GPU Performance & Price (AMD v Nvidia)

From the pixels, bits, and shaders to the graphic cards that power them. Discuss the latest from AMD and NVIDIA here.

Moderators: morphine, SecretSquirrel

GPU Performance & Price (AMD v Nvidia)

Postposted on Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:14 pm

NOTES: (More notes below the chart.)
All the scores are based on a combination of TechReport and AnandTech reviews. **see notes below
The scores are averages of the performance in the games used to test.
Performance/Price are caculated from the price on newegg as of (10/04/2010) [dd/mm/yy]. (mail in rebates do not help the price)

CARD..................... performance........TR only...........US dollar ........(performance/price) *10

HD-5970....................170.77.............174.41.............700.......................2.44
GTX-480.....................127.90..............127.30..............500.......................2.56
HD-5870....................117.09.............117.51.............410.......................2.86
GTX-470.....................103.98..............104.23..............350........................2.97
HD-5850....................100.00.............100.00.............300.......................3.33
HD-5830......................77.78..............79.43.............235.......................3.31
HD-5770......................67.11..............68.01.............155.......................4.33

* EDITING IN PROGRESS *
cards below this have not been recalculated.

WHAT a MESS!
Apologies to all.. this will not be completed till April 19, 2010.
EDIT: ... it will be more like April 26 or May 4 as I have to work this weekend as well.



GTX 295 ..............................315.05..................465....................6.78
HD 4870 X2..........................292.87.................400...................7.32
HD 5870..............................283.75.................380...................7.47
HD 4850 X2..........................256.09
HD 5850..............................237.15.................260...................9.12
GTX 285 ..............................227.21..................326....................6.97
GTX 275 ..............................215.01..................215...................10.00

9800 GX2..............................212.58
4890 OC .............................208.40 ................210...................9.92
GTX 280...............................203.97..................235....................8.86
HD 4870..............................181.54.................125...................14.52
GTX 260...............................172.66..................165....................10.46
HD 5770 .............................163.09.................160....................10.19

HD 3870 X2..........................145.35
HD 4850..............................144.92...................97...................14.94
HD 5750..............................138.61..................130...................10.66
HD 4830..............................131.96...................85...................15.53
8800 GTS 512........................121.11
8800 GTX.............................120.38
9800 GTX.............................119.33
HD 3870..............................103.90

8800 GT ..............................100.00 (600MHz version)

8800 GTS 640 .........................98.33
9600 GT................................97.21
HD 2900 XT...........................92.82
HD 4670................................87.03
HD 3850................................82.02
8800 GTS 320..........................81.98

1950 XTX .............................65.26
X 1900 XTX...........................62.44
7900 GTX...............................62.41
X 1900 XT.............................58.63
X 1800 XT.............................51.38
7900 GT.................................44.75
7800 GTX ...............................43.82
7800 GT.................................40.49

X 850 XT.................................36.43
6800 Ultra...............................33.37
X 800 XL.................................30.72
6800 GT .................................29.08
X 800 Pro ................................27.03
9800 XT...................................22.07
FX 5950 Ultra ............................21.95
Geforce 5900 Ultra......................21.82

Radeon 9800 ............................18.63
Radeon 9700 ............................16.82
FX 5800 Ultra............................15.63
Geforce Ti 4600.........................13.95
Geforce Ti 4200.........................11.99
Geforce 3 Ti 500........................11.87
Radeon 8500.............................10.70
Geforce 3 ................................10.34
Geforce 2 Ultra ...........................6.67
Radeon 64MB DDR ........................4.30
Voodoo 5 5500 ............................3.95

------------------------------------------------------
Additonal Notes: The most accurate scores would be reflected in the newest ones in the top group. These were all within one review with the same games benchmarked, ect. Naturally, there are problems with this type of list since all the various reviews used different games.. and different cards perform differently with different games.
----------------------

Q: How are the scores from TechReport & AnandTech combined?
A: TR has priority. Typcially I will use the games from TR and add in only games that AnandTech has that are not included with the TR review.
However, in this first case I used 7 games from TR and 7 games from AnandTech. I did this because I wanted to ensure the the reviews were similar with the new games / test systems for starting the new combining method. Because there were 7 games from each site, the scores were added and divided by 2 to get the combined score. In most cases in the future (I'm expecting) it will be just a couple of games from Anand included with the TR score.

