millerhighlife_ said:Funny thing is guys, the human eye can't tell the difference between 27fps or 1000000fps. After like 27+fps the eye is seeing "full motion" and anything other than that is overkill.
ATI probbably could have developed a new card, but were short for time because Nvidia had already been developing their 6 series cards; ATI had to develop their current cards further, because if they had started making a new card they wouldn't have it ready in time. Nvidia didn't have to develop a new card, but ended up doing it anyway, and it proved to be a great successgimpycow said:Not to mention that they did not have to design a card from scratch like NVidia did this generation.
Nubius said:Overall every single time it comes down to who you like best. Don't think I've ever come across someone who's followed the cards closely and chose nvidia sometimes and ATI's other.
Actually I don't favor either. I was nvidia first then went with a 9800pro and now a 6800GT. I wont the performance, not the name brand.
Hmmm. Science says the eye is fooled into seeing full motion in the upper 20fps. (Ex:27+) You can tell the difference between 60 and down ? I could agree but the point I was making is that arguing over nvidia getting 97+ on some game (doom3) and ati getting 89+ on it is just pointless.
millerhighlife_ said:Nubius said:I could agree but the point I was making is that arguing over nvidia getting 97+ on some game (doom3) and ati getting 89+ on it is just pointless.
But in Doom 3, Nvidia gets 80+ while ATI doesn't get higher than the mid 40s on the same settings. This is arguable.