Quote: "If someone is going to buy a high-end graphics card then I would hope they have a high-end system too... All in all if you want the best gaming performance then the whole system has to be powerful, you can't just expect the graphics card on it's own to produce staggering frame rates on low-end machines."
nope, although yes a few of the purchasers will be those with dog naggers of systems to begin with... most people buy new cards to speed up thier current hardware. Hell i'm obscessed with the speed of my card like the next hardcore gamer, but I want a card that will mean I just have to by the $500 card and not a new Mobo/Ram/CPU combination costing an extra $800 just to get the max performance out of the card.
If I buy a 3D card IT should be doing the 3D work, NOT my Processor. I want my processor to give me faster physics, and more responsive AI and help with faster netplay and loading levels.
When it comes to 3D that should be totally reliant on the GPU, after all thats why they are CALLED Graphics Processing Units.
Quote: "I have seen you critise benchmarking programs because "you can only tell how hardware works with real-world testing", now you are critersising real-world testing because it uses games people who visit the site doing the test play not the highest selling games.
I have a suspicion the only testing you will approve of is the sort where nvidia beat ati."
Actually nVidia are currently comming out ontop on the latest game releases using the latest hardware and on legacy titles - its only the 2001-2002 titles that seem to particularly show the Radeons in a better light.
But actually i'm adding to the point that was made in another forum. I'm not saying to DROP the FPS tests, what i'm saying is not to ONLY include them.
Sure right now players of TheSims don't care how it plays or knows how fast it is going as long as it is playable.
But even on a P3-1ghz w/GeForce2 GTS w/512mb Ram ... The Sims still shows signs of lags. Although yeah its playable on the lowest system, this is only because of its slow pace. And if you put a gamer on a system slowers than what they're used to - they'd suddenly go "hold-on isn't this game suppose to be faster".
Although YES normal gamers only care more about "will it play" to "how fast does it go?" with all of the newer games performing pretty badly on all cards to what they could and everyone switching to shaders (including TheSims2) the adverage gamer is going to start wanting to know why they can't play the game at the graphics level shown on the box or what they're broadband demo trailer showed them it would.
So they'll want advice on what is best... but rather than established online reviewers showing them results in alot of games that would influence thier decision all they're showing them on is FPS.
Which is all well and great - but considering TheSims is a completely different type of game and engine, it reacts differently and the piplelines are different.
Quite frankly the GeForce4 and GeForceFX lines are more catered to OVERALL gaming, which means YES your game will run on them and exactly how you see it on the box.
The best example of this I can explain is when a friend came over to mine to play her favourite games TheSims and Neverwind Nights - and when she got home she was ademant that someone had messed around with her computer whilst she was gone because her games seemed alot slower from my system.
So we were going through specs and all round her system was better than mine - P4-2.25ghz w/Radeon 9700 w/512mb DDR PC2100 this was against my AthlonXP 1400+ w/GeForceFX 5800 Ultra w/512mb DDR PC1800
Problem is that both games rely very very heavily upon the 3DCard itself rather than processor. Her games seemed sluggish because the Radeon just wasn't equipped to handle the games.
And I've had alot of experiences myself with games like Jedi Knight2 and Command & Conquer Generals ... not to mention games I thought would never be affected like Imperium Galactica 2 and Escape from Monkey Island.
Sure these games might seem less from the hardcore gamer, but they STILL require the cards to produce enough speed to actually play them comfortably. People spend out like hundreds of dollars on new Mobo, Ram and processors just for the fact that thier Gfx card can't cut it - simply because its obvious from the get go that Radeon are PANDERING... and they're relying far too much on people having high spec systems.
Yeah sure YAY for the FPS person who buys a dogs naggers system just to keep up with the trends, but what do Radeon give a toss about the other 80% of the gamers who don't have the first clue.
You know why GeForce do so well?
Because they're cheaper, and they're easier to get on with.
The fact that they're faster and more compatible with the adverage game is actually just a huge bonus.
Hell I can run Quake2 @ 1600x1200x8 FSAA8x AF8x on my FX5200 on my Pentium2 266mhz w/128mb Ram at a nice 65fps
you know why? Because GeForce are making GAMING CARDS ... you know what my 9500pro achieved in the same system? 12fps lmao, it actually got equal again in the Duron800mhz - but this is at 2x FSAA because the Radeon's won't FSAA at such high resolutions.
It was a waste of time benchmark cause no-one is going to care much about Quake2, but the point is still valid.
Sure I care how HL2 will perform on my system, but HL2 is one out of 20games that I actually look forward to next year ... If my Fx only performs badly in HL2 then screw getting that. It isn't my problem and I highly doubt it is the cards either if everything else performs how it should be HL2 doesn't.
To Survive You Must Evolve... This Time Van Will Not Escape His Fate!