Q: Both TechReport and AnandTech used some games in two benchmarks (DX11 vs DX10 or DX9). Do these games get counted twice?
A: No. In the case where a game has multiple benchmarks, the scores from both benchmarks are combined into one game score. This ensures that each game has the same weight in the overall score.

Q: I don't like you.
A: That's not a question and I don't care.

Q: How are you figuring the scores for the most recent review when some benchmarks are DX11 and not all cards are DX11 capable?
A: First, all of the DX11 cards are calculated with the HD 5850 as the baseline. Then those cards & scores are used to compare to the other cards using the games where they share scores.

Q: Sometimes using one manufactures card to compare to another manufactures earlier cards may cause skew if it is not from the same review. How do you avoid this?
A: The HD 5850 is the ultimate baseline score. However, when comparing other cards that have no direct comparison the known score from manufacturers card will be used to establish the baseline for the other cards.

Q: Do you use all resolutions?
A: No. 1920x1200 is used where available. TR has many 1920x1080 scores creeping in (much to my dismay). Those are used when 1920x1200 are not available.
If neither of those are available, the highest possible resolution is used.

Q: Why is card "X" not listed?
A: Because I'm lazy

Q: What causes some of the inaccuracies?
A: Not all cards are tested in the same reviews and not all reviews use the same games. Different cards perform better or worse than their counterparts depending on the games tested. So, for example eight cards in the list are in the latest review used one of those cards is used to compare against older reviews to determine where the new cards line up vs the old cards. The problem with this is the newer reviews use different games where the older cards may have not performed as good had they been included in the new reviews.

Q: Why aren't you keeping track of prices for cards such as the 9600GT or HD 4670?
A: It doesn't pay to buy one of those cards at this time considering the HD 4830 only cost 20-30 bucks more and performs significantly better.

Q: Why is the 8800GTX above the 9800 GTX when it used to be below?
A: Look at the (HD 4870) review.
Last edited by danny e. on Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:48 pm, edited 105 times in total.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:22 pm

Note: to determine the gain from one card to the next: new card perf / card
For example, i currently own the X800 XL and have been holding off on upgrading. If i took the jump now and got a 8800 GT I would from a performance rating of 164.89 to 609.5

609.5/164.89 = 3.69

So, I could expect (on average) to gain 3.69 times the performance by upgrading from the X800 XL to the 8800 GT.
-------------------------------------

EDITED: revised numbers
Last edited by danny e. on Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:21 am, edited 4 times in total.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:28 pm

Thank you danny e., it's extremely useful table!
Exactly what I was looking for.

And I am still riding on 9800pro :oops:
Klopsik206
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:28 am
Location: old continent

Postposted on Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:06 pm

This is pretty helpful.

I'm still trying to figure out what performance means though and how did you work in the older cards, since they are no longer reviewed by TR?
mongoosesRawesome
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Postposted on Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:45 pm

mongoosesRawesome wrote:This is pretty helpful.

I'm still trying to figure out what performance means though and how did you work in the older cards, since they are no longer reviewed by TR?

The performance # is basically percent vs base.
Base is 100 .. something with 200 would be 100% faster.

What I did was go back through all the old TR reviews up to the current ones.. and figured how all the models compared to eachother based on averages in games.

so, a review that included 9800 and X 800 XL would be entred in the spreadsheet. Then the next years reviews would be X 800 XL plus the newer crop of cards.. using the base you can then keep moving up the chain and figuring how the cards compare to eachother %'age wise.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:12 pm

Awesome work. Keep them coming :)
no sig
muyuubyou
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3231
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:19 am
Location: London, UK or Tokyo/Yokohama, Japan or Madrid, Spain

Postposted on Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:40 pm

it will be interesting to see how the RV670 competes.. though I have a feeling it will still not be fast enough.

in related info about un-launched products.. based on <a href="http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/13507">this rumor</a>, i would suspect that version of the card will have a "score" of 801 in my list. That would make it faster than the GTX. Hopefully its true and launches around the $299 - $349 range.

based on the Crysis scores.. the GT really could use more memory.. and more SP's wont hurt either. I dont think any game is playable unless you're getting 30fps min.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:24 pm

Seriously, what is with ATi? Are they going to answer to this?
Pongo
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:50 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postposted on Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:07 pm

I have found some issues with the chart and am working on completely re-doing it along with adding more cards to the list.

