ATI or NVIDIA?

ATI or NVIDIA?

  • ATI

    Votes: 121 72.0%

  • NVIDIA

    Votes: 47 28.0%
  • Total voters
    168
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I like nVidia..... since they are the most powerful :) :) (methinks). Btw who was it that said that ATi cards will Run DX9 games better!!! Errrr.... thats being incredibily optimistic, thinking we will ever see DX9 game :p .... and that game graphics won't have moved have moved on by then..... ah well :p
 
Originally posted by subs
Kleptomaniac please show me were it sais 80 percent of people having problems are using ATI CARDS...

please...
Click to expand...

Just take notice next time you visit any technical support forum.
 
I used to like nVidia. Then I got my 9700 pro. Forget about all the past complaints of ATi having sucky drivers and tech support. Their driver rule as does their tech support. ATi has gotten it together. nVidia made one too many bad choices and have made me lose any faith I had in them.(lying about 3dMark results, putting out the GeForce FX, having a videocard that sounded like a vacum cleaner when you played games, having a videocard that took up two slots in the back of your computer....)


I voted ATi
 
Sounds like "I got a 9700PRO so now I lost all my faith in Nvidia and they can never make anything good again" to me...

And Nvidia never "cheated" on 3dmark, and 3dmark admited it. Also 3dmark is not a true Dx9 benchmark ANYWAY.
 
3D mark is trash

That whole fiasco is BS.
ATi pays for Futuremarks "development liscence" allwoing them greater access to optimize for 3-D mark. Wich, I must emphasize, is a crock of shit...as are most things that come from Futuremark.

Its like a student paying off a teacher so he can get all the answers for a test so as not to get caught cheating. (if we still want to call it cheating) Personally, I dont think anyone cheated.

Futuremark didnt even have friggin guidlines...let alone defined rules or standards for how to optimize for thier POS benchmark.
There has to be rules before you can break them...and what is "cheating" if not breaking rules?
 
Originally posted by Parasite
3D mark is trash

That whole fiasco is BS.
ATi pays for Futuremarks "development liscence" allwoing them greater access to optimize for 3-D mark. Wich, I must emphasize, is a crock of shit...as are most things that come from Futuremark.

Its like a student paying off a teacher so he can get all the answers for a test so as not to get caught cheating. (if we still want to call it cheating) Personally, I dont think anyone cheated.

Futuremark didnt even have friggin guidlines...let alone defined rules or standards for how to optimize for thier POS benchmark.
There has to be rules before you can break them...and what is "cheating" if not breaking rules?
Click to expand...

thats odd considering both nvidia and ati admitted to "cheating"

it was found that nvidia just took it farther........ati saw mabey a 2-5% increase in benchmark scores

while it was as much as 20-25% on nividia cards

....they were both cheating .....

but if you want to compare it to a test in school ..then lets say that ati wrote some answers on there hand .....while nvidia photocopied pages out of the teachers answers book.

:smoking:
 
Originally posted by mrBadger
Personally I like nVidia..... since they are the most powerful :) :) (methinks). Btw who was it that said that ATi cards will Run DX9 games better!!! Errrr.... thats being incredibily optimistic, thinking we will ever see DX9 game :p .... and that game graphics won't have moved have moved on by then..... ah well :p
Click to expand...
I said it and we have it proven, Valve says it run better on ATI than Nvidia. What's so hard to understand about that? We also know by benchmarks ATI is vastly superior (200-300% faster in some areas) in the so highly praised shaders, something (funnily enough) Nvidia has claimed is the next big thing in games and a huge feature on the FX ;)
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
thats odd considering both nvidia and ati admitted to "cheating"

it was found that nvidia just took it farther........ati saw mabey a 2-5% increase in benchmark scores

while it was as much as 20-25% on nividia cards

....they were both cheating .....

but if you want to compare it to a test in school ..then lets say that ati wrote some answers on there hand .....while nvidia photocopied pages out of the teachers answers book.

:smoking:
Click to expand...

Your missing the point on both issues...1. I dont cosider it cheating. Its not about one being a bigger cheater because they got better gains from thier optimizations...they both optimized, as well they should. Think about it, UT2K3 is a benchmark, both companies work to optimize thier drivers for UT. Both companies get eaqual treatment from game companies, because it benifits everyone involved, including the gamer. 3DMark on the otherhand...benifits noone, its shit, and imo its a fluke that it ever became so widely used. (wich probably wont happen anymore considering the new games coming out...and the fact that only games can give any kind of usefull benchmarking figures)

But anyways, thats what NVidia and ATi are supposed to do, create better performance and greater visuals. They need to continually tweek and optimize thier drivers to do so. 3DMark should have defined rules and standards for driver optimization...they are the asses not NVidia or ATi. Besides 3DMark is shite.

