*OFFICIAL* ATI Radeon X800 PRO & XT Review Thread

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: jim1976


LOL. .

1. Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.
2. Even if that was possible, what are you comparing? There's no identical pictures to compare, just random pictures with flashlight "on" in the SM3 and "off" in the SM2.

Either bring your pictures or go play the game my friend (FYI the level is catacombs)

i posted the pics from hard OCP and mine look the same. and you sure dodged the question. typical. here is the link again and i find it hilarious you actually said "Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.

ROFL!

since our disagrement is about the difference on PS2 and PS3 what you siad is totally irrelevant.



PICS

so answer the question fanboy! which scene looks better? why do they look different if ps2 and ps3 are basically "identical"?

Whatever man. Whatever. You sure know what you're talkin about.
:beer:

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: jim1976


LOL. .

1. Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.
2. Even if that was possible, what are you comparing? There's no identical pictures to compare, just random pictures with flashlight "on" in the SM3 and "off" in the SM2.

Either bring your pictures or go play the game my friend (FYI the level is catacombs)

i posted the pics from hard OCP and mine look the same. and you sure dodged the question. typical. here is the link again and i find it hilarious you actually said "Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.

ROFL!

since our disagrement is about the difference on PS2 and PS3 what you siad is totally irrelevant.



PICS

so answer the question fanboy! which scene looks better? why do they look different if ps2 and ps3 are basically "identical"?

Are you referring to the appearance of the statues or the textures? Because FYI, I can tell you now that both statues are not the same. I can run through the game again to confirm this but I?m pretty sure they are not.

Also please look at my previous post. That is a statement from the CEO of CryTek.

 

[XBoxLPU]

so answer the question fanboy! which scene looks better? why do they look different if ps2 and ps3 are basically "identical"?

Gee I wonder if you are a fanboy or not :roll:

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
1. p3 can handle over 65000 pixel shader instructions compared to PS2's 256 that just does not equate into more fps, but the abilty to use vastly more shaders per scene, which makes a difference on IQ overall since more shaders can be used...

Just because a card is capible of 65k instructions doesnt mean that it can do them smoothly. It just has that as a limit. Also, the X800s can do more than 256 instructions from what ive read.

You seem intent on stating the 6800s "superiority" because of its SM 3.0 support, which leads to two points;
1) That it is YOU who is the fan boy.
and
2) You cannot accept the simple fact that both Crytek and many interviewed developers have said that SM 3.0 is only used for performance purposes, and everything IQ wise that can be done with 3.0, can be done with 2.0, just slower.

As it stands, SM 2.0 is all thats needed, and games that will support SM 3.0 this year will be identical to their lower 2.0 modes, IQ wise, and will only "support" 3.0 because of a financial back hander from nVidia.
So i suggest you calm down a little, and look at the facts rarther then believing what you want to belive.
And as for the H-OCP screenshot things, ive seen FarCry run on a 9800XT around a friends house, and i can confidently say that; that particuar area of the game looks like the "SM 3.0" screenshot, on a 9800XT. You do also realise that those sort of IQ differences that your seeing can be a direct result of camera angle? Notice on those screenshots how the camera position isnt exactely the same, making the comparision a bit lop sided. And the rendering error on the top right screenshot.

 

[LTC8K6]

Are those the shots that are actually 1.1 compared to 3.0?

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Are those the shots that are actually 1.1 compared to 3.0?

Not 100% sure, but they seem that way. The supposid "2.0" statue looks complety flat with a hint of a reflection on it. Which would lead us to belive it is a 1.1 screenshot rarther than a "2.0" one.

 

[LTC8K6]

At any rate here is the commentary that goes with the shots Shadowhawk is touting.

HOCP

Even HOCP says that SM2.0 looks better than SM3.0 in some of the shots, and I agree.

Go to the bottom of the page shadowhawk links and use the arrows to look at some of the other comparisons.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Are those the shots that are actually 1.1 compared to 3.0?

These are: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=36.

But the ones Shadowhawk linked to from HardOCP are 2.0 to whatever Nvidia is doing. Not to mention the HardOCP statue is not the same as the original screenshot. Not sure why, maybe they couldn't find the same one or they figure it was just for the sake of comparison.

 

[UlricT]

Also, wasn't there some news about FarCry using even PS2.0 only for lighting?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: jim1976


LOL. .

1. Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.
2. Even if that was possible, what are you comparing? There's no identical pictures to compare, just random pictures with flashlight "on" in the SM3 and "off" in the SM2.