It is not easy.. and entails going through all the old TR reviews and doing % compares on cards from review to review.

In doing so, I have to match up card to next card gen. For example, in the 9800 Pro review you have the 9800 Pro matched up against older generations.. then in the 9800 XT review you match up against 9800 Pro.. in X800 review you match up against 9800 XT.

in going through all the reviews again i have noticed a few places where the data is bothersome.

<img src="http://techreport.com/r.x/geforcefx-5950ultra/wolfet-4x8x.gif">
here is the numbers from the Geforce FX 5950 Ultra review.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/5797/6

here are the numbers from the Geforce 6800 Ultra review.
<img src="http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-6800ultra/wolfet-4x8x.gif">
http://techreport.com/articles.x/6572/7

look at the scores for the 9800 XT @1600x1200. down from 81.9 to 44.8 ? hmm something looks amiss. .. the 9800 XT scores Quake III are very close between the two reviews .. and Wolfie ET is based on the Quake III engine.. so those scores dont make sense to me.
I can see the 5950 scores going up do to drivers + processor change.. but dont see where the 9800XT would drop like that.

at any rate.. I'll figure something out and post the new list up when I get done.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:24 pm

danny, since you asked, I'll answer, but...

I dunno what's going on there, difference-wise, between those two reviews. That's ancient history, pretty much, so it's hard to say why Wolf ET w/8X aniso at 16x12 is so much slower on the 9800 XT in the second review. The biggest differences hardware-wise include varying:

-CPUs
-Motherboards
-Chipset drivers
-Catalyst drivers

In the test configs. Two strong possibilities, given the era, include AGP performance/compatibility issues between the ATI card and the VIA chipset causing a slowdown and the possibility that ATI is cheating less on texture filtering in the latter case.

Another possibility is that I changed the texture size or something when testing the game, although that's not documented in the article and I don't think I have my notes.

It's quite likely both results are valid for how they were tested, for what it's worth. Of course, that highlights an inherent weakness in what you're trying to do with your comparo chart, which is unfortunate but probably unavoidable.

Even if we pulled out all those old cards and tried to test again, getting a really valid comparison would be difficult since feature sets have changed so much. DX9 PS 2.0 cards are running into compatibility problems these days, even if you skip over DX10. And really, no GeForce FX was ever worth much in true DX9 apps. I'm not sure how you quantify "can't do it" vs. "does it X fast."

I would like to include a broader scope of older cards in our GPU reviews, but even that is problematic when today's $200 cards can play games at settings and resolutions that are pretty much unplayable on, say, a GeForce 7800 GTX. You can do it with timedemos and testing resolution scaling to some degree, but teasing out the differences at a single set of quality options at a display res that's playable on older cards and still shows a meaningful performance advantage (i.e., not 100 FPS vs. 250 FPS) is tough.

The comparison easier to do with basic math. Have a look at the texel fill rate and memory bandwidth on a 7800 GTX vs. an 8800 GT.

7800 GTX: 10.3 Gtex/s and 38.4 GB/s
8800 GT: 33.6 Gtex/s and 57.6 GB/s

Even that doesn't account for the advancements shader power and efficiency in the G92, let alone the very noticeable improvements in image quality, mathematical precision, anti-aliasing capabilities, HD video decode assist, or all the rest. Nor does it take into account the two-megapixel buffer-sizing limitations in the 7800 GTX. Newer chips handle higher resolutions much more gracefully than older ones.

So much comes down to what you want to do with the card. If you want to play DX9 games on a smallish monitor and don't care much about image quality, the 7800 GTX may be fine. But if you want to drive a bigger display, play HD movies, try 8X AA, future-proof for when DX10 actually matters, or are picky about image quality, the 8800 GT would be a huge upgrade.

