Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
tornadotsunamilife said:I thought the close-up pictures were of the card
phide said:As stated in the other thread, this review is questionable at best. Examine the specifications, do the math and you'll draw the same conclusion.
skittzle said:QFT
This review shows the x1900xtx beating the 7950gx2 which goes against about everything I have read. Maybe they forgot to enable the other gpu on the 7950 .
Technically speaking, yes, it is two cards. However, it comes in a single box, it occupies a single PCIe slot, occupies the same space as any other "dual-slot" card (including the X1950), and is sold and labelled as a single, all-encompassing product. Whether or not it uses two physical GPUs or thirty-seven is somewhat irrelevant. Yes, it does operate using SLi, and yes, SLi is not highly effecient, but it is still a "single card". You can't take it apart and use one (at least I don't believe you can...), which makes it a single "graphics card product", if you wish.Sharky974 said:The Nvidia solution is really TWO cards. Why is it being benched against one?
Shamino @vr said:was asked to
launch date may stretch
tentative now on 14th september
phide said:As stated in the other thread, this review is questionable at best. Examine the specifications, do the math and you'll draw the same conclusion.
fallguy said:They use HQ for NV, not Q. The way it should be reviewed. Most other reviews use Q, which has worse IQ than ATi, HQ gets it closer to ATi's quality, and more apples to apples. HQ takes a rather large performance hit, over Q. Which is why NV tells reviewers to use Q. The default quality setting for NV is Q, or 3/4 of the quality settings. ATi's defaults to the highest setting, 4/4.
edit, here is a link to the review, since the original has been pulled; http://resources.vr-zone.com.sg/Shamino/1950/
It doesnt have everything, but has most of it.
it isn't about this
i'm still trying to see what may go wrong
i'll have to redo all tests , i need to isolate what went wrong first
thx for feedback.
yea like i said i was afraid to put out the review at first, i reran couple times.
but since the date i can publish the review is pushed back quite a bit so i'llredo it and redo the setup.
fallguy said:He said what "may" go wrong. The Fear/GX2 numbers are the only ones in question, ass far as I can tell. Even though it shows the X1900XTX at 32fps, the GX2 at 34fps, and the X1950XTX at 40fps, without AA. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
And I have not come to any conclusions, yet. Dont assume you know all, as has been shown in the past, you dont.
razor1 said:I'll bet you 100 bucks if ya want , I don't know all but I do know my math is always right
Having the hardware benchmarks doesn't mean sh*t if you can understand what it all means and possible errors. You do jump to conclusions maytimes sepecially when it concerns anything that might be positive to nV, actually almost always.
fallguy said:Wrong. I dont even read vrzones reviews. I have a select few I like. Nobodys maths is always right, another instance of you being wrong...
I rarely jump to conclusions, another instance of you being wrong. If one, or a few of my fav hardware sites show the same thing, I believe it. I dont believe the Inq crap, or any other rumors.
Yes the GX2 numbers look low for Fear, especially because its typically the "poster chold" for SLI, it generally gets a huge boost. However, HQ takes a rather large hit from Q. And HQ is how all reviews should be done, but that wont happen. Perhaps you can look at older reviews and compare numbers, I dont care to. But as I said, thats the only numbers being questioned. So calling his whole review void because of that, is pretty silly. If you dont agree, then on well. Im done discussing it.
Daggah said:X1900XT oc'ed to X1900XTX -> 7950GX2 was a pretty big performance increase for me.
X1900XTX -> X1950XTX isn't a big jump. Faster memory, that's it. It's not enough to make a huge performance difference.
This is why I don't buy into any benchmark that is saying that the X1950XTX > the 7950GX2. I'm sure it's a great card and it's definitely priced to sell at $400 but still...
R1ckCa1n said:I guess you can't understand the fact the internal 512bit memory ring on the R580 was craving more bandwidth and it got it with ddr4 memory.
Plus everyone is discounting the fact this review was using HQ which is a bad thing when benching NV cards, if you are a NV user.
razor1 said:hmm bans are temporary unless someone repeatedly provokes others in this case Fallguy started the provoking with pointing fingers in the wrong direction I just defended my position thats all, its people like you who insunate them by providing no information and just talking nonsense, well go figure.
fallguy said:Perhaps you need to learn to read better. I didnt respond to you at all, you did to me.
What I did was, bring up something relevant that nobody had before, and gave it as a reason as to why the numbers may seem "off". It certainly was not in the wrong direction, and I didnt point any fingers. The fact is, HQ takes a large hit compared to Q, and that is probably a huge part of the reason that the GX2 scored lower. Could it be something else too? Yeah. But HQ has an impact. Which is why NV doesnt want reviewers using it, and suggests that they use Q. It was you who tried to "provoke" me. You had no position, as I wasnt even talking to you.
