1700+ und 9500 pro.
Hoffe es reicht.
@Topic:Wundert mich schon irgendwie das HL so viel schneller mit ner ATI rennt,bin scho gspannt wies bei DOOM III aussieht.
URL: https://www.overclockers.at/grafikkarten/half_life_2_leistung_mit_ati_deutlich_hoeher_als_m_92173/page_5 - zur Vollversion wechseln!
Zitat von The Red Guy...und den montag danach wo ATI einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo nVidia einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo ATI einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo nVidia einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo ATI einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo nVidia einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo ATI einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo nVidia einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo ATI einen neuen Treiber bringt...
...und den montag danach wo nVidia einen neuen Treiber bringt...
....
wenn das so weitergeht dann gute nacht. am end brauchst a nvidia karte damit du game a und a ati karte damit du game b spielen kannst.
ich erinner mich nur an die zeiten von 3dfx... die haben damals zwar die bessere bildquali gehabt, von den treibern ganz zu schweigen, jedoch hat nvidia es nur durch stupide forcierung der raw power geschafft 3dfx zu ruinieren. gott sei dank is ati nicht so arm wie 3dfx sonst würdens die auch no schlucken und was dann wär könn ma uns eh vorstellen oda?
2006 kommt a gf 8 100000 mit ps/vs 18.3 hat nen 100cm² chip am board, baucht a flüssigstickstoffkühlung + atomkraftwerk und 5gb an onboardram nur damit die überwichtigen overdraw daten gespeichert werden können.
achja und wir werden mit 47,3 fach antialiasing abgespeist, das verfahren der gf1 wird wiederbelebt! yeah ich freu mich einfach...
Ich hoff ich kann das Game mim Barebone spielen
1700+ und 9500 pro.
Hoffe es reicht.
@Topic:Wundert mich schon irgendwie das HL so viel schneller mit ner ATI rennt,bin scho gspannt wies bei DOOM III aussieht.
Half-Life 2 Performance Benchmark Preview @ AnandTech
BTW, nVidia's official response:
[quote]Over the last 24 hours, there has been quite a bit of controversy over comments made by Gabe Newell of Valve at ATIs Shader Day.
During the entire development of Half Life 2, NVIDIA has had close technical contact with Valve regarding the game. However, Valve has not made us aware of the issues Gabe discussed.
We're confused as to why Valve chose to use Release. 45 (Rel. 45) - because up to two weeks prior to the Shader Day we had been working closely with Valve to ensure that Release 50 (Rel. 50) provides the best experience possible on NVIDIA hardware.
Regarding the Half Life2 performance numbers that were published on the web, we believe these performance numbers are invalid because they do not use our Rel. 50 drivers. Engineering efforts on our Rel. 45 drivers stopped months ago in anticipation of Rel. 50. NVIDIA's optimizations for Half Life 2 and other new games are included in our Rel.50 drivers - which reviewers currently have a beta version of today. Rel. 50 is the best driver we've ever built - it includes significant optimizations for the highly-programmable GeForce FX architecture and includes feature and performance benefits for over 100 million NVIDIA GPU customers.
Pending detailed information from Valve, we are only aware one bug with Rel. 50 and the version of Half Life 2 that we currently have - this is the fog issue that Gabe referred to in his presentation. It is not a cheat or an over optimization. Our current drop of Half Life 2 is more than 2 weeks old. NVIDIA's Rel. 50 driver will be public before the game is available. Since we know that obtaining the best pixel shader performance from the GeForce FX GPUs currently requires some specialized work, our developer technology team works very closely with game developers. Part of this is understanding that in many cases promoting PS 1.4 (DirectX 8) to PS 2.0 (DirectX 9) provides no image quality benefit. Sometimes this involves converting 32-bit floating point precision shader operations into 16-bit floating point precision shaders in order to obtain the performance benefit of this mode with no image quality degradation. Our goal is to provide our consumers the best experience possible, and that means games must both look and run great.
The optimal code path for ATI and NVIDIA GPUs is different - so trying to test them with the same code path will always disadvantage one or the other. The default settings for each game have been chosen by both the developers and NVIDIA in order to produce the best results for our consumers.
In addition to the developer efforts, our driver team has developed a next-generation automatic shader optimizer that vastly improves GeForce FX pixel shader performance across the board. The fruits of these efforts will be seen in our Rel.50 driver release. Many other improvements have also been included in Rel.50, and these were all created either in response to, or in anticipation of the first wave of shipping DirectX 9 titles, such as Half Life 2.