Ok, I'm going to stop now. This comparison thing is hard!
Scott Wasson - "Damage"
Editor - The Tech Report
Damage
TR Staff
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Lee's Summit, Missouri, USA

Postposted on Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:53 pm

Updated the list.
It is much more accurate now.. but naturally not perfect.

I excluded the scores from wolfie for all reviews since it was the only game that i noticed a significant anomaly with.

Price/Performance was updated also... note the HD 2900 XT is no longer the worse buy.. its on sale for 280 from sapphire.
Last edited by danny e. on Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:10 pm

It'd be cool if you updated the list with a few more graphics cards that TR hasn't benchmarked. That might throw the whole system out of whack though...

There's an HD2900GT and an HD2900PRO that I'm most interested in. FiringSquad did a review of the 8800GT that included both of those cards.

The HD2900GT lists for ~$170 on newegg. The HD2900Pro lists for ~$250. Based on performance, the 2900Pro is not likely to be a great deal, considering the 2900XT gets bested easily by the 8800GT, and costs about the same now. The 2900GT though might be a pretty good value...

From what I can see, the main drawback to this method is that the older reviews are based on lower performing systems, so the older scores will make the newer graphics cards look that much better. It becomes more an assessment of the video cards and the system they were run in, which is still pretty accurate.
mongoosesRawesome
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Tom's Hardware has already done this!

Postposted on Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:46 pm

Hopefully you guys already know this (of course you do rite) but Tom's has done a VERY detailed Graphics Card Comparo just like the one they did for CPU's. It's completely interactive and you can compare any card new or old.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html
matnath1
Gerbil Team Leader
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:21 am

Postposted on Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:55 pm

The 7900GT is a die shrink of 7800GTX with faster clock speeds. Therefore it should be placed above the 7800GTX.
i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz / Cooler Master V8 / Asus P8P67 Evo / 8GB G.skill DDR3-1600 / MSI GTX 560 Ti / Seasonic S12-650 / 1TB Spinpoint F3 / Corsair 600T Graphite / those cheap 1440p Korean monitors
BoBzeBuilder
Graphmaster Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:43 pm
Location: Beerland

Re: Tom's Hardware has already done this!

Postposted on Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:35 pm

matdem1 wrote:Hopefully you guys already know this (of course you do rite) but T..
Of course we know and we don't quote stuff from there. A long time ago that place was good for a bit and then it went downhill. Now everybody just loves to make fun of them. :o
Image
The Model M is not for the faint of heart. You either like them or hate them.

Gerbils unite! Fold for UnitedGerbilNation, team 2630.
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 24414
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am

Postposted on Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:31 pm

BoBzeBuilder wrote:The 7900GT is a die shrink of 7800GTX with faster clock speeds. Therefore it should be placed above the 7800GTX.

yeah, unfortunately that is because the 7900GT was in a review later.. and got matched against an ATI card rather than the 7800GTX.
In other words.. the by "fixing" the 7900GT scores.. what will really happen is the 7800GTX scores will drop and everything else will move around a couple of points.

so, to fix that I''ll have to regenerate all the scores again.. at least it shouldnt take as long this time since everything is all in a nice spreadsheet.

Its really almost impossible to avoid a few situations like that..
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:24 pm

You can now add the 8800GTS 640 SSC just above the old 640
Image
"Give me a scotch. I'm starving" ~ Tony Stark
PRIME1
Darth Gerbil
 
Posts: 7561
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 5:07 pm
Location: , location

Postposted on Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:11 am

what about ATI's latest released cards? I cant seem to find them in there . . .
Hallx
Gerbil
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:57 am

Postposted on Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:09 pm

Hallx wrote:what about ATI's latest released cards? I cant seem to find them in there . . .


Give it some time, dude.
no sig
muyuubyou
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3231
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:19 am
Location: London, UK or Tokyo/Yokohama, Japan or Madrid, Spain

Postposted on Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:56 pm

Hallx wrote:what about ATI's latest released cards? I cant seem to find them in there . . .

