March 21, 200619 yr Author aidsfeast said: What the fuck are you talking about? Are you incapable of reading? I say: 4 cards is a waste because its 2000 dollars for a maybe 40% boost in performance. Again the wasted money is why it's stupid, not the performance. I have no problem with any set amount of performance, but when it comes down to it costing a ridiculous amount of money, I find it silly. In summary, if you can't figure it out. I like a 40% gain in performance: I don't see the point in releasing a 4 card set to do it. Nvidia sees it as a way to get more money from the geek with a massive wallet group. Again: I like performance. I just don't like exponential price increases to get said performance. If you don't understand look at what the price structures have become today. A ti4600 brand new was 400 dollars. Top of the line card for it's time. Today you would need to spend well over 2000 dollars on video cards to get the 'top of the line' performance. This is ridiculous. That is what I am saying is silly.It's a 400% increase in performance you moron, times the 1000% increase from the nvidia physics engine havingfun said: Thats tight and all to have the SUPER KING KAMA TO THE MAX x100 COMPUTER, but having 4 video cards is fucking stupid. The things are fucking long as hell, and they probably generate a shitload of heat. Plus they are all like right next to each other, so one video card is going to be blowing heat to the other card and so on. Just wait like 6 months, and they will have some new Nvidia 9000GTX that will be the same as all 4 of those.The fans TAKE IN air from the top of the card, blow it onto the gpu's, and back out the back of the computer
March 21, 200619 yr aidsfeast said: What the fuck are you talking about? Are you incapable of reading? I say: 4 cards is a waste because its 2000 dollars for a maybe 40% boost in performance. Again the wasted money is why it's stupid, not the performance. I have no problem with any set amount of performance, but when it comes down to it costing a ridiculous amount of money, I find it silly. In summary, if you can't figure it out. I like a 40% gain in performance: I don't see the point in releasing a 4 card set to do it. Nvidia sees it as a way to get more money from the geek with a massive wallet group. Again: I like performance. I just don't like exponential price increases to get said performance. If you don't understand look at what the price structures have become today. A ti4600 brand new was 400 dollars. Top of the line card for it's time. Today you would need to spend well over 2000 dollars on video cards to get the 'top of the line' performance. This is ridiculous. That is what I am saying is silly. No, you don't understand. There was a time when one gig of RAM or a 700mHz processor cost more than buying 2 512s or 2 350s. The price hike is needed to cover R&D and then the price comes down and it becomes mainstream. Are you an idiot?
March 21, 200619 yr Quote v0dka'] The fans TAKE IN air from the top of the card, blow it onto the gpu's, and back out the back of the computer That is still blowing it onto the GPU, therefore, making my penis bigger.
March 21, 200619 yr I'd just like to say that my ATi Radeon 9800 PRO is working just fine. I get decent FPS on every single game I own on high detail (This inclues FEAR and CS:S) I dont know what the fuck you guys are yammering on about but I think that all this hype over just one simple card is plain stupid. It won't be long before another card comes out from ATi and all of the ATi freaks will be yelling owned at the NVidea freaks. Cant we all just get along?
March 21, 200619 yr Author havingfun said: That is still blowing it onto the GPU, therefore, making my penis bigger.its blowing cool air onto the gpu. Thats how you cool things. Tomtheman70 said: I'd just like to say that my ATi Radeon 9800 PRO is working just fine. I get decent FPS on every single game I own on high detail (This inclues FEAR and CS:S) 60fps on high settings with 4x antialiasing in fear on a 9600?
March 21, 200619 yr Quote v0dka']60fps on high settings with 4x antialiasing in fear on a 9600? Can you read? 9800 PRO. and in FEAR sometimes in really dense areas it'll chop up a bit. and no, not on 4x anti-aliasing. I'm not on my computer but I'll report back my settings when I am. I know they're not the 'Ultimate' but they're on high, I believe.
March 21, 200619 yr Spaghetti-Os said: Corrected: Nividia blows. Everyone like's Nividia because you all want to be conformist and worship some lame "PRO" counter-strike player. ATI for life. I Agree with you how unfortunate,it's also unfortunate that the only way you can feel empowered is to have a swastika as your sig. Simple people will do simple things,rifk.
March 21, 200619 yr Quote KarmaPolice']I Agree with you how unfortunate,it's also unfortunate that the only way you can feel empowered is to have a swastika as your sig. Simple people will do simple things,rifk. I love your blackness.
March 21, 200619 yr Partisan said: at the beginning of this year i started saving money i'll save money till 2007 and buy all the newest stuff so everyone can suck my balls -.- suck cock plz
March 21, 200619 yr Quote Originally Posted by Spaghetti-Os Corrected: Nividia blows. Everyone like's Nividia because you all want to be conformist and worship some lame "PRO" counter-strike player. ATI for life. wowowz. Simple statistics show nVidia to be better hardware. There's no fanboy-ness about it. I do agree with some that the money is not worth it. For $600 i built a rig that ran FEAR at 42 FPS @ 1024x768 and most settings on high. Theres no reason to dump 3-4 grand into a rig. Just stay behind the curve a little. (yes, I am a broke college student, I am poor, thank you very much).
March 21, 200619 yr Fucking dumbass negros. GPU's get re-developed every 6-8 fucking months. It's fucking pointless to think that putting 4 of them in SLI means jack shit for the future. It's nothing at all close to the idea of "too much ram", etc... It's been done. It's a waste of time. It's gay. How many people bought a Voodoo 4 5500 (2 Voodoo 4's) from 3dfx? Remember the Voodoo 4 6000? 4 Voodoo 4's on a single board? Ever wonder why it didn't take off? TOO MUCH FUCKING MONEY VS. INCREMENTAL PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE. Same here, negros.
March 21, 200619 yr FattyMcButterPants said: wowowz. Simple statistics show nVidia to be better hardware. There's no fanboy-ness about it. I do agree with some that the money is not worth it. For $600 i built a rig that ran FEAR at 42 FPS @ 1024x768 and most settings on high. Theres no reason to dump 3-4 grand into a rig. Just stay behind the curve a little. (yes, I am a broke college student, I am poor, thank you very much). Wrong, ***got. Nvidia has been exposed time and time again for cheating in their drivers (detecting popular FPS tests and occluding anything drawn that gets covered up, for instance). They were exposed on this bigtime and still fucking do it. They also take very ridiculous liberties with image quality and cut corners on AA and AF. I hate their guts for cheating like ***gots.
March 21, 200619 yr Quote Wrong, ***got. Nvidia has been exposed time and time again for cheating in their drivers (detecting popular FPS tests and occluding anything drawn that gets covered up, for instance). They were exposed on this bigtime and still fucking do it. They also take very ridiculous liberties with image quality and cut corners on AA and AF. I hate their guts for cheating like ***gots. ??????cheating in their drivers?????? http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0001CSBUS.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg IS THIS THE RIGHT GAME?
March 21, 200619 yr Actually, I dont support nVidia for any reason, im simply stating facts, nVidia is better then ATi. I used to have an ATi card which sucked and my friend has 9800 pro and it isnt all that great. Also, i read that a lot of ATi cards have compatability problems with certain software etc and unless youre spending a lot of cash you can only get okish ATi cards, or just get a better nVidia for same price, whichever floats your boat. Dont take my word for it though.
March 21, 200619 yr Quote v0dka']It's a 400% increase in performance you moron, times the 1000% increase from the nvidia physics engine Uhhh, no. SLI with two cards does not provide a 100% increase on it's own, and adding 2 more would not give you a 300% gain in performance. Don't believe me? Look at the benchmarks. 20%-50% is the average for 2 card sli. I haven't seen any real reviews with benchmarks on these cards, but I have doubts that they will change the path of reality. Just like in the server world, when you add 2 more CPUs to a rack, you don't gain a 200% gain in power. On a good day you would get 160%. In a lot of programs, a lot less. There are inefficiencies in the bussing system, like it or not. (You really should check those numbers, a 400% gain in performance should give 5x the origonal numbers and a 1000% increase should give 11x) I don't recall reading where you needed quad sli to use the physics engine, so I'm not bitching about that. If it works with atleast the higher nvidia cards, I have no complaints. Quote ??????cheating in their drivers?????? Nvidia got caught cheating in The 3Dmark programs during the 5900 series of cards. Since then all drivers have to be futuremark approved to receive an official score. Quote No, you don't understand. There was a time when one gig of RAM or a 700mHz processor cost more than buying 2 512s or 2 350s. The price hike is needed to cover R&D and then the price comes down and it becomes mainstream. Are you an idiot? And the people who bought it for those prices are morons. Do I understand that developing quad sli is expensive? Of course. I think the entire concept is stupid, and the need for it to be mainstream is nonexistant. SLI will always be a cost prohibitive technology, as there is no price advantage to the consumer. Two cheaper cards will never beat the 1 super expensive card, and the 2 super expensive cards will always be cost prohibitive. The only people it benefits are the sellers. So let me state again: I have no problem with more RAM. I have no problem with more Mhz. I have a problem with selling things for ridiculous amounts of money. 700 mhz costs a lot when it was higher on the pricing bracket. When it's the most powerful, you can get away with selling at 500 dollars. However, the thing I'm complaining about is the continuous raising of the pricing bracket. At one time, video cards topped out at 400 dollars. 2 years later, 600 became common. Then came sli and 1000 was acceptable. Now we have entered quad sli and 2000 is about to become acceptable. It doesn't cost 2000 dollars for R&D on sli. SLI is a proven concept, well over 5 years old. Reality is, it gives Nvidia e-peen points, and a way to gouge customers wallets. Technology like the physics engine are great. It's a value added idea, and costs me nothing, beyond the price of the card. The only thing I have been railing against is me having to spend more money for the same boost in technology. I have nothing against the boost, only the price increase. Why I complain is it's not just the high end cards, it's the lower end cards. A decent midrange card today is 300, up from 150-200 2 or so years ago. This will only allow for this to increase. Talking about your analogy again. Imagine if a 1ghz PIII was the top end. Let's say it cost 500 dollars. Now 2 months later, Intel comes out with the 1.13 (and let's pretend the actual problems with this model never happened). Instead of taking the top spot of the bracket, it costs 600 dollars. They leave the rest of the bracket unchanged, no matter what. Another 2 months later, they add the 1.26. This now costs 700 dollars, and again there is no drop in the price. This is what is happening in the video card market, and this is what I'm complaining about. ^Bio^ said: Actually, I dont support nVidia for any reason, im simply stating facts, nVidia is better then ATi. I used to have an ATi card which sucked and my friend has 9800 pro and it isnt all that great. Also, i read that a lot of ATi cards have compatability problems with certain software etc and unless youre spending a lot of cash you can only get okish ATi cards, or just get a better nVidia for same price, whichever floats your boat. Dont take my word for it though. I've had cards from both, and honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. The 9800 pro was great for it's time, but that was years ago. As for software problems, I have heard of a few driver issues, and under linux ATi is absolutely dog shit, but the vast majority of the cards are fine. As for the comment about nVidia cards being better than ATi for the price, well to be honest that has gone back and forth. At times nvidia has the better bang for the buck, ati at others. The general trend over the last few years has just been to screw you over in general.
