Asus V9950 Gamers Edition and Forceware----->Do they cut corners?

Callandor · Oct 17, 2004, 01:24 PM

Ah... yes, the [color=lime]Asus A9950 GE[/color]. A good card? Isn't it? It's bench mark scores look good, its reviews look good ([color=sandybrown]well at least most of them[/color]) and heck, even its heat sinks look good. But bewware, those who plan on waltzing out and buying it right now........

Apparently, [color=yellow]the V9950 GE scores really well on all tests,[/color] even managing 44fps in Far Cry with full scene AA and AS filtering turned off, a tremendous achievement indeed for a card in its price range. But alas, all is not well when it comes to the gamers eyes.....

In a game, the card appears to handle everthing well, but when playing the [color=red]Doom_3 leaked beta version[/color], looking at a transparent surface, i was appaled to see a series of [color=slategray]grey lines [/color]in different shades amongst what was supposed to be "transparent glass".

It has long been speculated that the force ware driver used [color=darkorange]''cuts corners'' [/color]so to speak leading to high fps rates and benchmark scores [color=deepskyblue]but low actual yield in performance and quality. [/color]I am a keen supporter of asus(seeing as i own an asus MB & hav owned a [color=magenta]V3800M[/color] back in the past), but i feel they should do something about this.

I suspect what actually happens is this. Say the card is to display some bark on a tree. If the bark is made up of say, 8 different textures, the card only [color=lime]loads 4 and multiplies this by 2[/color], so allowing the card to quickly process graphical data & hence score hi points in benchmarks.

[color=yellow]How ever so sad...............[/color]

Tests

I was inspired to do my own tests by the NAG June 2003 issue as i could not believe their scores and since i had a pal with the card in ques. i thought "why not see for yourself?" So i went and did it.

My tests were all run on a friends rig[color=yellowgreen](holocast_cripple)[/color] whose specs are:- P4 3.1Ghz 512KB, Gigabyte GA-8SG800 m.b.,Asus V9950 GE ,TwinMOS DDR 266, Fireball 120GB hdd

3dmark 03@1024X768 and with no FSAA = 5231marks
3dmark 03@1024X768 with 4pass FSAA = 3628marks

Aquamark3@1024X768 = 37056points

The above figures indicate that the most graphically demanding games should be able to run on this card no sweat, which isnt the case. I played X2 threat in benchmark mode, and this is what i found....

X2Threat with FSAA off=55.62fps
X2Threat with FSAA on =51.21fps

These are good scores, but unfourtunately, i was able to see the game ran alot less smoother than the figures, just like NAG's Russell Bennett noted. I agree with him and advise all who need a card and are on a thight budget, just save up and get a better one.
Though i do hear there is a patch you can download to counteract these effects, it will no doubt make your card run slower.

Oct 17, 2004, 01:24 PM	#1
Callandor Forged on Dragonmount Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 7,250 Rep Power: 304 System Specs	Asus V9950 Gamers Edition and Forceware----->Do they cut corners? Ah... yes, the [color=lime]Asus A9950 GE[/color]. A good card? Isn't it? It's bench mark scores look good, its reviews look good ([color=sandybrown]well at least most of them[/color]) and heck, even its heat sinks look good. But bewware, those who plan on waltzing out and buying it right now........ Apparently, [color=yellow]the V9950 GE scores really well on all tests,[/color] even managing 44fps in Far Cry with full scene AA and AS filtering turned off, a tremendous achievement indeed for a card in its price range. But alas, all is not well when it comes to the gamers eyes..... In a game, the card appears to handle everthing well, but when playing the [color=red]Doom_3 leaked beta version[/color], looking at a transparent surface, i was appaled to see a series of [color=slategray]grey lines [/color]in different shades amongst what was supposed to be "transparent glass". It has long been speculated that the force ware driver used [color=darkorange]''cuts corners'' [/color]so to speak leading to high fps rates and benchmark scores [color=deepskyblue]but low actual yield in performance and quality. [/color]I am a keen supporter of asus(seeing as i own an asus MB & hav owned a [color=magenta]V3800M[/color] back in the past), but i feel they should do something about this. I suspect what actually happens is this. Say the card is to display some bark on a tree. If the bark is made up of say, 8 different textures, the card only [color=lime]loads 4 and multiplies this by 2[/color], so allowing the card to quickly process graphical data & hence score hi points in benchmarks. [color=yellow]How ever so sad...............[/color] Tests I was inspired to do my own tests by the NAG June 2003 issue as i could not believe their scores and since i had a pal with the card in ques. i thought "why not see for yourself?" So i went and did it. My tests were all run on a friends rig[color=yellowgreen](holocast_cripple)[/color] whose specs are:- P4 3.1Ghz 512KB, Gigabyte GA-8SG800 m.b.,Asus V9950 GE ,TwinMOS DDR 266, Fireball 120GB hdd 3dmark 03@1024X768 and with no FSAA = 5231marks 3dmark 03@1024X768 with 4pass FSAA = 3628marks Aquamark3@1024X768 = 37056points The above figures indicate that the most graphically demanding games should be able to run on this card no sweat, which isnt the case. I played X2 threat in benchmark mode, and this is what i found.... X2Threat with FSAA off=55.62fps X2Threat with FSAA on =51.21fps These are good scores, but unfourtunately, i was able to see the game ran alot less smoother than the figures, just like NAG's Russell Bennett noted. I agree with him and advise all who need a card and are on a thight budget, just save up and get a better one. Though i do hear there is a patch you can download to counteract these effects, it will no doubt make your card run slower. __________________