Has anyone else read this article?

[petmoi]

What article?

[abie1]

This one.


http://www.animationartist.com/2004/01_jan/news/ati0111.htm

http://sv2.3dbuzz.com/index_sv.php

[imashination]

Originally posted by abie1
Has anyone else read this article? Tell me what you think. Is ATI serious or is this just another futile attempt to match Nvidia's QuadroFX 3000 Card.

Well what were expecting ATI to do, sit down and knit wooly socks?

In other news today, mcdonalds released a new quadruple burger in a futile attempt to match burgerking, and apple released their new OSX 10.3.1.2.3.1 in a futile attempt to match Amiga workbench. Stay tuned for more groundbreaking news.

[CgFX]

Based on our testing, Viewperf, and SPECapc results it comes out a hair slower than a Quadro FX 1100 and is more expensive.

[dvornik]

Originally posted by CgFX
Based on our testing, Viewperf, and SPECapc results it comes out a hair slower than a Quadro FX 1100 and is more expensive.

Which SPECapc?

[t-man152]

Originally posted by CgFX
Based on our testing, Viewperf, and SPECapc results it comes out a hair slower than a Quadro FX 1100 and is more expensive.

LOL I could have sworn I read "outperforms video cards that are twice it's cost" LOL

[CgFX]

Originally posted by dvornik
Which SPECapc?
Are you refering to the fact that the X2 isn't listed in the various stand alone SPECapc results on spec.org?

The application specific tests in Viewperf are related to the SPECapc tests so 3dsmax and Pro/E.

You can run the SPECapc tests yourself, assuming you have the app. We have UG. With a newer NV driver the SPECapc UG tests we ran showed the 1100 being a hair faster than the evail X2.

[CgFX]

Originally posted by t-man152
LOL I could have sworn I read "outperforms video cards that are twice it's cost" LOL
They are talking about the one Data Explorer (DX) component of Viewperf which I don't think could be any older or more meaningless. The results of the DX portion of viewperf have had little correlation to what we see with our key aps (maya, UG, CATIA, in-house viewer).

IMHO that portion of Viewperf needs replaced pretty badly. It does provide support for the newly released OS/2 from IBM and Microsoft though. :-)

http://www.spec.org/gpc/opc.static/dx08.html

[dvornik]

Originally posted by CgFX
Are you refering to the fact that the X2 isn't listed in the various stand alone SPECapc results on spec.org?

I'm not referring to anything. I'm just asking which tests you've ran. I'm mostly interested in max and maya SPECapc results, but I'd like to see other results as well. OK, in Unigraphics specapc it's a bit slower than a 1100.

So, are you talking about the 3ds max part of the Specviewperf or to the actual specapc for max 4.2?

[CgFX]

Originally posted by dvornik
So, are you talking about the 3ds max part of the Specviewperf or to the actual specapc for max 4.2?
I was talking about the viewperf component since nobody has bothered to post (slower) scores of the X2 in the SPECapc section. This is part of the problem with SPEC since you can pull slower numbers or never post them in the public area if they don't win.

Normally these two benchmarks are the same thing and they are still using nearly the same data set. However the viewperf compoent is still using the SPECapc 3dsmax benchmark that ran under 3dsmax 3.1 at this point. I imagine they will be back to being the same for 3dsmax-03 as part of a viewperf update.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.