March 21, 200619 yr havingfun said: I love your blackness. Its sad... i sat here & thought & thought but there really isnt anything to love about you :thinker:
March 22, 200619 yr aidsfeast said: And the people who bought it for those prices are morons. Do I understand that developing quad sli is expensive? Of course. I think the entire concept is stupid, and the need for it to be mainstream is nonexistant. SLI will always be a cost prohibitive technology, as there is no price advantage to the consumer. Two cheaper cards will never beat the 1 super expensive card, and the 2 super expensive cards will always be cost prohibitive. The only people it benefits are the sellers. If there is a supply, price will adjust until demand is met. The sellers know that some idiots will initially pay $900000 for these cards. They also know that market forces will force their price down in the end until they are unwilling to sell for less. Why not take the idiots' money while the taking is good? I fail to see the problem. aidsfeast said: So let me state again: I have no problem with more RAM. I have no problem with more Mhz. I have a problem with selling things for ridiculous amounts of money. 700 mhz costs a lot when it was higher on the pricing bracket. When it's the most powerful, you can get away with selling at 500 dollars. However, the thing I'm complaining about is the continuous raising of the pricing bracket. At one time, video cards topped out at 400 dollars. 2 years later, 600 became common. Then came sli and 1000 was acceptable. Now we have entered quad sli and 2000 is about to become acceptable. It doesn't cost 2000 dollars for R&D on sli. SLI is a proven concept, well over 5 years old. Reality is, it gives Nvidia e-peen points, and a way to gouge customers wallets. If it takes 4 $600 cards to create one quad SLI, how is $2000 not an acceptable price? Economic theory tells us that prices will always increase unless money supply is conitnually contracted. The increasing price on these parts is in line with the rest of the economy's price level. What, exactly, is the problem? aidsfeast said: Technology like the physics engine are great. It's a value added idea, and costs me nothing, beyond the price of the card. The only thing I have been railing against is me having to spend more money for the same boost in technology. I have nothing against the boost, only the price increase. Why I complain is it's not just the high end cards, it's the lower end cards. A decent midrange card today is 300, up from 150-200 2 or so years ago. This will only allow for this to increase. If you think the physics engine won't cost you more then you are sadly mistaken. This is probably where most of the R&D price increases will come from. aidsfeast said: Talking about your analogy again. Imagine if a 1ghz PIII was the top end. Let's say it cost 500 dollars. Now 2 months later, Intel comes out with the 1.13 (and let's pretend the actual problems with this model never happened). Instead of taking the top spot of the bracket, it costs 600 dollars. They leave the rest of the bracket unchanged, no matter what. Another 2 months later, they add the 1.26. This now costs 700 dollars, and again there is no drop in the price. This is what is happening in the video card market, and this is what I'm complaining about. The 1.13 costs more to manufacture than the 1. Price increase is acceptable. Your idea of sticky prices is unrealistic in the long-term. Over the short period you're looking at (4 months), prices will probably drop on the 1GHz model by $50 as demand decreases. Nothing is out of line here except you bitching about being dumb enough to pay $500 then $600 then $700 because you're an idiot and need to be some OMFG AMAZING TOP OF THE LINE computer user. What your entire argument comes down to is: WAH WAH BIG BUSINESS IS SCREWING US OVER, FIGHT THE MAN!
March 22, 200619 yr Forgive me if i repeat anyone, i couldnt be arsed to sift through the shite most of you are talking... 2 GPUs on 1 card was done by ATI in late 90s Quote Nividia blows. Everyone like's Nividia because you all want to be conformist and worship some lame "PRO" counter-strike player. HL2 engine was optimised for ATI fgt Quote Who here needs more than 256mb of RAM? Anyone who opens a 3d app Quote Just wait like 6 months, and they will have some new Nvidia 9000GTX that will be the same as all 4 of those. Thats nice, then 6 months later it will be the same case again dumbass Quote 'd just like to say that my ATi Radeon 9800 PRO is working just fine. I get decent FPS on every single game I own on high detail High detail in 640 X 480 doesnt count... </corrections> </rage>
March 22, 200619 yr Tomtheman70 said: I'd just like to say that my ATi Radeon 9800 PRO is working just fine. I get decent FPS on every single game I own on high detail (This inclues FEAR and CS:S) I dont know what the fuck you guys are yammering on about but I think that all this hype over just one simple card is plain stupid. It won't be long before another card comes out from ATi and all of the ATi freaks will be yelling owned at the NVidea freaks. Cant we all just get along? Amen :naughtyd:
March 22, 200619 yr Quote KarmaPolice']Its sad... i sat here & thought & thought but there really isnt anything to love about you :thinker: Thanks:gaykeke:
March 22, 200619 yr the_answer said: Amen :naughtyd: Speaking of which: http://www.biosmagazine.co.uk/article.php?id=3069 ATi just one upped NVidea. So? Who cares? Just get the card that fits you best, whether it be ATi or NVidea.
March 22, 200619 yr Didn't read the whole thread, so idk if someone mentioned this before. The CPU can't even follow with a quad-SLI setup like that. So there's no real performance boost in the SLI setup.
March 22, 200619 yr nvida is so much better,this year when building my dream box i kicked around the thought of ati,it lasted about 2 seconds then i lol and installed the 7800.
