man this guy is out of his mind

here is what he posted

OK, much has been made recently about how NVidia doesn't run fast enough for
HL 2, that it won't look as good in DX 9, etc. I got a hold of the free
release Aquamark 3 and leaked 51.57 detonator drivers. I thought I'd
perform a test of my own.

First, the test systems:

Radeon 9700 Pro
Athlon XP 2000
NForce II motherboard
512 MB DDR RAM
19 inch CRT (no-name)
Catalyst 3.6 drivers (quality, 4xAA, maximum anisotropic in drivers)

GeForce FX 5900 (non-pro)
Athlon XP 2400
KT400 motherboard
512MB DDR Ram
17 inch NEC 1712 LCD.
Beta Detonator 51.75 (quality, 4xAA, maximum anisotropic in drivers)

Both are using Windows XP operating systems. The CRT is calibrated for a
fairly even greyscale gamut. The LCD is calibrated for optimal game image
quality with 3Deep. I don't own the Radoen 9700 Pro system, but I was able
to borrow it for the test.

Results for default test (very high quality, 1024X768):
system average FPS
Radeon 9700 Pro 24.6
GeForce FX 5900 25.8

So both cards are roughly equally fast. It's clearly a very demanding
benchmark.

Image quality

Both look very good. I really couldn't tell much difference between
either one. I saw no evidence of color banding with the GeForce FX 5900.
Mind you, I wasn't taking screenshots and dissecting them. If I had to make
a snap judgement, I'd say the Radeon 9700 Pro's image was a little more
vibrant, but maybe that's just because it was on a CRT.

I should also point out the LCD was running in a non-native resolution and
aspect ratio, but I still thought both screens looked roughly the same.

So this leaves me with an early impression that everybody badmouthing
NVidia is jumping the gun. Rumors that CompUSA and several OEM dealers
ditching NVidia, seems premature.

Now, a few caveats. I do like NVidia cards. I like ATI cards too, but
generally I like NVidia's drivers better. I've owned both in the past, and

I'll freely admit my bias is slightly towards NVidia, simply because they
RUN EVERY GAME I OWN with very little quality loss, and ATI, sadly cannot
live up to that claim.

Feedback anybody?



and here is my reply
so you think that the cpu is not holding back the 9700 ?
the 1.2 fps diferance is mostly due to cpu.
next time you test try swaping the cards in the same sys and do fresh
install of xp on each set up then defrag and all that then test .
hell if i wanted to make the 9700 look better than the 5900 all i have to do
is swap the cpu's and run the 9700 with the 2400xp and the 5900 on the
slower 2000xp.
im not trying to **** you off but if you want to test and be fair then do it
the right way.
and if you dont think that the cpu maters here is mine with the 9700pro and
a 2500+ cpu 34.62 fps
and if you dont belive me here is link
http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_vie...runID=21383831
hm the 2500+ is not a lot faster than the 2400+ that you used for the test
yet im getting 9 fps more with just 100mhz more cpu. and you tested with a
400 mhz diferance and got what 1.2 fps more?. are you getting my point yet?
well the 100mhz and 400mhz thing is not realy true due to amd nameing game
but you shuld get my point.
last years 9700 pro will beat a brand new this year fx5900 non pro in a fair
test. lets not even get in to the 9800. i take it the 5900 is yours so your
defending it lol. well i also have a fx but a cheap one the low end 5200 and
i like it "for what i use it for" but i dont defend it. hm i think i shuld
bench it against the 9700 but only if i crippel it and run the 9700 with a
slower cpu like one of my old amd 700 cpu and then compare it to a 3200+ cpu
with the 5200 with drivers that make it look good.
if you want to compare the 9700 then bench it against what it was made to
run against the 5800 leaf blower. oh my god im defending my 9700 pro lol.
im glad you tryed testing them against each other the best you could but
next time do a even test


--
If life is a bitch then live it like she is drunk and naked.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com

http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_vie...unID=266700320

-
Mangyrat stood up at show-n-tell, in bk655i$sv0$, and
said:

<snip>
>
>
> and here is my reply
> so you think that the cpu is not holding back the 9700 ?
> the 1.2 fps diferance is mostly due to cpu.
> next time you test try swaping the cards in the same sys and do fresh
> install of xp on each set up then defrag and all that then test .
> hell if i wanted to make the 9700 look better than the 5900 all i
> have to do is swap the cpu's and run the 9700 with the 2400xp and the
> 5900 on the slower 2000xp.
> im not trying to **** you off but if you want to test and be fair
> then do it the right way.
> and if you dont think that the cpu maters here is mine with the
> 9700pro and a 2500+ cpu 34.62 fps
> and if you dont belive me here is link
> http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_vie...runID=21383831
> hm the 2500+ is not a lot faster than the 2400+ that you used for
> the test yet im getting 9 fps more with just 100mhz more cpu. and you
> tested with a 400 mhz diferance and got what 1.2 fps more?. are you
> getting my point yet? well the 100mhz and 400mhz thing is not realy
> true due to amd nameing game but you shuld get my point.
> last years 9700 pro will beat a brand new this year fx5900 non pro in
> a fair test. lets not even get in to the 9800. i take it the 5900 is
> yours so your defending it lol. well i also have a fx but a cheap one
> the low end 5200 and i like it "for what i use it for" but i dont
> defend it. hm i think i shuld bench it against the 9700 but only if i
> crippel it and run the 9700 with a slower cpu like one of my old amd
> 700 cpu and then compare it to a 3200+ cpu with the 5200 with drivers
> that make it look good.
> if you want to compare the 9700 then bench it against what it was
> made to run against the 5800 leaf blower. oh my god im defending my
> 9700 pro lol. im glad you tryed testing them against each other the
> best you could but next time do a even test

--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit

I was surprised he gave an image quality review based on one being on and
LCD and the other on a CRT!