And 2. ATi pays Futuremark for and advantage on how to optimize thier drivers...NVidia doesnt pay...they dont get that advantage.
Basically, Futuremark told ATI how futuremark works, while NVidia had to disect it, and figure it out for themselves.
 
Most people here (including me) are buying a new card only because of HL2. So it's quite natural for them to choose ATI, since Gabe recommended it.
 
ATi

ATi is the best alterntive. Especially if you're not buying a high end card. Better performance, better image qulity, better efatures, better DVD-playback and better Half-Life 2.
 
Originally posted by Parasite
Your missing the point on both issues...1. I dont cosider it cheating. Its not about one being a bigger cheater because they got better gains from thier optimizations...they both optimized, as well they should. Think about it, UT2K3 is a benchmark, both companies work to optimize thier drivers for UT. Both companies get eaqual treatment from game companies, because it benifits everyone involved, including the gamer. 3DMark on the otherhand...benifits noone, its shit, and imo its a fluke that it ever became so widely used. (wich probably wont happen anymore considering the new games coming out...and the fact that only games can give any kind of usefull benchmarking figures)

But anyways, thats what NVidia and ATi are supposed to do, create better performance and greater visuals. They need to continually tweek and optimize thier drivers to do so. 3DMark should have defined rules and standards for driver optimization...they are the asses not NVidia or ATi. Besides 3DMark is shite.

And 2. ATi pays Futuremark for and advantage on how to optimize thier drivers...NVidia doesnt pay...they dont get that advantage.
Basically, Futuremark told ATI how futuremark works, while NVidia had to disect it, and figure it out for themselves.
Click to expand...

Im to lazy to argue against all the points you just made.

Youve taken alot of things out of context..and that changes the story alot.
 
Euh heum my new card will have to run Doom3,stalker,far cry and Quake4 and maybe others ,not only HL2..except you only play one game? but who does?
Think it's gonna be ati..9700 pro or 9800 pro if it's affordable here in EUrope..ati 9800 pro 128Mb costs 500$-525$ here now ;(
Ati 9700 pro about 350$

Edit: never ever i did ran a 3d mark on my system ..it are games that count..and look at all hardware forums..people always showing off their 3d mark score or bitchin they have 500 points less while it's completely irrelevant
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
Im to lazy to argue against all the points you just made.

Youve taken alot of things out of context..and that changes the story alot.
Click to expand...

I dont think so, My last point is a bit of an exageration, but it certianly isnt taken out of conext. ATI does get an unfair advantage as part of thier (paid) relationship with Futuremark.

Wile I agree that NVidia went a bit too far with the custom clipping paths. (and this I have to admit can only be classified as cheating)I just dont think 3Dmark is a worthwhile benchmarking tool or should it be taken seriously. I think, for the most part, Both Nvidia and Ati were conducting business as usual, and Futuremark is at fault for the whole fiasco.
 
Originally posted by Parasite
Your missing the point on both issues...1. I dont cosider it cheating. Its not about one being a bigger cheater because they got better gains from thier optimizations...they both optimized, as well they should. Think about it, UT2K3 is a benchmark, both companies work to optimize thier drivers for UT. Both companies get eaqual treatment from game companies, because it benifits everyone involved, including the gamer. 3DMark on the otherhand...benifits noone, its shit, and imo its a fluke that it ever became so widely used. (wich probably wont happen anymore considering the new games coming out...and the fact that only games can give any kind of usefull benchmarking figures)

But anyways, thats what NVidia and ATi are supposed to do, create better performance and greater visuals. They need to continually tweek and optimize thier drivers to do so. 3DMark should have defined rules and standards for driver optimization...they are the asses not NVidia or ATi. Besides 3DMark is shite.

And 2. ATi pays Futuremark for and advantage on how to optimize thier drivers...NVidia doesnt pay...they dont get that advantage.
Basically, Futuremark told ATI how futuremark works, while NVidia had to disect it, and figure it out for themselves.
Click to expand...
1) Nvidia obviously LOVE 3Dmark2k3 if they cheat so much in a non important benchmark to show off, do you dissagree with Nvidia? They have even rejoined the project (see below).