I'll add them in this weekend & try to fix a few of the other things.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:14 am

updated.

added the new ATI cards and fixed the 7900GT & 7900GTX scores.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:14 pm

updated the price / performance figures due to my annoyance with everyone raising prices.

the prices actually went down on a few cards.. mostly because i am not looking at manufacturers but the lowest price for a product.

HD 2900 XT is nearing its death.. not sure why the price went up from 330 to 400. do they expect to rid of the remaining product that way?
8800 GT OC versions became better buys if you go for the less expensive models. HD 3870 managed to get itself out of the "good buy" category by jumping up $30 in price.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:53 pm

sweet. thanks a lot.

they probably don't have much stock of it left, so newegg's internal price engine raises the prices to keep them from going out of stock.

it'll probably be discontinued soon.
mongoosesRawesome
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Postposted on Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:55 pm

This is nice. Makes me feel real good about ordering an 8800GT from Dell for $225 total even if I haven't got it yet.
Core i7 920, 3x2GB Corsair DDR3 1600, 80GB X25-M, 1TB WD Caviar Black, MSI X58 Pro-E, Radeon 4890, Cooler Master iGreen 600, Antec P183, opticals
SNM
Emperor Gerbilius I
 
Posts: 6206
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:37 am

Postposted on Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:16 pm

The GTS 512 scores below NOT final.. all the other scores are.

Will be updating the chart after TR has crysis scores.
However.. wanted to note here that the scores will again be changing slightly. Here is a preview:

Card............................Performance
8800 GTS512-730MHz............786.2
8800 GTX...........................733.47
8800 GTS512-650MHz............702.0
8800 GT-660MHz..................698.84
8800 GT-600MHz..................601.2
8800 GTS640.......................600.16
HD 3870.............................499.84
HD 2900XT..........................498.25

8800 GTS320.......................481.71
HD 3850.............................394.15

The 8800GT overclocked version will likely remain the best buy on performance/price. However, the 730MHz version of the 8800GTS-512 is finally the undisputed king.

Note these numbers a bit of a hack based on the fact that there are no 730MHz reviews that I could find. The numbers are based on the 12% overclock of the 730 over the GTS 512 numbers. When looking at the GT vs the overclocked GT, the 10% overclock actually turned into a 16% performance gain... so it shouldnt be too far off if the GTS 512 scales about the same.

The GTX scores went down and some of the others went up due to a change in the scores for <a href="http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/13603">TimeShift. </a>

EDIT:
I went ahead and threw the scores in the chart .. will update with the final scores when they're done. I dont think they will be that terribly far off.. and only the two GTS 512MB scores will change.
Last edited by danny e. on Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: AMD (ATI) vs Nvidia performance redux

Postposted on Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:28 pm

updated prices & perf / price
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: AMD (ATI) vs Nvidia performance redux

Postposted on Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:17 pm

updated again.
added the 3870 X2 card.

other changes with the update:
HD 3870: 499.84 ----> 502.04
GTS 512: 702.0 ------> 708.31
GTS 512 OC: 786.2 -----> 793.31 (est)
----------------------------------------------------
3870 X2 compared:
----------------------------
Card.............Performance.........Price
GTS 512.........+20.45%............+45.16%
HD 3870.........+69.94%............+95.65%
---------------------------------------------------
really not too bad for a high-end product. if it wasnt for the size and noise it'd be even more appealing.. but the price of 450 is helpful compared to the old Ultra cards from Nvidia.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: AMD (ATI) vs Nvidia performance redux

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:29 pm

updated with the 9600 GT scores.
---------------------------------
also.. note the OC version of the GT that is on sale with a new all time high price/performance number! wowser.
The HD 3870 price/performance also has improved with the price drops to compete with the 9600GT..

another note is that the "OC" version of the GT is priced below the normal versions.. so the price for that was used for the normal one..
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: AMD (ATI) vs Nvidia performance redux

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Dark red on dark blue is a rough color combination.
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15424
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: AMD (ATI) vs Nvidia performance redux

Postposted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:29 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:Dark red on dark blue is a rough color combination.

you guys and your new fangled color schemes.
changed it to blue.. its slightly easier on the eyes... not perfect but a tad better ?
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Next

Return to Graphics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests