TheGreatGrapeApe
Champion
- Feb 18, 2003
- 20,043
- 0
- 50,960
:lol:
Works for me man. I agree with pretty much everything you said. If people are concerned about these things, there are remedies. Heat is a concern if your system is on the verge (or a closed loop system with limited liquid cooling). Sure I like a cool system, but that's why I buy midrange parts or adapt things that do produce heat. It's not rocket science, although it is physics.
Yes, I agree, but I hope my flame of the OP was sufficiently well suported. :mrgreen:
Both ATI and Nvidia have their fair share of problems. Saying either of them hasn't had any is stupid.
Currently, there are only two things that annoy me. On the Nvidia side, the new driver constantly puts up a notice saying your system does not have SLI(unless it does, of course). On the ATI side, I just can't stand the crossfire implementation, that dongle is just stupid.
To be honest, I can't complain too much. Both companies have served me well. I remember the days of the ATI driver problems, but I also remember the Nvidia FX series. Both were terrible, and I wish them upon no one.
So there you have it. Companies have problems, get over it.
Currently, there are only two things that annoy me. On the Nvidia side, the new driver constantly puts up a notice saying your system does not have SLI(unless it does, of course). On the ATI side, I just can't stand the crossfire implementation, that dongle is just stupid.
To be honest, I can't complain too much. Both companies have served me well. I remember the days of the ATI driver problems, but I also remember the Nvidia FX series. Both were terrible, and I wish them upon no one.
So there you have it. Companies have problems, get over it.
sojrner
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2006
- 1,733
- 0
- 19,790
I would agree... the only reason I can think of is that it "looks" bad at the back of the case? :!: or maybe it is b/c it is too tough to connect that extra cable? lol
tbh, one really good reason for the way ati did things over Nv is that you do not really need an ati chipset to run xfire. Nv needs that chip, unless they start putting that compositing chip in more cards like they did w/ the 7950 (which can supposedly run in all mobos)
tbh, one really good reason for the way ati did things over Nv is that you do not really need an ati chipset to run xfire. Nv needs that chip, unless they start putting that compositing chip in more cards like they did w/ the 7950 (which can supposedly run in all mobos)
Grinch123456
Distinguished
- May 19, 2006
- 128
- 0
- 18,680
Not only does ATI kick ass, remember that NVidia kicks ass too. I love ATI, and I like NVidia. Why? Because I'm not an NVidia Fanboy, I'm not an ATI fanboy, nor am I an AMD Fanboy, nor am I an Intel fanboy. I am a Price/Performance Fanboy. Some generations, NVidia wins. Others, ATI wins. Others, they tie (like now). Last generation, ATI won. Their cards performed better. I'm not counting SLI or Crossfire. Why? Who has the money to Crossfire or SLI something anyway? 5% of the people, that's who. For Joe Everyman, SLI and Crossfire isn't an option when he has bills to pay and kids to feed, and when his little tikes are walking around with a cellphone jammed up on ear and ipod up the other, asking for a pda or whatever it is these little whippersnappers are into these days. Single cards are where it matters, and currently, there is no clear winner. So all you corporate fanboys, bust out your notepads, and write this down: "Go shove it!"
Price/Performance Fanboys for the win!
Price/Performance Fanboys for the win!
CAMARO:
you understood my sarcasm? congrats....it WAS pretty obvious...
ANYways, the POINT of the post was to show that if someone is buying a video card of this level (be it ATI or Nvidia) they are NOT going to be playing at lower resolutions, so pointing out which is the better performer at low res is POINTLESS and IRRELEVANT.
no one is going to buy a $500 video card and play it on a monitor that can't support resolutions above 1074x768...and if they DO...then it's temporary till then can get a BETTER monitor.
I personally don't have a preference, I had a 9800PRo and loved it, i now have dual nvidia's and love those...it's personal prefernce and money you are willing to spend..they both rock......
Oh and one more thing...NEXT time....trying replying back with intelligence instead of throwing out insults and cusses like a 4 year old..... I'll respect your opinion more that way if you didn't sound so childish....and Yes I apologize for being so sarcastic in my post too....it was unneccassry...i'm sorry....
NOW....BACK TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING!!!!!
you understood my sarcasm? congrats....it WAS pretty obvious...
ANYways, the POINT of the post was to show that if someone is buying a video card of this level (be it ATI or Nvidia) they are NOT going to be playing at lower resolutions, so pointing out which is the better performer at low res is POINTLESS and IRRELEVANT.
no one is going to buy a $500 video card and play it on a monitor that can't support resolutions above 1074x768...and if they DO...then it's temporary till then can get a BETTER monitor.
I personally don't have a preference, I had a 9800PRo and loved it, i now have dual nvidia's and love those...it's personal prefernce and money you are willing to spend..they both rock......
Oh and one more thing...NEXT time....trying replying back with intelligence instead of throwing out insults and cusses like a 4 year old..... I'll respect your opinion more that way if you didn't sound so childish....and Yes I apologize for being so sarcastic in my post too....it was unneccassry...i'm sorry....
NOW....BACK TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING!!!!!
yeah the Avivo REALLY makes a hige difference...though I just wish the crossline connections weren't so......what's the word......clunky?
SLI is just sooo much easier to setup....but I'm sure ATI will eventually fix that....
you still have to disable crossfire to watch a dvd?
SLI is just sooo much easier to setup....but I'm sure ATI will eventually fix that....
you still have to disable crossfire to watch a dvd?
JonathanDeane
Distinguished
- Mar 28, 2006
- 1,469
- 0
- 19,310
ATI VS Nvidia ? depends on the question 
Video quality wise I give ATI the nod performance there isnt enough difference between them but I think ATI has a slight edge with the 1900 at the top end. Mobo's I give completly to Nvidia my experience with ATI mobo's (I have had 2) well while not bad I consider them to be inferior to Nvidia's offerings ! Staight up I use a ATI video card in an Nforce mobo and im perfectly happy with that !
Video quality wise I give ATI the nod performance there isnt enough difference between them but I think ATI has a slight edge with the 1900 at the top end. Mobo's I give completly to Nvidia my experience with ATI mobo's (I have had 2) well while not bad I consider them to be inferior to Nvidia's offerings ! Staight up I use a ATI video card in an Nforce mobo and im perfectly happy with that !
nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 1,456
- 0
- 19,310
I've owned a number of ATi-made and nVidia-made cards. To be honest, I think they both make great hardware, and acceptable software. (I'll probably never be pleased with the driver suite from either company) Both have a lot of work to do, and both are making attempts.
I'd say we have a rather viable competition going here. And that's a good thing; nothing like a competitor to stop one company from deciding to sell a video card for $1,000US. Those that don't live in North America would appreciate this even more, as prices for this sort of thing are always magnified, even BEFORE adding the VAT.
In more detail, though, I'll say that nVidia clearly has a better multi-card solution. CrossFire can be described as nothing short of "cumbersome." Who needs an external cable to transfer data? ATi makes a lot of integrated graphics chips, so why not simply make an assymetric sort of CrossFire solution, that can fit as many number/types of cards you want in a motherboard, and output it through a dual-link DVI port on the motherboard itself? Instead, they have a cheap, worse copy-cat of nVidia's solution.
On the flip side, though, when it comes to image quality, as well as video input/output, ATi seems to be a winner here. I still can't get over that nVidia CHARGES EXTRA for their solution, while AVIVO is free. Similarly, nVidia's been stuck at the same x4 "rotated grid" MSAA solution they've had for 4 years, while ATi's bested them with their x6 "random sample" MSAA, as well as augmenting it with later features, such as the ability to use it with OpenEXR and even Oblivion's default HDR.
As for the analyst's opinion, they're an idiot, I'll say that. I rather actually loathe such suits who think that they know everything, when it's clear that all they really know is what sort of market value the company has, and how large a dividend they're giving out that quarter. These are the kind of people I dislike most: they have SOME brains, but they think that because of what they know, they must know EVERYTHING.
The truth is, because most people don't have that $1500US for that flat-panel, most (>90%) people who are serious gamers play at one of two resolutions: 1024x768, or 1280x960/1024. Those stuck with even less expensive graphics cards MIGHT go for 800x600, but a larger number of people (close to 5-8%) run at 1600x1200. The number of people who actually do go beyond that could be considered negligable; I'd estimate that at most, 2% of serious gamers do that.
And you're quite on when it comes to the analsys of the graphics wars; a number of "savage blows" have been dealt. Fortunately, we aren't seeing anything as embarrasing as ATi's card performance from 1999 through early 2002, or nVidia's from that point until 2004.
However, I'm afraid that nVidia might be setting themselves up for another fall, with their continued refusal to adopt an assymetric core design, and the head-scratching innefficiency of the 7950GX2... Let's hope that my worries are not well-founded, for another "lame duck" season of the wars wouldn't be good.
As for the drivers, I've used both a lot of ForceWare and Catalyst. Both, as far as the drivers themselves go, are fine. I'll say that the settings panels for both kinda suck, though. As for Linux, which I'm fairly certain you (or somebody) is getting at, we all know how Linux-based games dominate the market. If you want to do professional 3D work, you don't buy a GeForce or Radeon; you go for a FireGL or QuadroFX, or possibly something made by another company like 3Dlabs.
You can't make generalizations like that; yes, some cards provide better price/performance ratios than others. But both companies make them, and you won't EVER find them at the top-of-the-line.
As for ATi's temperature/clock speed, that's a funny comment... In almost all benchmarks, ATi's X1900 posts pretty solid wins, ones that suggest that clock speeds have little to do with it... Especially since the X1900XTX is hardly clocked faster than the 7900GTX, at 650MHz and 600MHz, respectively.
And I'd almost swear its the same grille backing that MSI used for Radeon X850XTs and X1800/X1900 cards.
I'd say we have a rather viable competition going here. And that's a good thing; nothing like a competitor to stop one company from deciding to sell a video card for $1,000US. Those that don't live in North America would appreciate this even more, as prices for this sort of thing are always magnified, even BEFORE adding the VAT.
In more detail, though, I'll say that nVidia clearly has a better multi-card solution. CrossFire can be described as nothing short of "cumbersome." Who needs an external cable to transfer data? ATi makes a lot of integrated graphics chips, so why not simply make an assymetric sort of CrossFire solution, that can fit as many number/types of cards you want in a motherboard, and output it through a dual-link DVI port on the motherboard itself? Instead, they have a cheap, worse copy-cat of nVidia's solution.
On the flip side, though, when it comes to image quality, as well as video input/output, ATi seems to be a winner here. I still can't get over that nVidia CHARGES EXTRA for their solution, while AVIVO is free. Similarly, nVidia's been stuck at the same x4 "rotated grid" MSAA solution they've had for 4 years, while ATi's bested them with their x6 "random sample" MSAA, as well as augmenting it with later features, such as the ability to use it with OpenEXR and even Oblivion's default HDR.
As for the analyst's opinion, they're an idiot, I'll say that. I rather actually loathe such suits who think that they know everything, when it's clear that all they really know is what sort of market value the company has, and how large a dividend they're giving out that quarter. These are the kind of people I dislike most: they have SOME brains, but they think that because of what they know, they must know EVERYTHING.
As the others have said, you should've actually bothered to pay attention when skimming over that post.
The truth is, because most people don't have that $1500US for that flat-panel, most (>90%) people who are serious gamers play at one of two resolutions: 1024x768, or 1280x960/1024. Those stuck with even less expensive graphics cards MIGHT go for 800x600, but a larger number of people (close to 5-8%) run at 1600x1200. The number of people who actually do go beyond that could be considered negligable; I'd estimate that at most, 2% of serious gamers do that.
Correct; ATi, as I recall, was founded in 1985, compared to, if memory serves me correctly, 1991 or 1992 for nVidia.
And you're quite on when it comes to the analsys of the graphics wars; a number of "savage blows" have been dealt. Fortunately, we aren't seeing anything as embarrasing as ATi's card performance from 1999 through early 2002, or nVidia's from that point until 2004.
However, I'm afraid that nVidia might be setting themselves up for another fall, with their continued refusal to adopt an assymetric core design, and the head-scratching innefficiency of the 7950GX2... Let's hope that my worries are not well-founded, for another "lame duck" season of the wars wouldn't be good.
That depends on the card; I have an X800XT, and it's the quietest (active) part of my PC. And it's sure a heck of a lot cooler, quieter, and has a far lower power draw than its nVidia counterpart, the GeForce 6800 ultra.
As for the drivers, I've used both a lot of ForceWare and Catalyst. Both, as far as the drivers themselves go, are fine. I'll say that the settings panels for both kinda suck, though. As for Linux, which I'm fairly certain you (or somebody) is getting at, we all know how Linux-based games dominate the market. If you want to do professional 3D work, you don't buy a GeForce or Radeon; you go for a FireGL or QuadroFX, or possibly something made by another company like 3Dlabs.
