u guys use the hacked nvidia drivers

One of the required elements for posting 3D Mark 2003 resoults is the usage of WHQL drivers . . .

So Geforce FX cannot be benchmarked using it! ;)

I think all tests that don't use WHQL certified drivers are highly questionable. Also you're testing cards that we can buy today in the store against something that is no where to be found, aka the 5800 Ultra. Where's the 9800 Pro in this? They're shipping preorderd on 1. April.

You guyz spent a lot of time benchmarking these cards and but your basic methology is flawed in a very basic way. May I suggest logics 101 at the nearest Uni.

how about mentioning missing effects and inferior graphics quality using hacked nvidia drivers on the fx ? ;)

I have always enjoyed reading your articles and have alot of respect on how you conduct your website. This is why I find it so hard how u guys have got it SO WRONG. All the comments I have read I totally agree with, I am also sure that u guys know of these issues but choose to ignore them, this is what I find VERY DISSAPOINTING.
The only reason I can see for you doing this is based on bias, which I thought I would never find on this website.Your website has lost some of the respect I had for it, it is VERY important for me that tests are run without bias whatever the hardware or software, it is quite clear to people who have experience in the tests you are running that this IS NOT THE CASE.

Thanxs

A dissapointed reader

Yeah, this sucks and u know why..

NVIDIA paid u for this test ? ;)

Well, another well-known hardware-site seems to be bought...

You used default driver settings? GeForce FX's use of the Balanced setting is well documented as sacrificing expected image quality for speed.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDQ0

Just another very unprofessional attempt to sell nVidia based graphics cards.

Yep. You must be getting paid to actually post BS like that. You suck. and just like they said...you know why. "well...we must congradulate NV on much great drivers..." .....yeah.....so great MS wont certify them!

yeah...where is the 9800?

Using diffrent drivers just for the FX and then using WHQL certified Radeon drivers against some leaked stuff from Nvidia hand picked for a certain benchmark. Comparing a card that's been in the shops for half a year against something that hasn't even shipped. Ok comparing the vapor product FX then how about throwing int he 9800, it's shipping even BEFORE the FX does in quantity. Something is very very rotten about this whole affair, I'm surprised, this site has been one of the few "independant" sites out there.. MAJOR BUMMER!!

> Anyway, 3DMark03 is a benchmarking tool that helps to check the performance of graphics cards in next generation 3D applications. It means we can have a peep into the future and get to know beforehand the behavior of existing graphics cards in games that are going to use the latest advances in computer graphics.

No, it doesn't help. If you would read that 3DMark2003 analysis right on this website (by NVIDIA, ok, but true), you would know that engine used is bad and very ridiculous, so in neither near nor far future will anybody use something like this anywhere. It is not about NVIDIA's low score, but about that number carrying no practical meaning.
Plz excuse my poor English :)

that was weak. i don't think i'll read reviews at this website anymore.

Seems that the problem with Xabre600 showing those artifacts is due to a weak z-buffer implementation. In this case, when there are 2 or more textures very close to each other, the z-buffer engine is unable to determine the "z" component for each pixel accurately. I was unable to find such specific information on Xabre product but, judging by the screenshot, I guess it has a simple 16-bit z-buffer. If I’m right, there is nothing they can do on the driver to resolve the problem.

This review is pretty questionable.

I don't read this website regularly, in fact i dont even know the name off hand without looking up at the banner. I don't think I'll become a regular reader anytime soon with crap like this "review" floating around.

If you like to see a REAL comparison, take a look at

http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/r9500+9700_vs_gffx5800/zj_be nch_comanche4_a.php

It's german, but the benchmarks speak for themselves.

This Site has LOST IT'S CREDABILITY ! (Sold Out)

How can you post this review as a direct apples to apples comparison??

Lots of sites, especially Anandtech, has compared Radeon 9700 PRO and Geforce FX in AF and AA and found that the Geforce FX has very inferior image quality compared to the Radeon 9700 PRO.

Anand concluded that Radeon 9700 PRO's performance setting gave the same quality as Geforce FX's Quality setting, which changes the picture significantly...