Upgraded from an nvidia gtx 285 to gtx 570sc

[smackjack22]

How about YOU explain to me, why my new i7 @ 1.7 GHz (~2000 MIPS per 100% load per core -> ~12000 MIPS for 600% load) is twice as fast than my old P4 @ 2GHz (~1000 MIPS per 100% load -> ~500 MIPS for 50% load) even though my P4 is clearly "faster" by 300 MHz?


Does that explain it better?
Does this explanation seem less arrogant?

I do hope so...
[/quote]

what the hell does that statement have to do with better hardware wouldn't be better for dolphin in situations?Your comparing an i7 to a p4? Ok.................I'v been gaming on the pc at 2560x1600 since 2007 and overclocking my parts to there fastest ability since than.You have no benchmarks to prove that a better gpu will not be better in situations so stop preaching Old dumb one

[Nolonar]

(01-30-2011, 04:03 AM)smackjack22 Wrote: You have no benchmarks to prove that a better gpu will not be better in situations so stop preaching Old dumb one

Okay, you win.

Next time you play Age of Empire on an old P3 with TNT GPU, why don't you try switching the TNT with a Geforce 580GTX and tell me about the improvements in FPS? I'd be curious about how much more FPS you'd manage to achieve that way...

Okay, enough of this crap. Do you have any idea, what the GPU does?
The GPU simply waits for input comming from the CPU, computes them and directs the results to the screen.
It is the CPU that decides, when data is meant for the GPU, not the other way round.

It is the CPU that has the greatest impact in most cases.
If your CPU can't filter the graphics data fast enough to redirect them to your GPU, then you could have a Geforce 99999 OMGWTFBBQ series, you wouldn't get better FPS than an "old" 285 GTX.

Do you need proof?
When I was still using my old computer with P4 CPU, I had a lousy Radeon 9550.
At that time I was like you, I had no idea.
I thought buying a new GPU would help me achieve better FPS rate in World of Warcraft, so I went and bought a Radeon X1950 Pro for 200$ and guess what?
My FPS rate skyrocketed from lousy 16-24 FPS to AMAZING 18-26 FPS!

But go ahead, don't listen to me... You just had the same painful experience as I had, yet I learned from it and you didn't.


"I can only show you the door, Neo... You're the one who will have to cross it!"

---

(01-27-2011, 02:03 PM)wetjet Wrote: Absolutely no increase in performance playing metroid other m. My video card is yawning a lot more though

Sorry for the double post, I thought I should quote this one...

Look at the underlined part: Why did you upgrade your GPU, if you already knew your old one was "yawning"?
This is no rethorical question, I really want to know your answer to that!

[NaturalViolence]

Quote:About your "bigger = better" mentality:
Did you know, that Nvidia graphics have always been more powerful than comparable ATI graphics?
Can you imagine why ATI yet remained competitive?

This is not true at all. Their was a period of time when ati had faster cards but nvidia was still doing better thanks to ATIs shitty drivers and lack of ps3.0 support. ATI has usually remained competitive through low prices.

Quote:Did you know, that the Intel P4 have always been "faster" than their AMD counterparts (in GHz)?
Yet why did most gamers choose AMD over Intel?

First of all most gamers have always chosen intel.. That is a fact. AMD has never managed to reach >20% market share in anything except for servers and with no particular group of people, including gamers. Steam statistics can easily prove this.

Second of all they were vastly different architectures. Clock rate does not equal performance. Athlon 64 was better than pentium 4 presscot in every way except clock rate, including performance with most forms of math and most types of applications.

Quote:While Nvidia chose the "path of power", ATI took the "path of efficiency" improving their AA and AF filters, adding features to reduce the GPU's strain (like not drawing Pixels, if they'd end up behind other Pixels) and a lot more (including power consumption)

WHAT!?!? Historically nvidia has always had the superior AA and AF filters. Not to mention many of the efficiency breakthroughs like decoupling coverage sampling from stenciling/depth sampling in MSAA, as well as MSAA itself were made by nvidia. Nvidia cards didn't start becomming inefficient in terms power consumption/heat vs. game performance until recently. And that's only because of the additional logic overhead from implementing better logic for special function math, tesselation, programmable pipelines, opencl/directcompute performance.