I think you knew that they were speaking about the two-slot cards, since those are the chief ones that nVidia fans are pegging for being too loud and hot-running.
nVidia's cards are the best performance per dollar? How can you make such a generalization? Are you implying that you'll get more "bang for your buck" to go with, say, a GeForce 7950GX2 than a Radeon X1900XT, which costs about half has much, and in some rather popular games, like Oblivion, just barely falls short?Why are you talking about 3 year old video cards? 5 series nVidia cards are the worst of nVidia. The ti 4 series performed better. I'm sorry you purchased a 5 series; but you are talking of nVidia from 2003-2004 during the plague of FX. This is 2006, nVidia has the best performance per dollar right now.
Clearly ATI cards are already at 90nm like nVidia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units
They run so hot because they are clocked to high in an attempt to keep up with nVidia.
The GTX's fan out the back; however, GT's don't need to use up dual slots to keep cool because they are basically GTX's with less memory and a lower clock. They run quite cool too, something you can not say for any single slot ATI high performance card.
You can't make generalizations like that; yes, some cards provide better price/performance ratios than others. But both companies make them, and you won't EVER find them at the top-of-the-line.
As for ATi's temperature/clock speed, that's a funny comment... In almost all benchmarks, ATi's X1900 posts pretty solid wins, ones that suggest that clock speeds have little to do with it... Especially since the X1900XTX is hardly clocked faster than the 7900GTX, at 650MHz and 600MHz, respectively.
That's interesting, but also worth noting that it's hardly the reference design; if that's the case, I can show you Radeons that have water-cooling.
And I'd almost swear its the same grille backing that MSI used for Radeon X850XTs and X1800/X1900 cards.
Good one!
GeneticWeapon
Splendid
- Jan 13, 2003
- 5,795
- 0
- 25,780
Eviltwin17
Distinguished
- Feb 21, 2006
- 520
- 0
- 18,990
go buy a graphics card. Image quality is all irrelevent these days. Ati, Nvidia, s3. They all have their pros and cons in performance... but image quality is really hard to compare unless you take a bagillion pictures of a video game and then compare all of them one at a time.
GeneticWeapon
Splendid
- Jan 13, 2003
- 5,795
- 0
- 25,780
stOrmy
Distinguished
- Aug 12, 2004
- 55
- 0
- 18,630
Details, it is all in the details. Well I for one have owned several cards from each company. I believe at least three different models from each company along with 3DFX cards. Here is what I experienced. For Linux, the Nvidia drivers seem to do a much better job currently for me. Also, although I have loved all my ATI cards I have had more trouble out of the drivers over the years compared to Nvidia. That is not to say I haven’t had certain issues with Nvidia drivers but just not as many. In fact, I have a friend right now playing with older ATI drivers because the new drivers crash his computer. Now for the funny thing or odd depending on how you look at it. I prefer the graphics of ATI over the Nvidia cards. To me they seem to have richer color or look. It could just all be in my head but there you have it. In the end it all depends on each individual and his/her tastes. ATI has improved their drivers a lot over the years. They don’t seem to have the issues compared to the older drivers to me. Nvidia latest cards also have improved in image quality to me greatly to match ATI. So in the end it is up to each of you to decide. Although I still believe for Linux Nvidia may hold the advantage currently.
sirheck
Splendid
- Feb 24, 2006
- 4,659
- 0
- 22,810
i have evidence to back that up.
my brother has an x800xl pci x
runs at 43c idle and 60c load
i have a 6800gt pcix runs 55c idle
and around 60c load.
not much diffs.
but i have an arctic cooler on my 68gt.
my brother has a stock cooler on his x800xl.
so no ati cards do not run hot
my 68gt ran at 110c load and 70c idle
for 2 or 3 months before i found the problem.
it still works great
my brother has an x800xl pci x
runs at 43c idle and 60c load
i have a 6800gt pcix runs 55c idle
and around 60c load.
not much diffs.
but i have an arctic cooler on my 68gt.
my brother has a stock cooler on his x800xl.
so no ati cards do not run hot
my 68gt ran at 110c load and 70c idle
for 2 or 3 months before i found the problem.
it still works great
wishmaster12
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2006
- 197
- 0
- 18,710
I recently had a Ati card but found a nvidia card for a good price. I personally think the ati card was better. I like the ati drivers and the preformance of the card ATi was great. I think the drivers for my nvidia were not that good. My next card is for sure a ATi card
Thanks!
Thanks!
wishmaster12
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2006
- 197
- 0
- 18,710
clue69less
Splendid
- Mar 2, 2006
- 3,622
- 0
- 22,780
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 21
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram