HD 2900XTX Benches

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i lost count ... who is on who's side and what is the point


and i am *curious* what are the OTHER tech forums saying ... nvidia's, Rage, AMD's, B3D, HardOCP ... etc.

how are they taking the news?
:Q

Zstream called the benches BS because they didnt match up to Anand's Oblivion benches in his 8800GTX OC roundup.

SexyK and I pointed out the fact that the Oblivion benches were obtained using FRAPS, so unless DT and AT collaborated to bench the exact same scenes at the same settings, then of course they would not match up.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin
i lost count ... who is on who's side and what is the point


and i am *curious* what are the OTHER tech forums saying ... nvidia's, Rage, AMD's, B3D, HardOCP ... etc.

how are they taking the news?
:Q

Zstream called the benches BS because they didnt match up to Anand's Oblivion benches in his 8800GTX OC roundup.

SexyK and I pointed out the fact that the Oblivion benches were obtained using FRAPS, so unless DT and AT collaborated to bench the exact same scenes at the same settings, then of course they would not match up.

That is total bs and you know it. The GTS scores ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. How can the GTX SCORES be so different? No matter how you stated it the GTX never scored that high on any oblivion benchmark that is on Anandtech or any website.

 

[jpeyton]

All the AMD/ATI vs. nVidia bickering aside, DailyTech does release benchmarks prematurely and lacking important details.

Notice that the quality settings aren't mentioned at all until someone posts them in the comments section.

And the lack of a standardized test setup and testing methodology is very unprofessional. One example is the Half-Life: Episode One; in the roundup, overclocked 8800 GTXs were hitting ~160 FPS at 19x12 4x 16x; in the DailyTech benchmarks from today, the overclocked 8800 GTX is only getting 100FPS.

How could they not expect people to be confused and doubt their numbers? I'm not saying that the overall conclusion about ATI's new cards will be any different, but DailyTech would add a LOT of credibility behind their numbers if these disparities between test setups and methodologies didn't exist.

Can anyone figure out why DailyTech benchmarked the 8800 GTX 60FPS lower than AnandTech did in Half Life: Episode One back on March 12th?

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
Someone around here was asking for GPU DIP. Here it is:

http://dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=7044&commentid=131638#comments

Anyone want to translate?

it means OH NOES

So the results of that test are bad to say the least?

My guess is it authenticates they have a card and are testing it. Now unless they are flatout telling lies, these benchmarks are probably legit.

YES..benches are BS...check this out

Oblivion @ 1280x1024
HD2900XTX: 100 FPS
GTX: 110 FPS
GTS : 39 FPS

There is NO way that these numbers are correct

GTX getting 110FPS in Oblivion and GTS getting 39FPS at 1280x1024 this is BS

According to Anandtech..GTX not getting more tha 64FPS in oblivion @ 1280x1024 and GTS 47FPS More BS as usual

If Kevin is making these numbers up he should be sued by AMD. Spreading FUD is getting stupid.

If someone makes a comment to my post then before you reply answer the following benchmarks. Do not bother posting if you have no answer.

Your comparison between AT and DT benchmarks is completely irrelevant. The hardware used in the systems was very, very different not to mention different drives were used and there were almost definitely other differences in the software configurations. To say that "there is NO way" DT's benchmarks are correct simply because AT shows 64FPS in one test and DT shows 110FPS in a similar but VERY DIFFERENT test is horrible logic and borderline FUD of your own. If (when) these benchmarks are confirmed by other sites, I truly hope you'll be the first to post an apology to those at DT.

The hardware used? Did you not even see Anandtech's review? Different drives used?

No drivers would show this increase, no amount of different test show this difference. Did you even notice the GTS scores? I bet not because you have no idea what you are talking about. Do not give me this BS in software configurations either.

You need to re-examine yourself and come up with better arguments. The difference are so large that no amount of test bed setups will vary this much.

