Prey Benchmarks Are In!

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

99% of the 'fix' I see here is throwing better hardware at a problem, not driver improvements.

What does "throwing better hardware at a problem" mean when you're talking about a hardware company? Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

ATI and NVIDIA make hardware, and I have no problems with either of them improving upon their product line. If they can make a driver that improves performance that's great, but I prefer having better hardware to begin with.

edit: BTW, AT shows a similar situation for Quake 4 where the Radeon shows much less of a hit when AA/AF are applied when compared to the 7900GTX, although the GTX still pulls in better fps overall.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2769&p=9

You'll also have to notice that in fact BOTH companies threw better hardware at the game didnt they, its not like nVidia suddenly didnt bring out the 7900GTX did they?

So if the 1900xtx is getting better framerates than the equal footing of the 7900GTX then um... well then ATi have better performance in the game dont they, pure and simple...

 

[josh6079]

Shhh! Drayvn! you make too much sense?!

Both companies are using both of their highest, single GPU cards here with the same game. If ATI has NOT made an OpenGL improvement through the driver, then what does that say about the X1900 from a hardware standpoint? That it performs as good as an Nvidia card with better drivers while using crappy drivers itself?

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Gstandfor go away

 

[Regs]

nm

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: josh6079
Shhh! Drayvn! you make too much sense?!

Both companies are using both of their highest, single GPU cards here with the same game. If ATI has NOT made an OpenGL improvement through the driver, then what does that say about the X1900 from a hardware standpoint? That it performs as good as an Nvidia card with better drivers while using crappy drivers itself?

To me it means ATi has to throw vastly more resources at a problem than nvidia does to get the same or marginally better result. Some people are impressed by wastefulness and size though.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Originally posted by: josh6079
Shhh! Drayvn! you make too much sense?!

Both companies are using both of their highest, single GPU cards here with the same game. If ATI has NOT made an OpenGL improvement through the driver, then what does that say about the X1900 from a hardware standpoint? That it performs as good as an Nvidia card with better drivers while using crappy drivers itself?

To me it means ATi has to throw vastly more resources at a problem than nvidia does to get the same or marginally better result. Some people are impressed by wastefulness and size though.

??? So...you're saying that the X1900 itself is a vastly more resourceful card than a 7 series GPU? If you're going to completely discredit the ATI drivers as the variable that yeilded the improvement then that is basically what you're saying.

The way I see it, the drivers have done better with OpenGL based games. If indeed the drivers are no different, then what has Nvidia been doing if there are no different features from the 78 series to the 79? Have they in turn made worse drivers?

Also, do you have any proof of this "wastefulness" that manages to compete with a conservative and effecient driver series that Nvidia supposedly uses?

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Isnt Doom3 capped too? Who even still has it installed... its not like the game was any good, or had any replay value. I paid $60 for it, played 3-4 levels, and then stopped. Never played it again.

Your experience and opinion of Doom3 has no meaning or relevance on ATIs OGL drivers and their improvements. Just wanted to clear that up.
Nice try tho.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

I don't know why nhancer gave problems tghe first time around, but it did.

Operator error comes to mind. The point is that you're slinging mud at others and claiming they're inept at maintaining a system when you can't even get yours to work properly.

If I were nvidia I certainly would not be offering these as official drivers.

I'm the first to complain about nVidia driver issues but I'll say they're some of the best official drivers I've used of theirs. SLI balloons don't concern me, what concernes me the most is being able to run my games problem-free and so far these drivers have delivered.

To me it means ATi has to throw vastly more resources at a problem than nvidia does

You mean like slapping two 7900GTs onto one 7950 so they could claim the "single card" performance crown?

Some people are impressed by wastefulness and size though.

Wow, you just can't stop trolling can you?

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Isnt Doom3 capped too? Who even still has it installed... its not like the game was any good, or had any replay value. I paid $60 for it, played 3-4 levels, and then stopped. Never played it again.

Your experience and opinion of Doom3 has no meaning or relevance on ATIs OGL drivers and their improvements. Just wanted to clear that up.
Nice try tho.

He asked why not try it on Doom3, since Prey was capped at 60. I asked if Doom3 was as well, thats what I remember. Then said that I doubt anyone would even have it installed at this point. Which Im pretty sure very few even do play it now.

Once again you troll, and share more ignorance. Back to ignoring you again. You've shown you cant change.

 

[BFG10K]

1. Framerate in game is capped at 60.
2. Framerate in timedemo is capped at 60.

These are good points which is exactly why my original post pointed out the mimimum scores. Cap or no cap, the X1900 has a better minimum performance when the settings are cranked.

Couldn't you have used doom3 the day the new and improved opengl performance showed up in the Catalyst driver set?

You mean like this?

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

I don't know why nhancer gave problems tghe first time around, but it did.

Operator error comes to mind. The point is that you're slinging mud at others and claiming they're inept at maintaining a system when you can't even get yours to work properly.

If I were nvidia I certainly would not be offering these as official drivers.

I'm the first to complain about nVidia driver issues but I'll say they're some of the best official drivers I've used of theirs. SLI balloons don't concern me, what concernes me the most is being able to run my games problem-free and so far these drivers have delivered.

To me it means ATi has to throw vastly more resources at a problem than nvidia does

You mean like slapping two 7900GTs onto one 7950 so they could claim the "single card" performance crown?

Some people are impressed by wastefulness and size though.

Wow, you just can't stop trolling can you?

My god, you are pathetic! Unfortunately, your little trolling effort doesn't work...

The ATi card just barely beats a7900GTX, not a 7950GT or any SLi card, not to mention the fact, you have never seen me praising up SLi or dual PCB cards...

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
not to mention the fact, you have never seen me praising up SLi or dual PCB cards...

