Why ATI will die (hey, that rhymes! :-D)

[Clarentavious]

Basic fact (ok, basic opinion), the only that is/was keeping ATI alive is the fact that they make video capture and multimedia cards.

Some GeForce 3's came with RCA (A/V) and SVideo out.

I heard that some premium brands of the GeForce 4's (if they haven't already been released), like by LeadTek, will have extra features, including RCA, SVideo, and Coex (RFU) in.

If the GeForce line of cards can achieve video capture, ATI will be finished shortly after.

Everyone knows that the GF's offer superior performance, for slighly more money (in some cases). ATI has been renowned for making "not so good" drivers (until very recently).

Has anyone checked reports on sales recently to see how ATI is fairing out against Nvidia? I think their only consumers left are loyal fans.

Also, they recently (well, somewhat recently) went into business with Guillemot (who formerly vendored the Kyro chipsets).

Not that I have anything against ATI, this is just what I predict happening if Nvidia can produce GF's with video capture capabilities.

That pretty much leaves no one left in the market except for workstation cards (3DLabs....)

That's my assessment of the situation anyway.

 

[AMD_Man]

Basic fact (ok, basic opinion), the only that is/was keeping ATI alive is the fact that they make video capture and multimedia cards.

Is that why ATI has greater market share than nVidia? ATI is the market leader with OEMs. If anyone's going to die, nVidia would probably first. Of course, neither is very likely.

<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[FatBurger]

nVidia makes more money though, since they sell a lot more to the end user (well, indirectly, but not to OEMs at least).

Still, I doubt either will die. It's nice seeing Matrox back in the 3D fight, too.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[ATi]

You state "ATI will die" but then you offer no real evidence. Your post simply screams "I'm an Nvidiot".

Basic fact (ok, basic opinion), the only that is/was keeping ATI alive is the fact that they make video capture and multimedia cards.

Basic *uninformed* opinion, just to clarify. ATi has always had the best video capture, dvd playback etc. They are also the first to be on top of the newer technology (pixel shader 1.4 etc). Claiming that the only reason they're still around is because of video capture though, is moronic.

I heard that some premium brands of the GeForce 4's (if they haven't already been released), like by LeadTek, will have extra features, including RCA, SVideo, and Coex (RFU) in.

If the GeForce line of cards can achieve video capture, ATI will be finished shortly after.

Let me guess, you buy Nvidia products because "ROFL geforce4 ownz j00 its s0 fast d00d!"? Nvidia has done nothing for the video card industry lately, and if you can't see that the geforce4 is nothing more than a souped up geforce3 (which was a souped up geforce2) then I'm most likely just wasting my time replying

Has anyone checked reports on sales recently to see how ATI is fairing out against Nvidia? I think their only consumers left are loyal fans.

Yes, and AOL is the most used ISP, and computer OEMS like DELL and compac are selling the most systems! Quantity surely equals quality doesn't it? No wait, you're a fool. Sales don't tell the tale of who has the better card, or the better company. This "loyal fan" doesn't purchase components out of some twisted sense of product patriotism. I make all my purchases based on independant research... Try it sometime, instead of just looking at the pretty picture on the box.

Not that I have anything against ATI, this is just what I predict happening if Nvidia can produce GF's with video capture capabilities.

How you can even being to actually belive that is beyond me, do you know anything about video cards beyond "they makes the purdy pictars on mah screen". There is FAR more to video cards than simply video capturing and game playing (and no, I'm not talking about graphics workstations... That's another topic)

That's my assessment of the situation anyway.

You're better off making assessments about which pokemon owns which. Stay away from technological debates, when your entire knowledge base comes from other peoples work (benchmarks and reviews, if you even read them) and your own deluded little opinions based upon that work(again, if you've even read some non biased articles)

After previewing my post, it's pretty much a flame and I apologize. I intended to offer you a logical rebuttle, but up rereading your post when I went to quote you, there was nothing to refute... You offered no real fact or evidence, so I was forced to simply "argue" rather than debate. I apologize if you take offense.

 

[varlo]

Bad trolls Bad trolls... Whacha gonna do... Whacha gonna do when they post here too...


My frog asked me for a cigarette...dunno what happened he's all over the place 😱

 

[TheMaverick]

I had always read/thought that the RADEON 8500 (not the DV) was better then the Geforce 3 Hard ware wise it just has those terrible drivers that is what is hurting them if there is anything...