We are committed to working with Gabe to fully understand his concerns and with Valve to ensure that 100+ million NVIDIA consumers get the best possible experience with Half Life 2 on NVIDIA hardware.
Brian Burke NVIDIA Corp.[/quote]
NFI reports:
[quote]nVidia has released the response as seen in the link. Particularly interesting, however, is this part of the e-mail sent to certain nVidia employees ( this was not posted at the given link ):
We have been working very closely with Valve on the development of Half Life 2 and tuning for NVIDIA GPU's. And until a week ago had been in close contact with their technical team. It appears that, in preparation for ATI's Shader Days conference, they have misinterpreted bugs associated with a beta version of our release 50 driver.
You also may have heard that Valve has closed a multi-million dollar marketing deal with ATI. Valve invited us to bid on an exclusive marketing arrangement but we felt the price tag was far too high. We elected not to participate. We have no evidence or reason to believe that Valve's presentation yesterday was influenced by their marketing relationship with ATI.[/quote]
Toll, nun fangt Nvidia in der Verzweiflung mit verschwörungs-theorien an. 
Was dagegen spricht, ist das auch John Carmack schreibt das Nvidia deutliche Probleme mit der PS-Performance hat:
Zitat"Yes. NV30 class hardware can run the ARB2 path that uses ARB_fragment_program, but it is very slow, which is why I have a separate NV30 back end that uses NV_fragment_program to specify most of the operations as 12 or 16 bit instead of 32 bit."
John Carmack
Zitat von -fenix-wer den 3dcenter artikel gelesen hat weiß warum die NV3x so schwach bei pixelshadern und generell bei PS2.0 is, das hat ganz andere gründe als "A besticht B damit C schlechter dasteht"
ZitatWe have no evidence or reason to believe that Valve's presentation yesterday was influenced by their marketing relationship with ATI.
Noch was ganz wichtiges, was ein bischen untergeht im Trubel:
Selbst wenn der mixed mode der nv35 mit neuem Treiber halbwegs auf das Niveau der 9800pro VOM SPEED her anschließt, sieht es immer noch deutlich qualitativ schlechter aus als beim "echten" PS 2.0 dx9 code path!!!!
Hier der quote vom anandtech review
ZitatThe sacrifices you encounter by running either the mixed mode path or the DX8 path are obviously visual. The 5900 Ultra, running in mixed mode, will exhibit some banding effects as a result of a loss in precision (FP16 vs. FP32) but still looks good - just not as good as the full DX9 code path. There is a noticeable difference between this mixed mode and the dx82 mode, as well as the straight DX8 path - for example, you'll notice that shader effects on the water aren't as impressive as they are in the native DX9 path.
Are the visual tradeoffs perceptive? Yes. The native DX9 path clearly looks better than anything else, especially the DX8.0/8.1 modes.
Wens interessiert.. Benchmark-Vergleiche auf GamersDepot:
http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware...ollowup/003.htm
Woohoo, mit der 9800 Pro hat man in 1024 x 768, 4 x FSAA und 8 x AF immer noch schlechtestens 41 Fps, wohingegen die FX5900 Ultra nur noch 19 Fps hat.
Das tut weh.
Ich frag mich echt wie nvidia einen Treiber proggn will, der mixed mode beschleunigt, auf 9800pro aufholt und TROTZDEM nicht die Qualität der shader vermindert? -> kann ned gehen imo.
Und da i ned glaub, daß die nv38 so anders sein wird, dürftens die 2003 Runde an ATI verloren haben, und das TROTZ besseren 3dmark2003 scores ---> na wenn DAS nix heißt für die Zukunft
Zitat von tombmanIch frag mich echt wie nvidia einen Treiber proggn will, der mixed mode beschleunigt, auf 9800pro aufholt und TROTZDEM nicht die Qualität der shader vermindert? -> kann ned gehen imo.
Und da i ned glaub, daß die nv38 so anders sein wird, dürftens die 2003 Runde an ATI verloren haben, und das TROTZ besseren 3dmark2003 scores ---> na wenn DAS nix heißt für die Zukunft
Zitat von moepFalls Nvidia Karten in Doom 3 wirklich schneller als ATI Karten sind, liegt das wohl daran das die Nvidia Karten teilweise in 12 oder 16 bit rendern - die ATIs aber in den vollen 32 bit.
klar erkennst einen Unterschied, sagt valve selbst..
Rein mathematisch ist es auch ein großer, denn von 16 auf 24 sind es 50% (!) und von 24 auf 32 aber nur 33%. Und das dann noch mal 4, wegen 3 Farben und alpha!
overclockers.at v4.thecommunity
© all rights reserved by overclockers.at 2000-2024