You're a bias NV fan, yet you feel the need to stir up stuff (again) in the ATi sub forums. The X1950XTX is a very fast card, get over it.
razor1 said:Did I ever say HQ doesn't have an impact. Sorry Fallguy this is an open forum, your talk is public just as everyone else. If you want to go down this path be my guest, as for coolmannuke, both of you guys can't discuss anything without pulling out the bias card, its fun talking with both of you but unfortunately your argument is very weak.
I'm not stirring anything up. You are the ones that started to stay that I was tainted, I said, the benchmarks are being looked over by the person that did them in the first place. Thats all I said, So that puts the benchmark numbers in question. Simple.
So you were provoked by saying "any questions"? What that pissed you off because the reviewer wasn't sure if his numbers are correct. Its not your mistake you are taking it very personal.
fallguy said:No, no questions. HQ takes a larger hit, than Q.
He reran it a couple times, they look about right to me. Dont believe? Then dont, want wait for other reviews. I know being an NV fan, you dont like these results.
Well its a good thing that ya did just like your rating and raving about the x1900xtx going to perform at least 2 times faster then then the x1800xt . I said this before the r580+ will probably outperform a 7950 x2, but not by much.
Its quite easy to figure out the x1950xtx will be around 30% increase in performance, its heavily bandwidth bottlenecked, and since the core isn't going to be any faster, only memory, well in bandwidth limited situations, its going to get an increased % of the increased memory speeds.
Whoa...hold on their pally. Not quite the "math" I was talking about.fallguy said:They use HQ for NV, not Q. The way it should be reviewed. Most other reviews use Q, which has worse IQ than ATi, HQ gets it closer to ATi's quality, and more apples to apples.
skittzle said:QFT
This review shows the x1900xtx beating the 7950gx2 which goes against about everything I have read. Maybe they forgot to enable the other gpu on the 7950 .
R1ckCa1n said:I guess you can't understand the fact the internal 512bit memory ring on the R580 was craving more bandwidth and it got it with ddr4 memory.
Plus everyone is discounting the fact this review was using HQ which is a bad thing when benching NV cards, if you are a NV user.
razor1 said:Then WTF is this?
Yeah tell me what that is!?
Just because I siad the results that you are are talking about might be off you wrote that?
phide said:Whoa...hold on their pally. Not quite the "math" I was talking about.
Look at the specs. We're looking at a 550MHz boost in effective VRAM speed (a 37% clock boost). Let's assume that latency really hasn't changed much if at all. So, there we stand with a 37% clock boost out the gate. Easy math.
Now, check out the rated bandwidth. Well, we seem to be up about 29% from the XTX. Great! That's a mighty nice boost. So, what, we're going to see about a 10-15% jump in overall performance, right?
Well, that's not quite what's being reported here. A 40% boost in this title at these settings, a 37% boost in another...a 48% boost in Call of Duty 2? Hey, hold on there, bub. Something's up.
I don't care if the 7590's running at Quality, Low Quality or High Quality - the X1950's numbers are suspect as hell. Unless the latency of the GDDR4 is fantastically lower than that of the GDDR3, the numbers are way outlandishly off.
I can't take an apple and turn it into two and nor can ATi. This is the math I'm talking about, and I'm surprised you haven't bothered to question it.
EDIT: Oh, and the DailyTech reported benchmarks are looking more realistic. It's certainly showing that Quad SLi is not quite the real solution yet, and that the X1950 is fast, but not physics defying. We'll see what happens when we see some single card comparisons once the NDA's lifted - I imagine the X1950 is going to be a bitch to try and defeat.
nekrosoft13 said:excactly, that review is pure BS, 7950gx2 beats 1900XTX, it even beats 1900XT crossfire in most cases.
fallguy said:Its me calling it like it is. You're NV bias, its pretty obvious from past, and present. It doesnt matter who you prefer, just dont act like you're not.
Also, vrzone used soft shadows, which take a very, very large hit. Combine soft shadows, and HQ, and frames are going to plummet for NV, and ATi.
This isnt new news, different games, get a different performance boost from new cards.
Once again, I didnt say any of these benches are real, just that claiming they arent, based on comparing numbers to different reviews is silly. They use much different settings, that impact performance.
fallguy said:I didnt call you a name. Saying you're NV bias, is not calling you a name. Simple English.
You obviously think these results are not accurate. I dont think they are, and dont think they arent. Its uncorroborated numbers to me. As I said earlier, I dont read vrzone reviews. The forums are a joke, with all the anime avatars, sigs, and other nonesense. When reviews from hardware sites I like, come out, Ill take that as evidence.
I dont know what impact the much faster ram will have. Im not pretending too either. In any event, Im done talking about it with you. Feel free to carry on, I know you will.