|
|
|
Nvidia vs ATI
|
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
17. June 2004 @ 11:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
8X is better (double than 4X ) MSI are a good make for mobos and hightach or Sapphire are good for G-cards.
oli
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
17. June 2004 @ 11:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
The AGP scheme is for sharing system memory, for use as video texture frame buffer.
My old GeForce 256 DDR (32MB) was far superior to my previous Voodoo3 (16MB) because the new AGP 4x was a distinct benefit. But these days, with 256MB video memory, or at least 128MB, the AGP-thing is actually less important than it used to be.
Many tests have shown little or no difference between AGP 4x and 8x testing with the same 256MB vid board.
Regards
ABit AB9 Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.4GHz
2GB OCZ PC2-6400 Platinum XTC R2
ATI Radeon X1900XT 512MB
Enermax Liberty 620W
320GB/16MB WD, 150GB/16MB Raptor
Plextor PX-755SA DVD (SATA)
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
17. June 2004 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
8X is better (double than 4X ) MSI are a good make for mobos and hightach or Sapphire are good for G-cards.
Never heard of hightach ... which probably is a bad thing but in either case, Sapphire seems to be the budget outlet for ATi cards -- and a couple friends of mine who are stout ATi fans now stay away from them citing stability issues.
Quote:
Many tests have shown little or no difference between AGP 4x and 8x testing with the same 256MB vid board
And for damn near most games, there isnt a world of difference between 128MB and 256MB either.
Quote:
Most cards are 8x/4x today, but the 4x support is going to disappear the way 2x support already has (remember 3dfx Voodoo3 etc?)
Hell support for AGP as a whole is gonna dissapear :P
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. June 2004 @ 19:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Dissappear? What do you mean!
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
17. June 2004 @ 20:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Meaning when PCI-X for Video comes around (soon) then AGP will kinda fade away :)
|
Moderator
|
17. June 2004 @ 20:32 |
Link to this message
|
PCI-X is going to blow away AGP for good :)
Both ATI and nVidia's new top-o-the-line cards are going to be offered in PCI-X - just gotta wait for mobo support.
Have you guys looked at the newest Alienware system? They've managed to use two PCI-X slots and some proprietary hardware/software to run two vidcards for the same monitor. Check it:
http://www.alienware.com/ALX_pages/main_alx.aspx
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 |
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. June 2004 @ 22:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Anybody know if the SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON 9800SE is any good for $134.00? Vs ATI 9600 Pro?
Jason Rife
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2004 @ 06:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have heard that the SE versions of ATi are shit, sapphire are the shitest of all makes (that use ATI chips)
oli
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
18. June 2004 @ 06:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Keep your 256MB GeForce FX5600XT, it's new enough to get you through Christmas and then, we'll see what's up. Radeon 9800XT 256Mb will be waiting for you, in the clearance-bin, hehe:)
ABit AB9 Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.4GHz
2GB OCZ PC2-6400 Platinum XTC R2
ATI Radeon X1900XT 512MB
Enermax Liberty 620W
320GB/16MB WD, 150GB/16MB Raptor
Plextor PX-755SA DVD (SATA)
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2004 @ 08:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ive already sold it on Ebay for £66.
oli
|
Senior Member
|
18. June 2004 @ 13:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
ATI is a far better card than the G force cards.I remenber the last G force card i had it had to have a xp update added to it and it never really performed that well on xp.After 2 G force cards i took the plunge when building a new pc and went on advise from others and bought an ATI.Result totally awsome card's compared to the G force and i would recomend to anyone.
i9 9900K CPU,ASUS MAXIMUS XI HERO Mobo, Fractal R6 Case,
Corsair H115I ,Corsair RM Series 850W psu,
RTX 3080 Ti ,Corsair DDR4 Vengeance RGB PRO 32GB 1TB Intel SSD 660p Series,1TB M.2 ,36TB Seagate HD,19TB Ext, LG BH16NS40 BD-RW,Creative Sound Blaster Zx 116dB Sound Card, Acer Predator XB321HK 32inch 4K Monitor, 2TB PS4
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
18. June 2004 @ 16:22 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
ATI is a far better card than the G force cards
All biases aside, one cant really say ATI is soooooo much better than nVidia or nVidia is sooooooo much better than ATi simply because, when comparing equally classed cards, both companies make exceptional products and it's really those out there who want to get into pissing contests that make such a big deal of it :)
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2004 @ 22:16 |
Link to this message
|
I'll post this again :)
Quote:
My personal conviction is that both companies make outstanding cards, you just have to know which models are the real performers since they both sell "economy" models that have similar names to the performance cards.