Just my opinion

AMD XP 1900+
A7V-333
Geforce 3 TI 200
PC2100 512MB

 

[Rebe7254]

Good Lord man, settle down! I would probably agree that he deserved to be chewed out if he had been a member of this community for more than just a day. He's not even been registered for more than 24 hours, at least according to his posts. Give him a frickn' break here - he didn't really know better. It was very unnecessary to be that harsh on a newbie, in my opinion.

 

[Clarentavious]

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/vgacharts-01.html

Gee, I don't know. If you look at that webpage, right on Tom's Hardware, you'll see that in a benchmark test, the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 had on average 82.9 FPS; the ATI Radeon 8500 BBA 64MB scored 49.1 FPS, and ATI's LE 128MB 47.2

This was running Aquanox in 1024x768, 32-bit true color, 85Hz refresh rate. In the following pages, you'll see that the GeForce 4's ALWAYS scored a superior frame rate.

If you're not a believer in this, perhaps you'd care to explain why you are posting on Tom's Hardware's OWN forums.

Screw off you damnable impudent simian scum. I didn't come to tech message boards to get flamed by an ATI PR idiot like you.

 

[AMD_Man]

Look at the price difference though:

GF4 Ti4600: On average $350USD
R8500: On average $150USD

Is the Ti4600 2 1/3 times faster than the R8500? I don't think so. Besides, just because nVidia has the lead for now, doesn't mean they're gone. More people are buying a "top-of-the-line" ATI product than ever. The R8500 is an absolute success as far as ATI is concerned. It's a highly acclaimed card at its price range.

As far as I know, ATI isn't concerned with matching the GF4 series. They plan to skip that semi-generation and jump right over to the R300.

<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[nexus_alpha]

You still have not told us why ati (with concrete reasoning) will die thats your post right. I am starting to think you are less than 18 years old and/or is deprieved of attention therefore the reason for the post.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by nexus_alpha on 05/24/02 09:06 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Clarentavious]

That's ATI's only strong standing point, their price (aside from their loyal customers as I stated).

I'm saying this because, anybody who uses their computer for games probably realizes you're going to need the best to play games that are coming out currently, and in the future.

I have a LeadTek 128MB GF 3 Ti 200, and Morrowind will barely decently in 800x600 (I have high performance mipmapping level, V-sync off, 2x anti-aliasing, and in game pixel shading, among pretty much the defaults for Morrowind such as view distance). And I can accredit that to my video card for sure (it's not my processor or any other part of my computer).

My normal framerate may be around 25, under stressful conditions and in big areas with lots of activity it can drop to below 10. At best it's around 50.

I don't understand? Are you trying to start trouble? What does my age have to do with anything?

 

[AMD_Man]

That's ATI's only strong standing point, their price (aside from their loyal customers as I stated).

What about PS1.4, completely programmable SmoothVision AA, Truform, highly efficent Anisotropic filtering?

<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[nexus_alpha]

Because your arugements need a bit of refinement

 

[flamethrower205]

Wait, so ur saying that the GF3 is essentially a "faster clocked" GF2? Oh my, I really must have wated my money on buying it, but, oh no, it has features the GF2 doesn't, and is much different, which is why it runs aquanox, etc. so better! You need not point out I'm an [-peep-] to people such as yourself.

Sig of the week.

 

[jankphil]

acually, i believe they first released the 8500 back with the GeForce TI500/200. And if i remember right they ATI card outran the GeForce Card. I wouldn't worry about ATI in the buisness. They've been around for a while, and I would think they will last longer than Nvidia. Mainly because they tend to come out with quality products. Always have, probably always will. (at least we can hope)

 

[Clarentavious]

The GF 4's have gotten new pixel and vertex shaders (compared to the GF 3's). I don't know about ATI's version "1.4"

Everyone has their own version of anti-aliasing. Are you sure SmoothVision is any better? What do you mean it is completely programmable?

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) the same Anisotropic filtering is universally built into all versions of OpenGL 1.2 and beyond. I don't think there is any difference between any of them.

What is Truform?

Is your argument that image quality is better with ATI?

If so, that's fine, but a game is not enjoyable (or - playable) if it is running too slow, no matter how marvelous it looks.

I'm not saying having Nvidia defeat ATI is a good thing (or only having one company manufacture cards for the standard consumer either). It saying it seems to be going that way. And I strongly suspect it will if video capture is implemented.

