So although I started this blog to add more of a personal touch, it has turned into a GPU-blog as of late :) I don't mind, so if you don't mind, let's get to it:
As you've probably already seen, Part 2 is up as well as our Catalyst 3.8 investigation. One of the biggest complaints I saw was why we didn't report raw frame rate numbers for Tomb Raider; we didn't provide those numbers simply because we thought the percentage drops in performance were much more useful. Because of the granularity of TRAOD's settings we were able to give you an idea of exactly how much of a performance hit you get when enabling PS2.0, which supported the theory that ATI's hardware seems to be running PS2.0 code that isn't specifically NV-optimized much faster than NVIDIA. For those of you that have asked for the numbers, we threw them in the Catalyst 3.8 article. There was no malicious intent behind not including the regular fps numbers, we just wanted to cut down on some of the graphs - but ask and ye shall receive, so ye did in the latest article.
It looks like the new Halo 1.02 patch improves the real-world application of the timedemo numbers, so we will be switching over to that version for Part 3 of the article. Apparently the new patch removes a memory check that was called during every frame; this memory check was a debugging feature needed during development but is unnecessary and should artificially deflate Halo scores. The new patch fixes the problem and as I mentioned, we will switch over to the new patch asap.
Derek should be taking a much needed nap right now and I'll most likely work on bringing you some more CPU information over the next two weeks. We haven't set a firm publication date for Part 3 of our Fall graphics roundup yet but I'm hoping to get the wheels in motion towards the end of this week/weekend at the earliest.
Tis all for now, take care guys 'n gals.
As you've probably already seen, Part 2 is up as well as our Catalyst 3.8 investigation. One of the biggest complaints I saw was why we didn't report raw frame rate numbers for Tomb Raider; we didn't provide those numbers simply because we thought the percentage drops in performance were much more useful. Because of the granularity of TRAOD's settings we were able to give you an idea of exactly how much of a performance hit you get when enabling PS2.0, which supported the theory that ATI's hardware seems to be running PS2.0 code that isn't specifically NV-optimized much faster than NVIDIA. For those of you that have asked for the numbers, we threw them in the Catalyst 3.8 article. There was no malicious intent behind not including the regular fps numbers, we just wanted to cut down on some of the graphs - but ask and ye shall receive, so ye did in the latest article.
It looks like the new Halo 1.02 patch improves the real-world application of the timedemo numbers, so we will be switching over to that version for Part 3 of the article. Apparently the new patch removes a memory check that was called during every frame; this memory check was a debugging feature needed during development but is unnecessary and should artificially deflate Halo scores. The new patch fixes the problem and as I mentioned, we will switch over to the new patch asap.
Derek should be taking a much needed nap right now and I'll most likely work on bringing you some more CPU information over the next two weeks. We haven't set a firm publication date for Part 3 of our Fall graphics roundup yet but I'm hoping to get the wheels in motion towards the end of this week/weekend at the earliest.
Tis all for now, take care guys 'n gals.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
8 Comments
View All Comments
BenSkywalker - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
For the Halo benches you may want to mention in the reviews that the bench still factors in load times between the cut scenes to the score. A lot of people are under the impression that Halo plays quite a bit slower then it actually does due to the way the score is reported. The 1.02 patch certainly helps this, but it still is a bit misleading.aNom - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link
I think that the TRAoD numbers do mean a lot.Sure percentage drops are important but how are we to know what they are compared to each other?
Does the 9800 drop from 80 to 40 or 40 to 20? And the 5900??? Did it start at 80 like the 9800 and then fall to 30 or did it start at 40 and drop to 15?
Percentages mean nothing without the basis to compare.
Hybr1S - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link
Hi Anand!Great articles of late... as usual.
Nice to see Derek geting into it so smoothly...
I have a question...
Some people who has gotten a hold o the HL2 pre-release says that Valve said that the E3-demo wasn't scripted... And now those people say that this wasn't true.
Do you have any opinion/facts in this matter?
(I had a copy myself for testing purposes only, it was just some multiplayer and a lot of textures missing, nicelooking anyway.)
Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link
Great site and great blog. I've been a reader for more than 2 years now, and I've loved every article. I think this blog gives a much needed behind-the-scenes look at what goes on- what new articles are on their way, why you did things the way you did, etc. Personally, as much as I trust and respect the conclusions you guys come to, I like being able to follow the thought process as well. Keep up the great work everyone.Anonymous - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
#1, you're a clueless moron. 3DCenter is the ONLY web site that I've seen that has done IQ testing with the new Det 52.14's, and their analysis was shoddy at best considering the fact that they didn't test any games whatsoever.Get a life idiot.
Anonymous - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
Mr. Lai Shimpi,Could you please tell me the three most important hardware components to consider when purchasing a new computer gaming system part by part?
In my opinion it would be an upgradable motherboard, the processor and upgradable case?
My max to spend is around 800$ but I want this system to be really fast. So the graphics card ram and the rest I can wait till I find a good deal. Thanks
Anonymous - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
To #1.Dude,don't like what he wrote?Go and read something else.Can't make a constructive coment?Keep your giberish to yourselfAnonymous - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
Anand,ALL other sites have found the opposite of your article assumtions ....Nvidia cheats as hell!!
How much $$$$$ you get for Nvidia for articles like this, my friend!!!
You are Pathetic.PERIOD