|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 |   GX-Brandon (252) Aug 27, 2006 - 05:42 pm
| I dunno how you can say the article has a tone of conclusiveness to it when we clearly state at the end that we're working on Part 2, and are asking for feedback for that article.
"ATI’s upcoming hardware" = Radeon X1950 XTX. The reason it's stated that way is because we're using the X1950 for the screenshots/vid coverage, but as we clearly stated on page2 the IQ comments apply to ATI and NVIDIA's other high-end cards, not just the 7900 GTX and X1950 XTX.
Finally, it's hard to be objective on a topic that's subjective in nature. What looks good to one person may look bad to another. We stated this at the outset. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 25, 2006 - 11:29 am
| As I said a couple posts down, in Part 2 we're going to dig deeper into the control panel, and turn on/off the settings a bit more. We wanted to get this article up though to coincide with the X1950 launch so you could see the IQ we were getting for those benches.
Now that we've got more time as I said, we're going to dig into the control panel of both companies for the follow-up article. Any feedback you'd like to provide on that, include it here. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11855 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 23, 2006 - 07:04 am
| scott: Whip out your calculator. 49.6 GB/sec (the bandwidth of the X1900 XTX) divided by 64.0 GB/sec (X1950 XTX bandwidth) does not equal 10%. Try a little over double that.
And the difference between the X1950 and X1900 XTX was often much less than 10% in the benchmarks... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11855 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 23, 2006 - 07:01 am
| | I considered doing power consumption testing for the 7600 GS, as they're often found in HTPCs and other applications where power consumption is important, but honestly hadn't considered it for a high-end card. I guess it wouldn't hurt to perhaps implement it in the future... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11855 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 23, 2006 - 06:59 am
| | Yeah, that's not a bad suggestion honestly. I was going to do another article on the topic, similar to the one that was posted a little over a month ago, but you do have a point. I'll definitely include HDR+AA benches for the X1950 CrossFire story, as well as Super AA vs SLI AA of course. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 23, 2006 - 06:37 am
| Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm currently towards the end of an all-nighter, but are you accusing NVIDIA of running a higher level of AA than what's requested in the app or control panel? You feel NVIDIA turns on AA even though it's supposed to be turned off? Or runs 4xAA when 2xAA is what the actual setting is?
ATI and NVIDIA have different methods of handling AA, perhaps you're referring to the different sampling patterns used by ATI in comparison to NVIDIA? Or the fact that ATI uses gamma correction by default whereas NVIDIA doesn't? If that's what you're referring to, that's entirely different than what you mention above. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 23, 2006 - 05:38 am
| Okay, now that the NDA has expired on the X1950 XTX we can confirm that the ATI card used was in fact the X1950. This article was actually supposed to go inside the X1950 XTX article, but the premise expanded once we decided to include video footage, so we felt it was worthy of its own dedicated article. Once you've read the article you can then proceed to the X1950 story to see the actual benchmarks we got at those settings.
In Part 2 we plan on opening the control panel up a bit more and really going further into the topic. Again, any feedback/suggestions you've got would be great to hear... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 22, 2006 - 06:01 pm » Edited on Aug 22, 2006 - 06:06 pm
| Are you referring to images 03 and 04? Instead of tabbing I'd suggest just downloading the screenshots and clicking back and forth on them, that's the best way to compare the screenshots. The most glaring differences I see in 03 and 04 are the gamma and the sharper textures on the road for the GeForce card.
Also as mentioned in the article, we're focusing on AA quality in those shots which is why we're looking at thin-lined objects like telephone poles. Hope that clears things up. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 22, 2006 - 05:59 pm
| | When I have more free time I'll try to make a smaller video, right now I'm working on another article though. Size of the video aside though, the bigger question is the shimmering -- is it apparent to you or not? That's what the main purpose of the video is supposed to convey. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11538 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 05, 2006 - 01:26 pm » Edited on Aug 05, 2006 - 01:25 pm
| Noisy and take up too much space? Have you looked into any of the SFF systems or even HTPC cases? You can build desktop systems that are just as quiet if not quieter than some notebooks with the right selection of components.
I just wouldn't want you spending more money on a laptop based on misconceptions, especially since it looks like your desktop rig isn't bad at all, you probably just need to swap out the cooling and case. That will save yourself some serious $$$. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11499 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 05, 2006 - 09:46 am » Edited on Aug 05, 2006 - 09:45 am
| Yes, all Core 2 Duos have locked multipliers, only the Extreme has an unlocked multipler.
The multiplier on the E6400 is 8.0, while the C2D E6300 has a locked multiplier of 7.0.
Since the E6400 has a higher multiplier, you don't have to crank the FSB up as much to get a good OC. Just to get 3.0GHz out of an E6300 requires an FSB speed of 430MHz. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11499 | GX-Brandon (252) Aug 05, 2006 - 09:44 am
| | deimos: Yes, if you refer to the CoD 2 benchmarking article then you'll know pretty much everything about our custom demo. I've decided to switch to a new demo for CoD 2 and you'll see it in my next article. In hindsight I think the demo I used previously may have been too intense, at the time I thought it would scale well with faster hardware but it seems like it's not. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11430 | GX-Brandon (252) Jul 30, 2006 - 11:32 am
| 64-bit CPUs have been on the market for quite some time now. So long in fact that I think you'd have a harder time finding a 32-bit CPU than a 64-bit, especially after the latest round of AMD/Intel price cuts.
I'm sure we'll test their claims on DX9 vs DX10 performance though, as well as WinXP vs Vista. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11245 | GX-Brandon (252) Jul 21, 2006 - 08:20 am
| In case you didn't notice, our article included both single-GPU and multi-GPU results. It also included both low-res and high-res results.
In those high-res results, the CPU was bottlenecked by the GPU and the performance across the various processors was the same. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
