current GPU comparison table

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Does anyone have a link to a current GPU comparison table with all stats (core bit depth, clock speed, fill rate, memory--bandwidth, bit depth, clock speed, etc--, etc? So many sites seem to only have a few tables here and there, but nothing with even current GPUs (say, FX and Radeon 96+xx series).

I'm trying to create a table myself from various manufacturer/review sites, but it's a pain and the numbers are inconsistent. I can't even find core stats of Radeons on ATI's site! And nVidia's stats aren't complete (not all FX models listed, etc).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Eep²" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:4080BBBE.DF0EC108@spam.com...
> I'm trying to create a table myself from various manufacturer/review
sites, but it's a pain and the numbers are inconsistent. I can't even find
core stats of Radeons on ATI's site! And nVidia's stats aren't complete (not
all FX models listed, etc).

Just keep in mind there's far more to graphics card performance than the
raw numbers of a card. Very often a card's performance has little to do
with hardware, and alot to do with the drivers. For instance, despite all
the "problems" NVidia has had with the GeForce FX 5xxx series, they have
still managed to be competitive with ATI because of driver support.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Doh! Typed too soon...just found http://tech-report.com/etc/comparo/graphics/

Odd that it's not a common (and quite noticebale) thing on all the hardware sites since these stats are vital to understanding how GPUs compare...

Eep² wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a link to a current GPU comparison table with all stats (core bit depth, clock speed, fill rate, memory--bandwidth, bit depth, clock speed, etc--, etc? So many sites seem to only have a few tables here and there, but nothing with even current GPUs (say, FX and Radeon 96+xx series).
>
> I'm trying to create a table myself from various manufacturer/review sites, but it's a pain and the numbers are inconsistent. I can't even find core stats of Radeons on ATI's site! And nVidia's stats aren't complete (not all FX models listed, etc).

 

[Tim]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I found this stat site to be the most complete ...

http://www.neeyik.info/3dspecs/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Not as complete but ok for a start.
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html


"Eep²" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:4080BC89.48B0D60F@spam.com...
> Doh! Typed too soon...just found
http://tech-report.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
>
> Odd that it's not a common (and quite noticebale) thing on all the
hardware sites since these stats are vital to understanding how GPUs
compare...
>
> Eep² wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have a link to a current GPU comparison table with all stats
(core bit depth, clock speed, fill rate, memory--bandwidth, bit depth, clock
speed, etc--, etc? So many sites seem to only have a few tables here and
there, but nothing with even current GPUs (say, FX and Radeon 96+xx series).
> >
> > I'm trying to create a table myself from various manufacturer/review
sites, but it's a pain and the numbers are inconsistent. I can't even find
core stats of Radeons on ATI's site! And nVidia's stats aren't complete (not
all FX models listed, etc).

 

[Tim]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Highlandish" <ckreskay_cussin@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c5si0a$5aipe$1@ID-140307.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In news:c5rf4p$4u99p$1@ID-183549.news.uni-berlin.de,
> Tim <argybargy@hotmail.com> Quoth The Raven:
> > I found this stat site to be the most complete ...
> >
> > http://www.neeyik.info/3dspecs/
>
>
> excelent site!


It's also the home of a CPU stat page ...

http://www.neeyik.info/cpuspecs/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Could be designed better with a wider table to accomodate more chips at once. It's annoying having to scroll up and down just to see how different-brand chips compare--at the very least, same-generation chipsets should be on the same horizontal level (which can still be separated by brand). Also, the stats should be sortable by columns, like http://tech-report.com/etc/comparo/graphics/

Highlandish wrote:
>
> In news:c5rf4p$4u99p$1@ID-183549.news.uni-berlin.de,
> Tim <argybargy@hotmail.com> Quoth The Raven:
> > I found this stat site to be the most complete ...
> >
> > http://www.neeyik.info/3dspecs/
>
> excelent site!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In news:c5svpa$5bgt0$1@ID-183549.news.uni-berlin.de,
Tim <argybargy@hotmail.com> Quoth The Raven:
> "Highlandish" <ckreskay_cussin@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:c5si0a$5aipe$1@ID-140307.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> In news:c5rf4p$4u99p$1@ID-183549.news.uni-berlin.de,
>> Tim <argybargy@hotmail.com> Quoth The Raven:
>>> I found this stat site to be the most complete ...
>>>
>>> http://www.neeyik.info/3dspecs/
>>
>>
>> excelent site!
>
>
> It's also the home of a CPU stat page ...
>
> http://www.neeyik.info/cpuspecs/

again, an excellent site, I have saved them both so I can compare them for
my customers

--
Opportunity knocks once. Temptation leans on the doorbell.

Take out the CUSSIN to reply to me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In news:4082165F.41B43E92@spam.com,
Eep² <no@spam.com> Quoth The Raven:
> Could be designed better with a wider table to accomodate more chips
> at once. It's annoying having to scroll up and down just to see how
> different-brand chips compare--at the very least, same-generation
> chipsets should be on the same horizontal level (which can still be
> separated by brand). Also, the stats should be sortable by columns,
> like http://tech-report.com/etc/comparo/graphics/

I suppose you should do better than, just transport all the data to xml
format and draw the tables with hyper links to the corresponding data.

--
My wife ran away with my best friend ... I sure miss him !

Take out the CUSSIN to reply to me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Working on it...

Highlandish wrote:
>
> In news:4082165F.41B43E92@spam.com,
> Eep² <no@spam.com> Quoth The Raven:
> > Could be designed better with a wider table to accomodate more chips
> > at once. It's annoying having to scroll up and down just to see how
> > different-brand chips compare--at the very least, same-generation
> > chipsets should be on the same horizontal level (which can still be
> > separated by brand). Also, the stats should be sortable by columns,
> > like http://tech-report.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
>
> I suppose you should do better than, just transport all the data to xml
> format and draw the tables with hyper links to the corresponding data.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In news:4082165F.41B43E92@spam.com,
Eep² <no@spam.com> Quoth The Raven:
> Could be designed better with a wider table to accomodate more chips
> at once. It's annoying having to scroll up and down just to see how
> different-brand chips compare--at the very least, same-generation
> chipsets should be on the same horizontal level (which can still be
> separated by brand). Also, the stats should be sortable by columns,
> like http://tech-report.com/etc/comparo/graphics/

having looked at that site, I located my card but was presented with stats
that I have no clue to what they represent without having to scroll up and
down to see the title of each column. the other way is much better.

--
My wife ran away with my best friend ... I sure miss him !

Take out the CUSSIN to reply to me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

The title is simply repeated on another row after each "page", like on my 3D game comparison table at http://tnlc.com/eep/compare/table.html

I've found it's better to have the largest amount of items on the vertical axis rather than the horizontal axis in order to reduce vertical scrolling to compare--in this case, GPUs (in my 3D game comparison's case, game stats since they outnumber games).

Highlandish wrote:
>
> In news:4082165F.41B43E92@spam.com,
> Eep² <no@spam.com> Quoth The Raven:
> > Could be designed better with a wider table to accomodate more chips
> > at once. It's annoying having to scroll up and down just to see how
> > different-brand chips compare--at the very least, same-generation
> > chipsets should be on the same horizontal level (which can still be
> > separated by brand). Also, the stats should be sortable by columns,
> > like http://tech-report.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
>
> having looked at that site, I located my card but was presented with stats
> that I have no clue to what they represent without having to scroll up and
> down to see the title of each column. the other way is much better.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In news:40828B27.3EF49401@spam.com,
Eep² <no@spam.com> Quoth The Raven:
> The title is simply repeated on another row after each "page", like
> on my 3D game comparison table at
> http://tnlc.com/eep/compare/table.html
>
> I've found it's better to have the largest amount of items on the
> vertical axis rather than the horizontal axis in order to reduce
> vertical scrolling to compare--in this case, GPUs (in my 3D game
> comparison's case, game stats since they outnumber games).
>

its very detailed, but confusing as all the data columns are all over the
place. I cant do better though.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Take out the CUSSIN to reply to me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Well, it would be worse if the games were on the vertical axis and the stats on the horizontal axis. Alas, perhaps someday I will get it all into a database and let the user decide which games/stats to display. Until then, I've stopped adding games to the table and have just added "honorable mentions" with limited stats (non-tabular) instead.

Highlandish wrote:
>
> In news:40828B27.3EF49401@spam.com,
> Eep² <no@spam.com> Quoth The Raven:
> > The title is simply repeated on another row after each "page", like
> > on my 3D game comparison table at
> > http://tnlc.com/eep/compare/table.html
> >
> > I've found it's better to have the largest amount of items on the
> > vertical axis rather than the horizontal axis in order to reduce
> > vertical scrolling to compare--in this case, GPUs (in my 3D game
> > comparison's case, game stats since they outnumber games).
>
> its very detailed, but confusing as all the data columns are all over the
> place. I cant do better though.