Quote:(like not drawing Pixels, if they'd end up behind other Pixels

That doesn't make any sense. What you meant to say was something like "like removing any vertex that belong to an object occluded from the camera's viewport by another object" a technique called object occlusion culling. This was implemented by game developers long before any hardware support for it was added. And if memory serves nvidia was first to add driver/hardware level support for this.

Quote:For Intel it was simply a question of architecture.
It's the same reason as to why an i7 @ 3GHz is almost always better, than an i5 or i3 or C2Q @ 3GHz. They're all (almost) equally powerful, but definitely not equally built.
How about YOU explain to me, why my new i7 @ 1.7 GHz (~2000 MIPS per 100% load per core -> ~12000 MIPS for 600% load) is twice as fast than my old P4 @ 2GHz (~1000 MIPS per 100% load -> ~500 MIPS for 50% load) even though my P4 is clearly "faster" by 300 MHz?

*facepalm*

They are totally different architectures full of improvements. Clock rate can only be used to compare the performance of the same chip. I won't even bother listing the dozens maybe hundreds of improvements made since P4.

I believe what you're trying to explain to smackjack22 is simply that a better gpu will not improve performance if the cpu is bottlenecking it. But for some reason you're going through all of these hoops and metaphors to try and get that simple fact across instead of just saying it. I'm not completely sure but I think smackjack22 already understands this concept anyways.

[Ocean]

Why do dumb teens always turn everything into a fanboy war.

If you want value buy a 6950 and flash it to a 6970. It will beat even 570 in some apps.

If you need horsepower for CUDA apps or want physX support buy a 460, 560, 580 or whatever.
As long as you factor in price, there is no "better". Only performance matters.

AMD is not "better". Nvidia is not "better". Those statements are ridiculous.

p.s. if you want dolphin performance, upgrade your processor, not the gpu

[NaturalViolence]

For the record I don't think nvidia is "better" I was simply correcting/making sense of nolonars statements.

[tuanming]

I checked the pc games benchmarks and the fps between the hd 6950 and 6970 on average is about 8-10 fps apart at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 resolution. Also, in some games it even beat the gtx 570. If the hd 6950 is overclocked, it will reached the performance of the hd 6970 and even beat it! My MSi r6950 Twin Frozr II will be at my door on Wednesday of next week. Based on Dolphin bench, it seems to favor AMD GPUs more than Nvidia.

[Nolonar]

(01-30-2011, 08:48 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: I believe what you're trying to explain to smackjack22 is simply that a better gpu will not improve performance if the cpu is bottlenecking it. But for some reason you're going through all of these hoops and metaphors to try and get that simple fact across instead of just saying it.

I was just commenting about his belief, that high values = good performances. Which is why I chose to mention CPUs of different architectures, to show how wrong he was.
Of course I know why an i7 is faster than any Pentium and I also believe that smackjack22 knows as well. However, he seemed so fixed with the idea (or maybe I didn't understand him myself) that something "fast" must also be "good", which is wrong.



As for the bottlenecks... Somehow I believe that he has no idea what that means... Or maybe I'm just mistaken. Communication over the internet can be confusing at times, you know?

[tuanming]

Faster is always good, as long as nothing is bottlenecking it.

[Squall Leonhart]

(01-30-2011, 09:17 AM)Ocean Wrote: Why do dumb teens always turn everything into a fanboy war.

If you want value buy a 6950 and flash it to a 6970. It will beat even 570 in some apps.

none that matter

Quote:AMD is not "better". Nvidia is not "better". Those statements are ridiculous.

nvidia is better. 3DFX is best.

[ExtremeDude2]

(01-30-2011, 04:03 AM)smackjack22 Wrote: How about YOU explain to me, why my new i7 @ 1.7 GHz (~2000 MIPS per 100% load per core -> ~12000 MIPS for 600% load) is twice as fast than my old P4 @ 2GHz (~1000 MIPS per 100% load -> ~500 MIPS for 50% load) even though my P4 is clearly "faster" by 300 MHz?

i7 has more cores and turbo boost