Mangyrat wrote:
(qouted from another person)
> Feedback anybody?

Learn how to do a comparison:
I.e., change the one and only thing you wish to compare, not the CPU and
chipset as well.

Learn about image quality:
How can a CRT possibly look anything like an LCD?

Learn about subtlety:
The 51.75 drivers DO NOT render the scene as intended. They don't render it
the same as the ATI drivers, nor any other Detonator drivers. The
peerformance increase incidental to the change in image quality?

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Umm... check comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action or videocards.NVidia. I posted
a more thorough benchmark and image quality test

"Mangyrat" <> wrote in message
news:bk655i$sv0$...
> here is what he posted
>
> OK, much has been made recently about how NVidia doesn't run fast enough
for
> HL 2, that it won't look as good in DX 9, etc. I got a hold of the free
> release Aquamark 3 and leaked 51.57 detonator drivers. I thought I'd
> perform a test of my own.
>
> First, the test systems:
>
> Radeon 9700 Pro
> Athlon XP 2000
> NForce II motherboard
> 512 MB DDR RAM
> 19 inch CRT (no-name)
> Catalyst 3.6 drivers (quality, 4xAA, maximum anisotropic in drivers)
>
> GeForce FX 5900 (non-pro)
> Athlon XP 2400
> KT400 motherboard
> 512MB DDR Ram
> 17 inch NEC 1712 LCD.
> Beta Detonator 51.75 (quality, 4xAA, maximum anisotropic in drivers)
>
> Both are using Windows XP operating systems. The CRT is calibrated for
a
> fairly even greyscale gamut. The LCD is calibrated for optimal game image
> quality with 3Deep. I don't own the Radoen 9700 Pro system, but I was able
> to borrow it for the test.
>
> Results for default test (very high quality, 1024X768):
> system average FPS
> Radeon 9700 Pro 24.6
> GeForce FX 5900 25.8
>
> So both cards are roughly equally fast. It's clearly a very demanding
> benchmark.
>
> Image quality
>
> Both look very good. I really couldn't tell much difference between
> either one. I saw no evidence of color banding with the GeForce FX 5900.
> Mind you, I wasn't taking screenshots and dissecting them. If I had to
make
> a snap judgement, I'd say the Radeon 9700 Pro's image was a little more
> vibrant, but maybe that's just because it was on a CRT.
>
> I should also point out the LCD was running in a non-native resolution
and
> aspect ratio, but I still thought both screens looked roughly the same.
>
> So this leaves me with an early impression that everybody badmouthing
> NVidia is jumping the gun. Rumors that CompUSA and several OEM dealers
> ditching NVidia, seems premature.
>
> Now, a few caveats. I do like NVidia cards. I like ATI cards too, but
> generally I like NVidia's drivers better. I've owned both in the past,
and
>
> I'll freely admit my bias is slightly towards NVidia, simply because they
> RUN EVERY GAME I OWN with very little quality loss, and ATI, sadly cannot
> live up to that claim.
>
> Feedback anybody?
>
>
>
> and here is my reply
> so you think that the cpu is not holding back the 9700 ?
> the 1.2 fps diferance is mostly due to cpu.
> next time you test try swaping the cards in the same sys and do fresh
> install of xp on each set up then defrag and all that then test .
> hell if i wanted to make the 9700 look better than the 5900 all i have to
do
> is swap the cpu's and run the 9700 with the 2400xp and the 5900 on the
> slower 2000xp.
> im not trying to **** you off but if you want to test and be fair then do
it
> the right way.
> and if you dont think that the cpu maters here is mine with the 9700pro
and
> a 2500+ cpu 34.62 fps
> and if you dont belive me here is link
> http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_vie...runID=21383831
> hm the 2500+ is not a lot faster than the 2400+ that you used for the
test
> yet im getting 9 fps more with just 100mhz more cpu. and you tested with a
> 400 mhz diferance and got what 1.2 fps more?. are you getting my point
yet?
> well the 100mhz and 400mhz thing is not realy true due to amd nameing game
> but you shuld get my point.
> last years 9700 pro will beat a brand new this year fx5900 non pro in a
fair
> test. lets not even get in to the 9800. i take it the 5900 is yours so
your
> defending it lol. well i also have a fx but a cheap one the low end 5200
and
> i like it "for what i use it for" but i dont defend it. hm i think i
shuld
> bench it against the 9700 but only if i crippel it and run the 9700 with a
> slower cpu like one of my old amd 700 cpu and then compare it to a 3200+
cpu
> with the 5200 with drivers that make it look good.
> if you want to compare the 9700 then bench it against what it was made to
> run against the 5800 leaf blower. oh my god im defending my 9700 pro lol.
> im glad you tryed testing them against each other the best you could but
> next time do a even test
>
>
> --
> If life is a bitch then live it like she is drunk and naked.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> http://mail.giantcompany.com
>
>
>