Where was he saying you were doing that? All he said was that Nvidia puts out extreme hardware meausures to compete as well. Instead of taking the time to build another GPU from scratch, they took the time to figure out how to multiply them.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

1. Framerate in game is capped at 60.
2. Framerate in timedemo is capped at 60.

These are good points which is exactly why my original post pointed out the mimimum scores. Cap or no cap, the X1900 has a better minimum performance when the settings are cranked.

Couldn't you have used doom3 the day the new and improved opengl performance showed up in the Catalyst driver set?

You mean like this?

So basically, Prey is better optimized for ATI due to the differing results between D3 and the D3 powered game. Sounds about right, the x18/19xx cards are much more established now.

Nat


*Edit - N/M, I missed the high def w/AA & AF results mixed in at the bottom. Looks like the x18/19xx series are just better at opengl.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

gstandfor and crusader are nvidia trolls.

this thread was supposed to get mostly 'interesting' remarks. It is self evident that ATI has increased its opengl support. The beches are what they are. If you think there's something wrong, why not run your own? Let me guess? 500 fps with 7900GT @ 1920x1200 16xSLIAA?? right?

 

[coldpower27]

Interesting, though I would like to see the final game out in the hands of FiringSquad and Anandtech, before I draw any conclusions.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Interesting, though I would like to see the final game out in the hands of FiringSquad and Anandtech, before I draw any conclusions.

Why? Neither AT nor FS use the highest quality AF settings in their benchmarks, whereas EB did. Honestly, is anyone who shells out for a 7900GTX or X1900XT really not going to use the highest quality AF available to them?

Besides, the game runs great on both cards, and is even playable on a 6600GT at 1024x768. It pretty much keeps the fps close to the 60 cap with the high end cards even at 1600x1200 4AA/8AF. It's pretty much academic at that point who has the slightly higher fps. I guess it just bugs the NVIDIA crowd that ATI can now match NVIDIA in OpenGL, which is the reason this thread made it to 5 pages.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Interesting, though I would like to see the final game out in the hands of FiringSquad and Anandtech, before I draw any conclusions.

Why? Neither AT nor FS use the highest quality AF settings in their benchmarks, whereas EB did. Honestly, is anyone who shells out for a 7900GTX or X1900XT really not going to use the highest quality AF available to them?

Besides, the game runs great on both cards, and is even playable on a 6600GT at 1024x768. It pretty much keeps the fps close to the 60 cap with the high end cards even at 1600x1200 4AA/8AF. It's pretty much academic at that point who has the slightly higher fps. I guess it just bugs the NVIDIA crowd that ATI can now match NVIDIA in OpenGL, which is the reason this thread made it to 5 pages.

QFT. Why is this bad news for some? After all, this just means that Nvidia and ATI are going to be competeing closely in yet another area, making it all the more easier to pick a card since there continues to be less and less of a difference.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I haven't read the article over at EB becasue the pages are loading a tad slow for me, so I'm not sure if this was covered or not. Anyway, when I was playing Prey I noticed that in some areas AA looked really bad on the X1900XTX. Basically, it looks like it only applies AA up to about 20' in front of the character, and anything in the distance is really jaggy. I took a few screenshots to illustrate my point. I'm curious if AA is applied the same way on GeForce cards.

SPOILER WARNING: These screen shots are taken from relatively close to the end of the demo, so if you haven't played it yet and don't want to see anything you haven't already seen, don't look!

Prey X1900XTX 1680x1050 6xAA/16xAF

If someone with a NVIDIA card wants to take some shots to compare, these were taken not too far after the last auto save. It will be pretty obvious where it is when you get there

I think the graphics look like sh!t.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I haven't read the article over at EB becasue the pages are loading a tad slow for me, so I'm not sure if this was covered or not. Anyway, when I was playing Prey I noticed that in some areas AA looked really bad on the X1900XTX. Basically, it looks like it only applies AA up to about 20' in front of the character, and anything in the distance is really jaggy. I took a few screenshots to illustrate my point. I'm curious if AA is applied the same way on GeForce cards.

SPOILER WARNING: These screen shots are taken from relatively close to the end of the demo, so if you haven't played it yet and don't want to see anything you haven't already seen, don't look!

Prey X1900XTX 1680x1050 6xAA/16xAF

If someone with a NVIDIA card wants to take some shots to compare, these were taken not too far after the last auto save. It will be pretty obvious where it is when you get there

I think the graphics look like sh!t.

Thankyou.....for your......helpful.......input......

 

[otispunkmeyer]

SLI doesnt work with the DEMO as i found out....turned everything right up including AA and AF and performance was nasty

but found that SLI wasnt actually working. an apparent fix before Nvidia themselves actually fix it, is to have a SLI profile for prey set jus the same as the profiles for D3 and Q4

 

[BFG10K]

My god, you are pathetic! Unfortunately, your little trolling effort doesn't work...

Oh pu-lease, you crap in every thread you participate in.

The ATi card just barely beats a7900GTX, not a 7950GT or any SLi card,

That would be because Crossfire isn't being used.

 

[Gstanfor]

Mate, you are the one who told us about the benchmark between a 7900GTX & X1900 XTX, not crossfire vs 7950GT or 7900 whatever SLi...

Proof

 

[BFG10K]

So why did you bring up SLI then?

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Mate, you are the one who told us about the benchmark between a 7900GTX & X1900 XTX, not crossfire vs 7950GT or 7900 whatever SLi...

Proof

WTF is your problem here?!?

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
So why did you bring up SLI then?

I bloody well did'nt bring up SLI!!!

YOU came in and posted

quote:
To me it means ATi has to throw vastly more resources at a problem than nvidia does


You mean like slapping two 7900GTs onto one 7950 so they could claim the "single card" performance crown?

more proof

Lets see you worm your way out of that!