Either bring your pictures or go play the game my friend (FYI the level is catacombs)

i posted the pics from hard OCP and mine look the same. and you sure dodged the question. typical. here is the link again and i find it hilarious you actually said "Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.

ROFL!

since our disagrement is about the difference on PS2 and PS3 what you siad is totally irrelevant.



PICS

so answer the question fanboy! which scene looks better? why do they look different if ps2 and ps3 are basically "identical"?

Whatever man. Whatever. You sure know what you're talkin about.
:beer:

ahh...now we have the old "whatever" schtick with a real answer still not there, you really really do not want to answer this do you? it really is a simple question though.

 

[Compddd]

Shadowfanboi is just mad Nvidia lost again. Lets see, choose between a card that runs way hot, takes 2 slots, is noisier, and slower then ATI, no thanks.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Are those the shots that are actually 1.1 compared to 3.0?

These are: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=36.

But the ones Shadowhawk linked to from HardOCP are 2.0 to whatever Nvidia is doing. Not to mention the HardOCP statue is not the same as the original screenshot. Not sure why, maybe they couldn't find the same one or they figure it was just for the sake of comparison.

the shot titled "SM3" they got from nvidia and are as labled shader model 3. the shots labled "SM2" they made themselves using an ATI 9800 pro set to full detail.

 

[Acanthus]

Yes only for lighting and shadowing, and there is some displacement mapping.

The WATER is not DX9. its DX8.1

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
At any rate here is the commentary that goes with the shots Shadowhawk is touting.

HOCP

Even HOCP says that SM2.0 looks better than SM3.0 in some of the shots, and I agree.

Go to the bottom of the page shadowhawk links and use the arrows to look at some of the other comparisons.

we all have our opinion, but looking at the sm3 vs sm2 shots it seems kyle bennet is spinning real hard. as for me the sm3 shot looks better because most statues i have seen do not look like they are made of shiny plastic like the area on the stomach of the statue in the sm2 shot does.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Compddd
Shadowfanboi is just mad Nvidia lost again. Lets see, choose between a card that runs way hot, takes 2 slots, is noisier, and slower then ATI, no thanks.

way hot? no one took temp readings.

2 slots? just like the 5950 there will be 1 slot retail solutions.

Noisier? got some sound measurements?

slower than ati? at what? farcry?

 

[LTC8K6]

I would think that the comments and updates at the end of the comparison sort of invalidate the comparison shots. That article and those shots were made before the updates at the end.

Whatever IQ differences there appear to be, it would seem that they are not due to SM3.0.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Are those the shots that are actually 1.1 compared to 3.0?

These are: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=36.

But the ones Shadowhawk linked to from HardOCP are 2.0 to whatever Nvidia is doing. Not to mention the HardOCP statue is not the same as the original screenshot. Not sure why, maybe they couldn't find the same one or they figure it was just for the sake of comparison.

Do not quote me on this and I don't have time to check it out right now, but I thought the nVidia screenshots were from a demo and not the actual game while the screenshots HardOCP did were from the actual game. If that is the case, it would explain the reason why the statues are not the same.

 

[Maximilian]

Remember when the NV40 benchmarks first came out? yep, and also remember quite a few people predicted that the R420 would be crap as it uses old tech and the NV40 with its new core would steamroll it? well i got one thing to say. HAH! you got it wrong

 

[LTC8K6]

Anandtech review: "sheer heat generated by NV40 ".

I think someone took some temps.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: jim1976


LOL. .

1. Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.
2. Even if that was possible, what are you comparing? There's no identical pictures to compare, just random pictures with flashlight "on" in the SM3 and "off" in the SM2.

Either bring your pictures or go play the game my friend (FYI the level is catacombs)

i posted the pics from hard OCP and mine look the same. and you sure dodged the question. typical. here is the link again and i find it hilarious you actually said "Without DX9.0c on the table you won't be able to see any difference in IQ.

ROFL!

since our disagrement is about the difference on PS2 and PS3 what you siad is totally irrelevant.



PICS

so answer the question fanboy! which scene looks better? why do they look different if ps2 and ps3 are basically "identical"?

Whatever man. Whatever. You sure know what you're talkin about.
:beer:

ahh...now we have the old "whatever" schtick with a real answer still not there, you really really do not want to answer this do you? it really is a simple question though.

Are you a moron? Ok don't listen to me, listen to the others.
Everyone is explaining to you that these are not valid pictures and this is just a comedy.
WTF are you comparing? explain to me
Have you played the game or you just throwing BS?
Do you even bothered to read what Nox posted?

Here I'll make it even easier on you:

UPDATE #2:

PC Perspective has posted an interview with the CEO of the makers of FarCry. We found that answers to questions 7 and 8 fully support our conclusions on the subject we have put forth here in our article.


Q: 7) What aspects of the screenshots seen at the launch event are specific examples of the flexibility and power of Shader 3.0?

A: In current engine there are no visible difference between PS2.0 and PS3.0. PS3.0 is used automatically for per-pixel lighting depending on some conditions to improve speed of rendering.

Q: 8) Is the same level of image quality seen when using Shader 3.0 possible using Shader 2.0? If so, what dictates which Shader you decide to use?

A: In current generation engine quality of PS3.0 is almost the same as PS2.0. PS3.0 is used for performance optimization purposes.

WTF are you reading man?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

i compared what was shown in the demonstration to the same images on a machine with a athlon 3400+ with a 9800XT set at full image quality and the simple fact is ps3 does in fact look better than ps2 which makes your counterpoint invalid.

Actually, crytek later released an explanation saying the comparison was between PS3.0/2.0 and PS1.1

The fact that Nvidia explained in many interviews that PS3.0 does NOT offer image quality enhancements over PS2.0 doesn't seem to sway your opinion. PS3.0 is supposed to make things faster, which in reality suggests that you COULD write longer instruction sets and with branching allowing for deeper shaders and thus better image quality. But if you wanted to you could write the same code using PS2.0 it would just take longer. But if ATI cards already work faster in PS2.0 there is no need for them at this point to utilize PS3.0. Logically if Nvidia works slower in PS2.0, it would only make sense for it to work SLOWER in a LONGER instruction set of PS3.0. PS2.0 can do everythign PS3.0 can so image quality is IDENTICAL, just the way to get the same image is supposed to be optimized in 3.0; but that hasn't been proven yet with any game. Now nvidia is counting on running their games in less loops using PS3.0. I am not saying ATI is better and be done with it, but more games have to be compared that utilize PS3.0 to really decide if that feature is important or not.

As it stands, X800xt is the clear performance winner if you disregard price. Comparison of X800Pro to GT is another story which must be more carefully analyzed.

There is no point of arguying as the ppl who made up their minds on buying ATI or Nvidia will never change their view and then there remain the rest of us who want to wait for prices to fight over and see what the best card to buy is.

Some other factors to consider:

1) so what if Nvidia has a 2 slot design? How many ppl on these forums have all 5 PCI slots taken up? or run a Small form factor PC? Most of us have a large case with good airflow so even if the card took up 3 slots it makes no difference

2) Ok nvidia has higher energy output than ATI cards do....big deal many review sites ran it using 350 watt power supply and many showed total system consumption for the rig at <300 watts.
Furthermore, do you care if your gpu runs at 80*C or 50*C? If there are no artifacts and the card is stable I could care less. It surely wont affect how long my card lasts because both will last 5 years or before they become obsolete so heat and energy issues are a wash again. Besides how many ppl on this forum who have good rigs do not have a decent power supply?

So just see what games you play right now and what card runs them faster and then evaluate the purchasing decision on that and price. I play UT2K4, Splinter Cell, Halo, and Far Cry so ATI is a better card for me since it's faster in all of those games, but for someone else who playes other games this might not be true.....Besides by the time prices come down to make these cards more affordable, we'll have a better understanding on what card is better once more benches of newer games come out.

 

[ROcHE]

Good cards. Nvidia and ATi. I won't spend 499$ on a video card tough. kthxbye.

 

[Tango57]

thanks GTaudiophile for the links. i think they're both great cards but i also give the slight nod to ATI at least for the moment. however, i'm not that hardcore of a gamer though to plop down $500 for either of them right now.

 

[Wolfsraider]

1 RADEON? X800 PRO Graphics Board
1 Ruby T-Shirt - Size Large
1 RADEON? X800 Mouse Pad
1 RADEON? X800 Poster
$449 USD

from here

was getting a new driver ...follow the pop up and you will see the offer

mike

edit link doesn't work

 

[stickybytes]

I've read from sources that the 6800 Non ultra, or the GT it seems now is going to be sold for 399. But i've also heard people say it would be sold for 299. Does anyone know the exact price?