 

[ATi]

Well well, it looks like you did take offense, and not only that you seemed to place yourself in a position of superiority. You are apparently suffering from some pretty severe delusions of grandure, and this time I'm not going to apologize for pointing them out for you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/vgacharts-01.html

Gee, I don't know. If you look at that webpage, right on Tom's Hardware, you'll see that in a benchmark test, the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 had on average 82.9 FPS; the ATI Radeon 8500 BBA 64MB scored 49.1 FPS, and ATI's LE 128MB 47.2

Lets see here, you picked the one benchmark that really stood out. Now, if you weren't such an uninformed idiot you would of known long ago that aquanox is a highly nvidia OPTIMIZED program, of course ati cards are going to score lower. Tom is biased. Period. But aside from that, these benchmarks dont go beyond simple FPS. They simply show stock settings, where is the AA (which the geforce4's are superior in) or the anisotropic filtering (do you even know what either of these are?).

If you're not a believer in this, perhaps you'd care to explain why you are posting on Tom's Hardware's OWN forums.

I post here because the majority of the community is helpful, respectful, and informed. You do not conform to this standard. IMO of course.

Screw off you damnable impudent simian scum. I didn't come to tech message boards to get flamed by an ATI PR idiot like you.

Yes, I surely am the fool who simply buys into the media and what's been spoonfed to me by certain websites.

Like I said earlier, do your OWN research instead of listening to everyone else. The radeon8500 was never meant to contend with the geforce line, it was made to compete with the geforce3.

Going back to your outright flame against me, allow me to point you, and others to this *http://bradswebsite.topcities.com/*. Your website gives alot of insight into your small, pathetic world. I feel sorry for you brad. You obviously have lofty goals, and a yearning desire to be accepted by your peers. I found your "Why I hate the bible" post on your website to be especially laughable. You're attempting to "be a rebel" by going against a popular belief... and by doing so are conforming nicely to another sect. You are a joke and a sheep Brad. I pity you.

You want a simian Brad? Look no further than the closest mirror. Both in appearance, character, and demeanor.

 

[ATi]

The GF 4's have gotten new pixel and vertex shaders (compared to the GF 3's). I don't know about ATI's version "1.4"

Again Brad, showing why you shouldn't bother debating something you have no idea about. One of the primary benefits of pixel shader 1.4 (when it is supported) allows a scene to be rendered in a single pass.

Everyone has their own version of anti-aliasing. Are you sure SmoothVision is any better? What do you mean it is completely programmable?

Since your comprehension level isn't very high, I'll keep my responses simple for you. ATi and Nvidia use different methods for sampling when using AA. I'd go into more detail, but it would be pointless.

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) the same Anisotropic filtering is universally built into all versions of OpenGL 1.2 and beyond. I don't think there is any difference between any of them.

Sigh, I'm not even going to bother.

What is Truform?

*sigh*

Is your argument that image quality is better with ATI?

If so, that's fine, but a game is not enjoyable (or - playable) if it is running too slow, no matter how marvelous it looks.

I play all my games at a minimum of 1024x786x32 with 16x anisotropicfiltering. They all run silky smooth.

I'm not saying having Nvidia defeat ATI is a good thing (or only having one company manufacture cards for the standard consumer either). It saying it seems to be going that way. And I strongly suspect it will if video capture is implemented.

No, what you're saying is "Look at me, I'm a retard that likes to comment on topics I have no clue about! I also enjoy forming strong opinions on said lack of knowledge!"

This will be my last response to you as I belive in the theory of intellectual osmosis.

 

[flamethrower205]

U still haven't answered by question. Should I return my Quadro DCC and get an R8500 b/c it's not much better than GF2, nor improved upon according to some flaming idiot?

Sig of the week.

 

[Clarentavious]

Look at you, you pathetic piece of shît. I spit on your grave.

It's beyond me why someone would come to tech related forums to boast like you do. But I suppose your type fall under many different areas.

If I didn't feel comfortable with what I have on my website, I wouldn't have it posted up. So I guess I am making a fool of myself in my own confidence. Oh please, put me to shame, oh great one.

As far as an actual argument, you intentionally decided not to respond where I mentioned the GF 4's outscore all ATi cards in each benchmark run, not just for Aquanox.

Now you're calling Tom biased. Perhaps you'll be banned from these forums before I have to take any further action.

