Unreal Tournament 2003 Performance no AA/AF

Unreal Tournament 2003 Performance 4xAA/8xAF

The midrange fight for unreal is lead by the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra both with and without AA/AF.

Tron 2.0 Performance Warcraft III: Frozen Throne Performance
Comments Locked

114 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Ever hear of journalistic integrity? He has a responsibility to be objective. He replies "also, there were no glaringly unplayable image quality issues on either side of the line."

    What a political answer - glaringly unplayable image quality issues? A $499 card shouldn't have any unplayable issues, heck even a $99 card should be playable.

    He's dodging the issue about playable image quality issues - missing or lower quality lighting effects for example. The point is that Nvidia has been caught lowering imager quality - removing the eye candy you are paying for in dx9 cards, and they have continued to do so.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Once again "IQ to come in part 2"... mebbe they will ... mebbe they won't... but they don't have a very good track record so far... and what is up with that choice of games? Go read the [H]OCP review... I may have been vocal against [H] in the past but there review of teh 5700 and 5950 is spot on with worthwhile gaming results.....

    I really fail to see how you recommend 5700 over 9600pro in this.... and skip all the NV 'driver bugs' too.... ah well nm... another nail in the AT coffin....
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Hrmm, I see an NVida add on the top right of my screen. Ever see ATI adds ant anandtech? Know what complementary copy is?
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Here's my conclusion: if you're gonna bitch and moan, read a different tech site. No one's forcing you to accept Derek's conclusions.

    I think some of you need to be a little more respectful with your comments and suggestions.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    How can any conclusions be made without an image quality comparison. The "final words" section is based purely on the framerate numbers? How can you even draw a conclusion?
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    I'll just copy this from what I wrote at Beyond 3D:

    I was so confused by this comment from AT:

    AnandTech wrote: "In fact, NVIDIA has flipped the tables on ATI in the midrange segment and takes the performance crown with a late round TKO. It was a hard fought battle with many ties, but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card."


    That I tabulated my own results:

    NON AA
    ---------
    5700 wins 10 times
    9600 XT wins 6

    Where the 5700 won, it won on average by 15%
    Where the 9600 won, it won on average by 17%


    WITH AA / ANISO
    ---------
    5700 wins 6 times
    9600 wins 6 times

    Where the 5700 won, it won on average by 23%
    Where the 9600 won, it won on average by 54%

    There certainly is ZERO justification for saying something like: "but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card."

    That characteristic belongs to ATI, not nVidia.

    Another way to look at it: What percentage FPS difference is required to declare a "clear winner?"

    Let's say that less than 10% difference, the cards are tied. In this case:

    NO AA/ANISO
    ----------------

    5700 wins 6 tests
    9600 wins 4 tests

    When the 5700 wins, it's by an average of 22%
    When the 9600 wins, it's by an average of 22%

    With AA/Aniso
    ----------------
    5700 wins 4 tests
    9600 wins 6 tests

    When the 5700 wins, it's by an average of 33%
    When the 9600 wins, it's by an average of 54%


    I wish Anand's conclusions would actually agree with his data.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Hello? where are the hardware, software, and driver specs? Editorial review? What's that?
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Separating Image Quality results from the review is completely misleading.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    It's not unplayable image quality errors - the pics in the hardocp review show missing graphical features to enhance your gaming - ie walls with computers on them with nvidia with no blinking lights, on the ati it had purple and green blinking lights - yes playable on both - but when you pay $499 you want to see the game the way it was intended by the programmers. Same goes for the flashlight pics on hardocp , nvidia the flashlight beam is a mess, ati the flashlight beam is perfectly round like a real flashlight.

    Just another case of nvidia removing graphical effects to speed up their cards to compete with ati.
  • DerekWilson - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    so, the cheapest 9800 Pro I see on new egg is a refurb for 280...

    also, there were no glaringly unplayable image quality issues on either side of the line.

    give us a chance to get everything we want to get done done wrt image quality. We've got a lot planned.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now