5900 256mbOriginally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
the 4x2 architecture seems to help it at the ultra high detail levels.
Still, when you can buy a 9700 128mb that outperforms the FX 5900 256mb in many cases . . . . . . .
why would you go FX?
Still, the gap between nVidia and Ati is narrowing. It will be interesting to see how the next next-gen cards compare. I hope they are about equal . . . maybe competition will drive prices down because then neither will be 'better' than the other. Oh well, i can always hope.
9700 out performs 5900 ultra??????????
Originally posted by: MangoTBG
I believe he meant 9800 pro, as he mentioned "9800 128mb" is almost as good as the 5900 256mbOriginally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
the 4x2 architecture seems to help it at the ultra high detail levels.
Still, when you can buy a 9700 128mb that outperforms the FX 5900 256mb in many cases . . . . . . .
why would you go FX?
Still, the gap between nVidia and Ati is narrowing. It will be interesting to see how the next next-gen cards compare. I hope they are about equal . . . maybe competition will drive prices down because then neither will be 'better' than the other. Oh well, i can always hope.
9700 out performs 5900 ultra??????????
Originally posted by: wetcat007
Maximum PC did a review recently and it was ahead of the 9800 Pro by a decent margin, what gives...