1.5) The Futuremark company hasnt got anything to do with driver optimisations, remember? Both companys can ignore it if they wish.

2) Nvidia paid too, as does everyone that wants to be in the Futuremark project. However, Nvidia jumped ship after the terrible FX score, claiming it was a worthless benchmark. Both companies had just as much insight, with the difference being ATI didnt quit at some time. Nvidia KNEW EXACTLY what 2k3 contained, and how it would stress the card. They just didnt care. Not to long ago they announced the reentry to the Futuremark project (and pay a hugeass fee).

Edit and big note:
On the other hand, in DX9 ATI DOES have an unfair advantage with the R3x0 chip. It is the base design for DX9, and they worked closely with Microsoft when designing it. I am sure Nvidia could have done the same, but they where to busy with Cg and stripping down Dawn naked. Maybe there is a REASON the 9700 Pro completely ass-slapped the FX in the DX9 benchmarks, ey?
 
Just take the gforce fx 5900 or ultra it better the all the ati all bunchmark proof it but if not enough money take a ati 9700 or pro.

but primary card to have it s the fx5900.
 
Ive Got Ti4200 and runs fine and hope it will run HL2 good, i have no xperience with ATI but from what ive seen from mates they are quite good (9700 Pro)
 
I would like to point out that in 'real' games the GeForce FX 5900 gave a better rate of FPS on maximum settings than the equivilent ATi card. Thank you
 
Stop defending nVidia.
nVidia has simply an "inferior card" right now.
It's obvious that nVidia payed Futuremark to get the ~cheating drivers, hidden dragon~ issue to a better light. Nobody I know still think that nVidia did't cheat. It has been proven, it's all around the internet.

ATi did optimize GT4 too, but ATi admitted that the optimization was there and that it has been eliminated in Cat 3.5+, unlike nVidia (that now is playing the "nice guy" saying that drivers will cheat less from now on...ohohoh).
ATi lost around 2% in 3DM03 benchmarks (shuffled PS instructions), nVidia 23% (clip planes, reducing FP quality and AF filtering, exchanging PS routines).

There're plenty biased reviews on biased sites which will show you how much nVidia optimizes its drivers for the most used benchmarks(did you know that nV asks to the reviewers which benchmark is used?).
To prove that, check this unbiased review (more to come) which used custom and less used benchmarks:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=3x5900u&page=1

I'm not a fanboy, I just want to open people eyes!
 
Thnx badger , man everyone in this thread is making me feel like I bought a bad card!!!!! FX5900 256.

Making me feel a little down :-/
 
Originally posted by LoneDeranger
Most people here (including me) are buying a new card only because of HL2. So it's quite natural for them to choose ATI, since Gabe recommended it.
Click to expand...

You do understand the word marketing right? That valve is paid to reccommend ATI products.
 
Originally posted by DimitriPopov
You do understand the word marketing right? That valve is paid to reccommend ATI products.
Click to expand...

That is called bribing, not marketing. Whether ATI cards work better with HL2 FSAA accidentally or by design, you can't deny that it's a fact.
 
Originally posted by mrBadger
I would like to point out that in 'real' games the GeForce FX 5900 gave a better rate of FPS on maximum settings than the equivilent ATi card. Thank you
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Cause if you look at reall FSAA comparison images, you see that 2x FSAA on ATI beats 4x FSAA on the Nvidia cards in terms of quality. But lets do it the easy way and say that 2x is about the same as 4x.

Then ATI beats the 5900 90% of the time. The biggest exception is UT2k3, but there we have seen the Nvidia shortcuts for "maximum settings" :dozey:
Splinter cell: 9800 Pro beats the 5900 Ultra in EVERY resolution. (without taking 2xVS4x in mind)
RTCW: 9800 Pro beats the 5900 Ultra in EVERY resolution.
SS2: 9800 Pro beats the 5900 Ultra in EVERY resultion.
And a fun demo of DX9 (http://www.daionet.gr.jp/~masa/rthdribl/index.html#Download) where the use of PS is abundant:
5900 Ultra: 5-10 fps
My 9700 Pro: 32-34 fps (with 4xFSAA and 16xAF: 28-30 fps)

Do the math with the DX9 demo, on which card is the true beast here.

(forgot, source: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDk2LDE=)
 
Things Aren't Always As They Appear...

Make sure you check all of the reviews out there, as things aren't
always what they appear to be. :smoking:

Here are a few links to munch on:

Thread at Beyond 3D that demos how nVidia drivers are not doing
real Trilinear filtering with UnReal Tournament 2003.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6719
-----------------------------------------------------


FX 5900 Review ( June 13th )
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/5900u/5900u.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

"As of right here and now the 5900 Ultra isn't a
performance behemoth that snatches back NVIDIA's
performance crown unreservedly, it in fact does
little more than put them back in the frame.
Purely from personal observations I'd say image
quality on the 5900 Ultra and the Radeon series
cards is very, very similar in a lot of cases but
that NVIDIA have superior anistropic filtering
(significantly so in some cases) while ATi still
have superior Anti-aliasing, a situation that
shouldn't really exist considering how many 3dfx
employees NVIDIA mopped up."


FX 5900 Review ( June 16th )
-----------------------------------------------------
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/msi_geforce_fx5900-td128_review/default.asp
-----------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

"MSI has a very good graphics card on its hands
with the FX5900-TD128. The GeForce FX 5900 GPU
it’s based on offers high-end performance,
although it is by no means a RADEON 9800 PRO
killer. Each card wins its fair share of
benchmarks, and we don’t see this changing
anytime soon. As the software teams on both sides
continue to polish their drivers we only see the
battle between the two intensifying, ultimately
reaching a peak with debut of upcoming titles
like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2."


FX 5900 Review ( July 7th )
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=3x5900u&page=1
-----------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

"If you have a choice between this card and the
Radeon 9800 Pro, the decision should be simple.
The Radeon 9800 Pro runs cooler, quieter, only
takes up one case slot, runs better in every
single benchmark we tested with, and to top it
all off, is less expensive as well."


FX 5900 Review ( July 17th )
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1257_1.html
-----------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

"but performance wise NVIDIA is still playing the
catch-up game to ATI and the 5900 Ultra which is
almost equal to the 9800 Pro is at the same price
range of the RADEON product making it still
second best in line at the same cost."


FX 5900 Review ( Commenting on driver cheats )
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-16.html
-----------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

"So, if the previous tests based on the standard
demo benchmarks or games included in the standard
packets showed that the GeForce FX 5900 had a good
chance to beat the RADEON 9800 PRO, the elimination
of the cheats by replacing the standard demo benchmarks
with specially developed ones revealed that the FX 5900
is not that good."

G.F.
 
Originally posted by DimitriPopov
So I bougth a shitty card , fantastic.
Click to expand...
Hey, it aint shitty. Its the fastest card Nvidia has. Its slow, cheating and flawed compared to the 9800, but its nonetheless the "Fastest Graphics Card In the World!*"











* Nvidia is the only graphics chip maker in their World.
 
Nobody is saying that nVidia's 5900 is a bad card.
What I'd like to point potential buyers out is that it's simply not the fastest card out there as nVidia and [H] like to think.
 
I had an ATI Radeon 8500 Pro and i loved the way it performed, now i have an ATI Radeon 9000 Pro and its fantastic on all my games.
 
pr()zac you don t right because 3dmark2003 test say that ati 9800 is better than fx 5900 but all the others test on games and benchmark say that fx 5900 is better than ati.

so to tell like that : they are 10 tests

-> fx 5900 = 9/10
VS
-> 9800 = 1/10

so 9 tests say that fx 5900 eat 9800 and only 1 test it s 9800 who eat 5900.
 
Intriguing... I'm still waiting till september to buy my 3D card though. Although it most likely will be an nVidia. Give em two months, and nVidia will be back on top IMO
 
Originally posted by mrBadger
Intriguing... I'm still waiting till september to buy my 3D card though. Although it most likely will be an nVidia. Give em two months, and nVidia will be back on top IMO
Click to expand...

It’s actually ATI that’s going to strike in September as their R360 is slated to appear by then and you can say bye-bye NV35 once that happens! The NV40 won’t be out until the end of the year and even then R420 Loki would be out as well.
 
