I agree completely ... this is not a professional review and the results should be taken with a serious dose of salts. It's obvious that the guy who wrote this is yet another Ati fanATIc.
Look, if the ATI slacks off then the results are surely misleading and need looking at ... yeah yeah ... It's fairer to say that ATI are better at some things and nVidia are better at other things.
I notice that there are no comments like this when the 5700 scores far higher then the 5950 ... there was even one benchmark when the 5600 owned the 5950 ... ffs , is this a serious comparison ??? I think not.
To absolutely rule out the FX range of cards for all DX9 applications is wrong, stupid and blind.
It is a fact that nVidia have the best driver developers in the world. For pure terms of stability you simply cannot compare ATI to nVidia, thats like comparing a 386 to an AthlonFX 51 ... nVidia have proven that they are improving their drivers in DX9, just compare the 52's and the 53's ... and even a site as reputable as tomshardware indicate that therf is something 'dubious' going on in ATIs cataclysm driver.
How can you mention Doom 3 results when you HAVENT EVEN BLOODY played the game ??? I mean how skewed is that .... do not believe everything you read on a website.
How legitimate is your comparison of your so called Secret DX9 game ????
Ok firstly you make no claims to legitimate benchmarks, so how do we the discerning public know that this isn't the version you downloaded from the newsgroups when it was hacked from valve ... and why have valve seemed to release such an exclusive benchmark to your website, when they haven't released it to the major sites such as toms or anand ... or are you breaching NDA ?
Oh and gee whilst I'm at it ... lets look at the real benchmark issues with HL2. ATI has 24b precision ... nVidia has 32b precision ... Higher is better.
When the drivers are ready, and lets face it they will be (I know you dont agree but dont tar nVidia's programmers with the same brush that you tar ATI's) , this alone means that HL2 will look better on nVidia than ATI ... I really dont care if a 9800 can do an average of 9fps better if it looks worse ... at 60fps who can tell the difference ?
When the HL2 code path for the NV is complete I wouldn't be suprised if the high end nvidias matched or beat performance with the 9800's as they certainly already beat visual quality....
Just a thought here , dont forget that more and more people are moving to TFT screens , and in the majority of cases the Max resolution you can acheive is 1280x1024 ... ergo wtf do a lot of ppl care how the performace is at 1600x1200 ... you have to level the playing field to the level that people will use it ...
I know its hard to do any serious benchmarking , I understand that at the detail you guys went to , it can't be easy ... I for one appreciate greatly how much time this must have taken ... but the answers and your comments show for sure that you are biased towards ATI and that you haven't given 'The Fastest Graphics Cards of 2003' a fair assesment.
That reminds me, my main Graphics card is a Radeon 9800XT.
12/12/03 02:33:14 PM]