Obviously when I said different drives I meant different drivers. Anyway, you are either a completely blind AMD/ATI fanboy, or you are just plain ignorant. Either way, you have a serious attitude problem and need to stop the personal attacks.

I have read both articles closely and, despite what you say, there are plenty of scenarios that could result in very different benchmark scores, most of which have already been pointed out in the posts above mine, but if you must have a list:
[*]Different hardware configurations
[*]Different drivers and driver settings
[*]Different idiosyncrasies in OS install
[*]Different versions of the games being benchmarked
[*]Different benchmark methodologies (FRAPS, timedemos, etc...)
[*]Different levels/areas being benchmarked within the games

I suppose you are trying to tell me that if my buddy and I both have 8800GTXs and both play Oblivion, then I take average FPS with fraps while I'm randomly running around a cave for 30 seconds, then go to his machine and take average FPS using RivaTuner while I'm randomly running around outside an oblivion gate in a grass-covered field next to a lake at sunset for 30 seconds the numbers should be identical. Is that what you're claiming?

If you are randomly running around and using fraps for a test benchmark you should be fired.

[*]Different idiosyncrasies in OS install -- This should never be the case because people already know that you do a fresh install.

[*]Different drivers and driver settings -- The settings are already known and benchmarks are so obvious different then something is messed up.

[*]Different hardware configurations -- People with similar hardware do not even reach these test results.
[*]Different versions of the games being benchmarked -- Many of these games have not had a performance enhanced patch in a very long time.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin
i lost count ... who is on who's side and what is the point


and i am *curious* what are the OTHER tech forums saying ... nvidia's, Rage, AMD's, B3D, HardOCP ... etc.

how are they taking the news?
:Q

Zstream called the benches BS because they didnt match up to Anand's Oblivion benches in his 8800GTX OC roundup.

SexyK and I pointed out the fact that the Oblivion benches were obtained using FRAPS, so unless DT and AT collaborated to bench the exact same scenes at the same settings, then of course they would not match up.

That is total bs and you know it. The GTS scores ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. How can the GTX SCORES be so different? No matter how you stated it the GTX never scored that high on any oblivion benchmark that is on Anandtech or any website.

It is that fast indoors. I know, I own one.

Wow, it really does seem like the 8800GTX is turning out to be the new 9700 Pro of the start of the DX10 era. Kudos to NVIDIA.

 

[Zstream]

I have one too and it does not score that high with my 6300 @ 3.2ghz.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Zstream
I have one too and it does not score that high with my 6300 @ 3.2ghz.

I distinctly remember you saying you had 8800GTS 640mb SLi, but you sold in favor of an X1950XTX and "couldn't be happier".

Besides, based on your emotional response to the benches, I am as inclined to believe your scores as much as you believe DailyTech's.

We've already explained to you why the scores are different, KristopherKubicki even verified it, but you just dont want to believe, so I'm gonna stop trying now.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Zstream
I have one too and it does not score that high with my 6300 @ 3.2ghz.

I distinctly remember you saying you had 8800GTS 640mb SLi, but you sold in favor of an X1950XTX and "couldn't be happier".

Besides, based on your emotional response to the benches, I am as inclined to believe your scores as much as you believe DailyTech's.

We've already explained to you why the scores are different, KristopherKubicki even verified it, but you just dont want to believe, so I'm gonna stop trying now.

Emm once again get your fact straight. I have one 8800gtx, sold two 8800gts 320mb and I still have my 8800gts 640mb. Both coupled with 6300's.

The reason why I am aggervated is not because I am an ATI fanboy it is because people like him and many other sites actually live off of this crap which is so fake. Very few sites have consistent test and results that the general public eventually receive.

When you are so careless in your work to the point that the result is so biased it gets me mad.

 

[apoppin]

thanks for the 'catch up'

it seems to me that although DT is sloppy, their conclusions seem in line with what we are hearing

and overall it shouldn't change by much

r600 IS disappointing

 

[swtethan]

okay i ran an oblivion indoor bench and GUESS WHAT I GOT!!!!

ultra settings 4xAA with my system 1280x1024

min:86
max:151
average:119


outdoor from the tunnel, 8xAA ultra settings 1280x1024

min 41
max 76
avg 57


with 4xAA (try to do same thing)
min 52
max 81
avg 60

 

[schneiderguy]

ouch :Q

if these benches are true hopefully they have a 2950xt ready to be released SOON

and hopefully their midrange doesnt suck also :|

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
ouch :Q

if these benches are true hopefully they have a 2950xt ready to be released SOON

and hopefully their midrange doesnt suck also :|

You must not have seen the leaked 3Dmarks then...

 

[dreddfunk]

Honestly, I think the mistake here is to even use Oblivion in a set of early-released benchmarks. Certainly it's a hot game--and the one in which I'm most interested--but it's also about as un-benchmark-friendly as any game I can recall. There isn't a benchmark suite and the differences in FPS can swing much more wildly than in any game that I can recall. If you bench just running around the territory outside of the starting sewer exit, you'll get pretty high numbers. Heck, my x850xt doesn't even break a sweat there. As you get deeper into the forest with all of its foliage, next to an Oblivion gate with all of its effects, then framerates seriously, seriously plummet. AT's original article has a good page on the difficulties in benching Oblivion: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2746

If I recall correctly, many of AT's early Oblivion Benchmarks used a special save game that allowed them to run through a particular Oblivion gate in the middle of a high-foliage forest. Most of the AT benches I've seen are under these conditions. Indeed, under these conditions, the x1950xt was only pulling in the lower twenties on 19x12, I think, and the GTS was in the mid thirties, while the GTX was in the upper forties.

Here's a link: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2926&p=5 (it's the GTS 320MB review).

In that review, the GTX was pulling 50+fps at 16x12. I can see it pulling 60+ easily at 12x10. But it's unclear whether or not that was using any type of AA. I sincerely doubt it, as most of AT's Oblivion benchmarks eschewed AA because of difficulties with all of the tested parts doing AA and HDR.

Now, I can actually see how a rushed benchmark using the area right around the sewer exit would be drastically different than these (and other) benchmarks. That just means, however, that, IMHO, they never should have used Oblivion in such an early release of performance numbers--it just adds too much uncertainty to an already inconclusive process.

Thus, I'd make two suggestions to DT/AT:

1) When releasing early numbers, please stick to games that are established as being dependable when benchmarking!

2) Make sure that all relevant settings are immediately available so that the apples to oranges comparisons are obvious, even if they can't be directly compared.



That said, I'm still disappointed with the results. If R600 turns out to be a fantastic DX10 part, then at least ATI made a bad bet on when DX10 games would be available in relation to their R600 development cycle.

If this isn't the case, then they've had their own FX-style fiasco.

Now if nVidia would just release an 8800GS already I'd open my wallet faster than Doc Holiday drew his gun!

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
Honestly, I think the mistake here is to even use Oblivion in a set of early-released benchmarks. Certainly it's a hot game--and the one in which I'm most interested--but it's also about as un-benchmark-friendly as any game I can recall. There isn't a benchmark suite and the differences in FPS can swing much more wildly than in any game that I can recall. If you bench just running around the territory outside of the starting sewer exit, you'll get pretty high numbers. Heck, my x850xt doesn't even break a sweat there. As you get deeper into the forest with all of its foliage, next to an Oblivion gate with all of its effects, then framerates seriously, seriously plummet. AT's original article has a good page on the difficulties in benching Oblivion: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2746

If I recall correctly, many of AT's early Oblivion Benchmarks used a special save game that allowed them to run through a particular Oblivion gate in the middle of a high-foliage forest. Most of the AT benches I've seen are under these conditions. Indeed, under these conditions, the x1950xt was only pulling in the lower twenties on 19x12, I think, and the GTS was in the mid thirties, while the GTX was in the upper forties.