I meant really that I'm going to buy my card in september :)... and I'll probably buy an nVidia card, because so many games I want are 'The way it's mean to be played' and also I am a firm believer in nVidia.... the war is far from over :)
 
Originally posted by mrBadger
I meant really that I'm going to buy my card in september :)... and I'll probably buy an nVidia card, because so many games I want are 'The way it's mean to be played' and also I am a firm believer in nVidia.... the war is far from over :)
Click to expand...
The Way You're Meant To Get Played ;)
Thing is, is it really? Is there any game that solely work on Nvidia card that would be worth actually buying a 500$ card for? Most cards that show a difference is on old games that was designed for Nvidia (ie Neverwinter Nights), and the rest that say its a difference are mostly just idiots (I saw an excellent example: "I installed a 5900 Ultra and now my BF1942 screen shakes when shooting, and FX looks so much better, especially the AA!!!!!!! It never did that with the 9800 Pro!!!". Failed to mention he installed 1.4 patch in between? ;)).
Anything Nvidia Nv3x does, the R3x0 does faster and at higher quality. Even Dawn run faster on the R3x0, and that is with a stupid OpenGL wrapper, just imagine the speed if ATI remade Dawn specifically for the R3x0 line. There wont be a change within the coming months.


pr()zac you don t right because 3dmark2003 test say that ati 9800 is better than fx 5900 but all the others test on games and benchmark say that fx 5900 is better than ati.

so to tell like that : they are 10 tests

-> fx 5900 = 9/10
VS
-> 9800 = 1/10

so 9 tests say that fx 5900 eat 9800 and only 1 test it s 9800 who eat 5900.
Click to expand...
Is totally devoid of logic, as we have been proven over and over again that it is the 9800 Pro that wins in 9/10 things (games, benchmarks, quality, whatever). It dominates the 5900 in modern games, with use of complex features (shaders for instance).

The FX 5200 to 5900 would have been AWESOME cards if they had come out a year ago, and definetly the fastest ever.
 
Originally posted by DimitriPopov
You do understand the word marketing right? That valve is paid to reccommend ATI products.
Click to expand...

Gabe said that because Half-Life 2 is a DX9 game they simply chose the best hardware available that can show off their masterpiece in full glory. I remember ID Software chose the 9700 Pro at E3 2k2 just because there was no other alternative at this time and now are been paid by NVIDIA to highly optimize for NVIDIA cards. What I am trying to say is that I don’t think ATI is paying VALVE to promote their products. They are going to release Source based benchmarking tools soon and we will see for ourselves. NVIDIA's current generation hardware is not a good DX9 performer and that’s why they bailed out of Futuremark’s beta program ...

"We work with all the graphics card manufacturers. ATI and NVIDIA have made the biggest investments in time and engineering to make sure Half-Life 2 and their hardware work well together. We are not trying to give an advantage to one company over another, as the people who play our games certainly wouldn't want us to do that.

With that said, Half-Life 2 appears to be the first game to really be pushing the capabilities of DX9-level hardware. At E3, we ran on ATI hardware because ATI's hardware did the best job. Since then both ATI and NVIDIA have worked diligently to improve performance and quality, not just because they think Half-Life 2 will be a title that will help sell DX9 hardware, but also because it is a good test case that will aid them in understanding the behavior of their hardware for future games.

As we get closer to shipping we will release Source based benchmarking tools that will let people analyze this themselves.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:27 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: HL2 Graphics Card Reccomendations


Hey Gabe,

We've all been hearing that Valve has been promoting the ATI Radeon 9800 card over Nvidia cards. I was curious if there was a reason behind this, like maybe ATI cards have some sort of advantage over Nvidia cards? Will HL2 even support Nvidia cards? If so, will Nvidia cards run slower with HL2 because the game is more optimized for ATI cards? We're all kind of wondering what these comments mean and what graphics cards will run the game effectively.

Thanks.


__________________"
-Joneleth
 
Okay, Valve isn't getting paid by ATI. Half-Life 2 needs the horsepower and ATI has it.
In other words:nVidia sucks and ATI is good, thats why Valve chose ATI.
 
Originally posted by mrBadger
I meant really that I'm going to buy my card in september :)... and I'll probably buy an nVidia card, because so many games I want are 'The way it's mean to be played' and also I am a firm believer in nVidia.... the war is far from over :)
Click to expand...

Well, for sure you will not get to play HL2 "the way it was meant to be played".
 
Originally posted by LoneDeranger
Well, for sure you will not get to play HL2 "the way it was meant to be played".
Click to expand...

BAM dude you got him. you ARE sticking it to the man.
 
nVidia is going the way of 3dfx, ATi is now the graphics king. Nvidia cheats, lies, and tricks consumers with crooked business practices. On top of that Radeon 9700s are beating GFFX 5900s in benchmarks. Radeon 9800 is faster, looks better, and is one product cycle older.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
The leaked maps of the Half-Life 2 episodes - Part 2
Replies
0
Views
9K
Barnz
B
B
The other cancelled ports of Half-Life
Replies
3
Views
7K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top