 

[AMD_Man]

flamethrower, I suggest you get out of this conversation immediately, both sides are spewing flames at each other like mad. At the moment, you're making matters worse.

<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[nexus_alpha]

You ever said the gf3 is a faster clocked gf2 sure doesn't know what he is talking about. You bring shame to ATI loyalists.

 

[AMD_Man]

Here's a run down of your arguments in hopefully, an unbiased fashion:

The GF 4's have gotten new pixel and vertex shaders (compared to the GF 3's). I don't know about ATI's version "1.4"

The GF4 emulates PS1.3 in software. The R8500 fully supports PS1.4 in hardware. The average user won't notice the difference, but to a programmer, PS1.4 is far more flexible. Carmack said that himself.

Everyone has their own version of anti-aliasing. Are you sure SmoothVision is any better? What do you mean it is completely programmable?

In conventional AA, nVidia's FSAA algorithms are better. In games specifically optimized for Smoothvision, you won't have to apply the AA filter to all the frame but only specific sections of the scene that the programmer has specificed. Think of it as a proprietary edge AA technique. On an optimized game, there will be minimal loss of performance with AA on.

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) the same Anisotropic filtering is universally built into all versions of OpenGL 1.2 and beyond. I don't think there is any difference between any of them.

You're wrong but that's ok. You see, ATI implements a very conservative Anistropic filtering technique to significantly improve performance at the sacrifice for a little bit of quality at certain angles. You see, rather than applying the filter to the entire scene, ATI's own algorithm searches for angles that are clearly visible and applies the filter to those. This allows for maximum Anisotropic filtering at any resolution with barely a 5% hit on performance rather than the GF4's 50% hit with max. aniso. The sacrifice is that at some angles, ATI's Aniso may not apply the filter. However, with most of today's games, most of these angles are in obscure locations at the edge of your monitor, so you probably won't notice the difference.

What is Truform?

Truform is ATI's version of a higher order surface technique. This technique converts triangles into curved surfaces. Of course, there are varying intensities of this. When not used properly, everything looks like a balloon. When used properly like with the recent patch for RTCW, you get amazingly round, true-to-life, objects.

Is your argument that image quality is better with ATI?

That's very subjective, but ATI still has one IQ feature that the GF4 hasn't even come close to matching. This is, of course, adaptive de-interlacing and temporal filtering.

Adaptive de-interlacing replaces, Bob and weave and provides a crisper image while watching DVDs. Temporal filtering improves DVD IQ further by aligning the DVD FPS with the refresh rate of the monitor so that you don't get tearing with moving text or fast motion in a DVD.

If so, that's fine, but a game is not enjoyable (or - playable) if it is running too slow, no matter how marvelous it looks.

Name one game that an R8500 can't run? Carmack even said that an R8500 can potentially outperform the GF4 with more efficient drivers. Even as I post this, ATI is constantly working on new drivers with improved performance.

I'm not saying having Nvidia defeat ATI is a good thing (or only having one company manufacture cards for the standard consumer either). It saying it seems to be going that way. And I strongly suspect it will if video capture is implemented.

If that's the case then why did Carmack publically state that the R300, which should come out in a couple of months, outperform everything currently out there in Doom3?


<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[AMD_Man]

I'd also like to add is a little look at history:

3dfx went under due to lack of innovation. 3dfx was always concerned about performance over innovation. At the moment, that's what the GF4 does. It introduces nothing new, but merely refined technologies. ATI is still the leader of innovation, until Matrox takes that from ATI in July. In August or September, ATI will take that title back with the RV250 for the low-end and the R300 for the high-end.


EDIT: Now, I'm not saying that nVidia is going to go under, but that ATI has very high demand on the R8500 and has innovative technologies. They're still the market leader and they have nothing to worry about.

<b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b>

 

[HolyGrenade]

A couple of things. How does intel do against ATI in the oem department? 3DFX didn't go under due to the lack of innovation, but because they let their success get to their heads and decided to exclusively make cards based on their chips. Thats where the TNT and TNT2 chips flooded the market.

Also, I think nVidia and Matrox are more innovative. nVidia brought us Hardware T&L and then the programmable shaders. Matrox brought us Hardware Bump Mapping and now Displacement Mapping. Even Imagination tech tried it bringing us Tile based rendering but they made the mistake of designing the card around that feature instead of having it as just a feature. May be ATI has done something, I can't think of it from the top of my head though.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>