Here's a link: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2926&p=5 (it's the GTS 320MB review).

In that review, the GTX was pulling 50+fps at 16x12. I can see it pulling 60+ easily at 12x10. But it's unclear whether or not that was using any type of AA. I sincerely doubt it, as most of AT's Oblivion benchmarks eschewed AA because of difficulties with all of the tested parts doing AA and HDR.

Now, I can actually see how a rushed benchmark using the area right around the sewer exit would be drastically different than these (and other) benchmarks. That just means, however, that, IMHO, they never should have used Oblivion in such an early release of performance numbers--it just adds too much uncertainty to an already inconclusive process.

Thus, I'd make two suggestions to DT/AT:

1) When releasing early numbers, please stick to games that are established as being dependable when benchmarking!

2) Make sure that all relevant settings are immediately available so that the apples to oranges comparisons are obvious, even if they can't be directly compared.



That said, I'm still disappointed with the results. If R600 turns out to be a fantastic DX10 part, then at least ATI made a bad bet on when DX10 games would be available in relation to their R600 development cycle.

If this isn't the case, then they've had their own FX-style fiasco.

Now if nVidia would just release an 8800GS already I'd open my wallet faster than Doc Holiday drew his gun!

well said!

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: apoppin
thanks for the 'catch up'

it seems to me that although DT is sloppy, their conclusions seem in line with what we are hearing

and overall it shouldn't change by much

r600 IS disappointing

Exactly. The DT scores were confusing due to the different individuals benching different cards in different situations and my guess is that probably happened because of a lack of time to play with the cards before publishing the article.

However, I have a serious gripe with Zstream running around posting that the scores are completely made up and flaming anyone who disagrees with him. I promise you that he WILL NOT admit he was wrong if these numbers prove accurate, and he definitely won't apologize to the folks at DT who are working hard so we can have the benefit of an early look at what R600 is going to offer.

The multiple delays, the number of respins, and the marketing doublespeak coming out of AMD all add up to a botched launch. These numbers explain a lot of AMD's previously-unexplainable behavior and, as apoppin said, are in line with all the latest information we have about this chip.

Anyone who still thinks the XTX is going to arrive in stores by mid-May with a huge performance lead over the GTX is just out of touch with reality at this point. We all wish AMD would come out with something groundbreaking, but they aren't this time around and we've just got to deal with that at this point.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: TecHNooB

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
Honestly, I think the mistake here is to even use Oblivion in a set of early-released benchmarks. Certainly it's a hot game--and the one in which I'm most interested--but it's also about as un-benchmark-friendly as any game I can recall. There isn't a benchmark suite and the differences in FPS can swing much more wildly than in any game that I can recall. If you bench just running around the territory outside of the starting sewer exit, you'll get pretty high numbers. Heck, my x850xt doesn't even break a sweat there. As you get deeper into the forest with all of its foliage, next to an Oblivion gate with all of its effects, then framerates seriously, seriously plummet. AT's original article has a good page on the difficulties in benching Oblivion: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2746

If I recall correctly, many of AT's early Oblivion Benchmarks used a special save game that allowed them to run through a particular Oblivion gate in the middle of a high-foliage forest. Most of the AT benches I've seen are under these conditions. Indeed, under these conditions, the x1950xt was only pulling in the lower twenties on 19x12, I think, and the GTS was in the mid thirties, while the GTX was in the upper forties.

Here's a link: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2926&p=5 (it's the GTS 320MB review).

In that review, the GTX was pulling 50+fps at 16x12. I can see it pulling 60+ easily at 12x10. But it's unclear whether or not that was using any type of AA. I sincerely doubt it, as most of AT's Oblivion benchmarks eschewed AA because of difficulties with all of the tested parts doing AA and HDR.

Now, I can actually see how a rushed benchmark using the area right around the sewer exit would be drastically different than these (and other) benchmarks. That just means, however, that, IMHO, they never should have used Oblivion in such an early release of performance numbers--it just adds too much uncertainty to an already inconclusive process.

Thus, I'd make two suggestions to DT/AT:

1) When releasing early numbers, please stick to games that are established as being dependable when benchmarking!

2) Make sure that all relevant settings are immediately available so that the apples to oranges comparisons are obvious, even if they can't be directly compared.



That said, I'm still disappointed with the results. If R600 turns out to be a fantastic DX10 part, then at least ATI made a bad bet on when DX10 games would be available in relation to their R600 development cycle.

If this isn't the case, then they've had their own FX-style fiasco.

Now if nVidia would just release an 8800GS already I'd open my wallet faster than Doc Holiday drew his gun!

well said!

Agreed. :thumbsup:Two thumbs up:thumbsup: for the post dredd.

 

[Regs]

holy drunken rant edit

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Well, I'm pretty happy with my $200 X1950XT.

 

[thestain]

It looks like Bye Bye AMD, DAAMIT!

AMD deserves to die, they caved into the big boys, left there target audience and went ball less in there dealings with Microsoft and DRM and TPM.. etc..

While I own a lot of old Socket 939 related products.. AMD showed pure cowardice and it will not be rewarded NO matter how cheap they price their little products.

Here they are losing to Intel and they buy Ati so they can enter another losing battle..

Now if they had been smart enough to issue a few Billion is stock a year ago or more when they first found out about Conroe, etc.. and NOT gotten rid of socket 939...

and not put tpm into its cpus, and not bought ati and not put all the DRM crap into Ati's gpu which is part of their problems I could be more sympathetic..

But AMD management at least in over-all sense has been PATHETIC!

Having said that.. I am rooting for something, anything to come out that will compete..

but.. they need to get back to basics.. get back to ethics.. get away from kissing M$ butt and maybe embrace linux.. which they might have already started to do.. drop out of the hdcp, TPM crap and then.. they could have a 10-20% market to themselves and maybe survive.. but with nVidia kicking their butts and Intel kicking their tails.. not much room.. left to survive, especially in the mainstream Microsoft Operating system domain.

It does appear likely.. once sound drivers for true hdmi are fixed and 65nm with AMD engineers help implemented.. and 1.2 GHZ speeds by end of year.. who knows... just might make it.. but it will be a battle, make that two battles, and COWARDICE is no way to win a war, let alone two wars!!

the stain

 

[Elfear]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed ( didn't really want to read through 13 pages of posts to find out) but the numbers from the DT benchmarks look a little strange. The numbers put the R600 at R580+ speeds for some of the titles and for others barely show any improvement over year old tech.

From Anandtech's recent article we can get an idea of how much faster an 8800GTX is than an X1950XTX. From the 1920x1200 results:

FEAR - Oced 8800GTX is 53% faster

HL2: EP1 - Oced 8800GTX is 102% faster

Oblivion - Oced 8800GTX is 100% faster


From DT's benchmarks comparing HD2900XTX to oced 8800GTX, also at 1920x1200:

FEAR - Oced 8800GTX is 51% faster

HL2: EP1 - Oced 8800GTx is 47% faster

Oblivion - Oced 8800GTX is 31% faster


Now if we compare the HD2900XTX to the X1950XTX (inferred from the above numbers) we get:

FEAR - HD2900XTX = X1950XTX

HL2: EP1 - HD2900XTX is 36% faster

Oblivion - HD2900XTX is 50% faster

That just seems very underwhelming if not downright wrong. Certainly the possibility exists that the R600 will not match the 8800GTX but to perform so poorly seems rather dubious. What do you guys think?

 

[Elfear]

Someone over in the DT thread posted this and I thought it was interesting. Of course benchmark results will vary between review sites but its still interesting nonetheless.

"By hadifa on 4/26/2007 6:18:21 AM ,

I checked Tomshardware VGA chart for oblivion score. It reports that
Oblivion outdoor, 1920*1200*32, no AA, 8xAF, Max quality, HDRR manages 28 FPS

From Anh description I understand that the test was an outdoor.
While there are different outdoor areas where the performance will be different still I am not sure if the 98.4 FPS for the 8800 GTX is correct.

Looking at the numbers for 2900XTX, they seem to be very close to the 1950XTX which is difficult to believe.

For example:

Company of heroes 1280*1024:
1950 XTX 99 (tweaktown) E6600
2900 XTX 97 (dailytech) QX6800

Company of heroes 1600*1200:
1950 XTX 70 (tweaktown) E6600
2900 XTX 73 (dailytech) QX6800

Tweaktown Results

FEAR 1280*1024:
1950 XTX 80 (tomshardware) No softshadow 4AA 8AF , X6800
2900 XTX 84 (dailytech) with softshadow 4AA 16AF , QX6800

FEAR 1600*1200:
1950 XTX 57 (tomshardware) No softshadow 4AA 8AF , X6800
2900 XTX 58 (dailytech) with softshadow 4AA 16AF , QX6800

Tom's Hardware Results

In Fear the softshadows can make a big difference but in company of heroes it seems the 2900 XTX has no advantage over 1950 XTX."

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
ouch :Q

if these benches are true hopefully they have a 2950xt ready to be released SOON

and hopefully their midrange doesnt suck also :|

You must not have seen the leaked 3Dmarks then...

dammit

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Elfear
Someone over in the DT thread posted this and I thought it was interesting. Of course benchmark results will vary between review sites but its still interesting nonetheless.

"By hadifa on 4/26/2007 6:18:21 AM ,

I checked Tomshardware VGA chart for oblivion score. It reports that
Oblivion outdoor, 1920*1200*32, no AA, 8xAF, Max quality, HDRR manages 28 FPS

From Anh description I understand that the test was an outdoor.
While there are different outdoor areas where the performance will be different still I am not sure if the 98.4 FPS for the 8800 GTX is correct.

Looking at the numbers for 2900XTX, they seem to be very close to the 1950XTX which is difficult to believe.

For example:

Company of heroes 1280*1024:
1950 XTX 99 (tweaktown) E6600
2900 XTX 97 (dailytech) QX6800

Company of heroes 1600*1200:
1950 XTX 70 (tweaktown) E6600
2900 XTX 73 (dailytech) QX6800

Tweaktown Results

FEAR 1280*1024:
1950 XTX 80 (tomshardware) No softshadow 4AA 8AF , X6800
2900 XTX 84 (dailytech) with softshadow 4AA 16AF , QX6800

FEAR 1600*1200:
1950 XTX 57 (tomshardware) No softshadow 4AA 8AF , X6800
2900 XTX 58 (dailytech) with softshadow 4AA 16AF , QX6800

Tom's Hardware Results

In Fear the softshadows can make a big difference but in company of heroes it seems the 2900 XTX has no advantage over 1950 XTX."

Thats because of
a) different hardware sites use different setups hardware/software configurations
b) different time demos/method of benchmark

Or DT is lying which i suspect they arent because large number of hits is not worth the credibility that they lose in a long term sense.

 

[Eomer of Aldburg]

well, I love my 8800GTS

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Thats because of
a) different hardware sites use different setups hardware/software configurations
b) different time demos/method of benchmark

Or DT is lying which i suspect they arent because large number of hits is not worth the credibility that they lose in a long term sense.

QFT.

These are the two points I've been making all thread.

There's no way KristopherKubicki and the rest of the DT team would put the reputation of their site on the line like this if they were flat out lying. He also DEFINITELY would not come into this thread and make posts knowing that we would crucify him if we found out he was lying.