Esquilax said,

"if you want 10 FPS in every game"

did i mention anywhere that I wanted it for gaming? no, you're assuming again, and like i told you once before, please do not assume, it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me"

Stuff it. I'm gonna wait until summer and then I'm just gonna buy what I think is best at that point and forget about next-gen bs. If what I put together will support the games I like, then who cares.....

well done, Ed. you do what suits you best!

Taw - I didn't assume anything. I simply stated that it has exceedingly poor games performance. I think that "u" are the one who is assuming too much .

I agree; that's the best thing to do Indy.

not designed for gaming, are they? I want it for video and still work. and i don't think they're q as crud on gaming as you make out.

I dunno Taw. Just looking at the specs, I reckon your Raddy would run rings around this thing in the 3D dept. It doesn't look like it supports DX9 either, well not that I can see anyway. Looks like a kick arse desktop number though, but I wouldn't want to risk spending money on it for my home machine.

Who said anything about Taw spending any money?

Taw/Mustang - In comparison to cards like "old" the Radeon 9500 Pro, the Parhelia has abysmally poor performance. Would you like me to illustrate this? Of course you would! Here are some benchmarks from THG. I always take what they say with a large grain of salt, but I have seen simliar benchmarks elsewhere. According to THG, the Parhelia is 35 FPS slower than the 9500 Pro in UT2003. This is with AA and AF enabled, but the reults are simliar without AA and AF.

Indy - No-one, but Taw is funded by the "Tawakalnian People's Treasury", so he has money to burn .

Edit: There is a very interesting debate over at FiringSquad about the NV40 Vs. the R420. It's a good read, check it out.

Edited by - esquilax on 5/9/2004 5:28:21 PM

Note Mustang's critique.

All I can say is that the debate proves to me that either is likely a good buy so it will be more a matter how much room I'm gonna have inside. Most likely go with a nicely discounted 9800XT when the time is ripe.

Well, the NV40 has an enormous heat sink, and it blocks one whole PCI (or PCI-Express ) slot, so if it's room you want, the X800 is for you.

Ah. Yes. Well, I am under medication now Esqy. Am able to think more clearly about things. Have decided to see what can be down with deeply discounted bits of the latest in this gen technology rather than horse around with all this stuff that has yet to appear in debugged form. BUT prolly will go with an AMD 64. Haven't used a non-Intel cpu since I had a Cyrix way back in pre Pentium days.

Not likely that I'm going to be playing HL2 or Doom so what's the rush eh? While not situated as ideally as Jal, I am able to plunk some change down now and then if need be so If I am desperate for those hotrods I can get one of them later and presumably at a more reasonable price.

All sounds good. PS 3.0 is a waste of time anyway. I've tested in myself; there's no difference!

Actually, I didn't notice before but the X800 core speed is 100mHz / 25% faster than the 6800. You would think that the ATI would have measurable advantage across the board at something near proximate proportion but it doesn't and it loses in some categories and, apart from HL2, it doesn't trounce the 6800.

On the other hand, running at 500mHz , you'd think that the X800 would have a monster size and fan but it doesn't.

Indeed. Still, ATI seems far better at cooling that nV, but that could be because of the fact that they keep usiong DDR-1, and a larger nm process.

Edit: There is an article up at Gamespot that states the nV are reducing the power consumption of the 6800. I guess people complained about needing new PSUs .

Oh yeah, and Doom 3 has officially been slated for release "this summer". I can provide a link if anyone wants one.

Edited by - esquilax on 5/11/2004 4:16:53 PM