I liken it to a "Ford vs. Chevy" debate. The Ford lovers like to nitpick stupid stuff about Chevy's, the Chevy lovers nitpick Fords and so on. It's the same thing with ATI and nVidia.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2004 @ 23:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Chevy kicks fords arse because i have a ford focus and its shit. I have had 2 GForce cards and they've been shit 2.
oli
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. June 2004 @ 04:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Aren't all Video Cards suppose to perform? I mean you have some cards that cost $50 and others that cost $300, but don't they both bassically work the same way? If their is a Video game that says they recommend at least 64mb Video card to run their game, won't any cheapo video card 64mb or more run the game just fine? You go out and spend $200+ on a video card, is it really doing anything that a $100+ Video card can't already handle? What is better an ATI Pro card with 64mb of memory VS lets say a cheapo 256mb Card? No expert , I'm guessing the 256mb card is more advanced just for the simple fact it has 4 times the memory than the 64mb card. Someone made a comment about Sapphire cards being the worst choice to pick with the ATI name on it. What makes the sapphire cards bad? do they not work properly? When you play a newer advanced game, does it not make the game run smooth and crisp? it's a video card isn't it? it was made to work and perform and do what a video card does right? No expert like I said, but I don't see Sapphire sucking all that bad, they make a crap load of cards ranging in price. To me a 128mb is a 128mb card, maybe it won't have certain features on it like Dual DVI or whatever, or other features. I don't see why it wouldn't run any game like a champ though. If you see someone playing a game on their computer, can you tell what kind of video card they have in their machine by looking at the game and how it runs? I doubt that. Anyway the games they make for PC are only as good as the game makers make them. Any 128mb Video card should be able to max out the beauty of the game and how it is suppose to run. To me it's all about memory, if you have plenty of memory you are doing good.
Jason Rife
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
19. June 2004 @ 04:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
i see what you are saying but the more expensive g-card is usually better in ati's case. EG: an X800 playing Far Cry compared to a Radeon 7000 playing the same game, come on you know the answer to that (der). Eg: a radeon 9200 against a 9800, the 9800 is better, get the idea. they wouldnt make newer gcards if they werent supposed to be better.
oli
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
19. June 2004 @ 06:35 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
To me a 128mb is a 128mb card. Any 128mb Video card should be able to max out the beauty of the game and how it is suppose to run. To me it's all about memory.
Well, that's a bit of an over-simplification :)
The chip is the biggest factor, just like a PC it's your CPU not just how much memory your CPU has to work with.
The vid boards each have their generation of chip and architecture, then their memory speed. The clockrate of the memory (and the chip) are more important to the overall performance than is the quantity of memory.
The hardware ie. the # of shaders /pixel pipelines etc. are like V8 Chevy vs. I4 Ford or vice versa; they might both have 128MB buffer memory.
Here is some good info:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.htmlQuote:
When you play a newer advanced game, does it not make the game run smooth and crisp?
Well no! Actually rather the reverse is true...
Go to Tom's Hardware and learn about the design of all the different recent generations of vid boards (you can compare Ford & Chevy in great detail!)
L8R
ABit AB9 Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.4GHz
2GB OCZ PC2-6400 Platinum XTC R2
ATI Radeon X1900XT 512MB
Enermax Liberty 620W
320GB/16MB WD, 150GB/16MB Raptor
Plextor PX-755SA DVD (SATA)
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
19. June 2004 @ 07:04 |
Link to this message
|
Let's not let this thread devolve into pointless and unsubstantiated pissing contest. I know I wont let it.
Quote:
I have had 2 GForce cards and they've been shit 2.
Like I said about unsubstantiated, anyone can say the equivalent: "I've had 2 ATI cards and they've sucked ass" too or even say a bit more without actually saying anything at all: "I've had 2 ATi cards and they were unstabled as hell". If one is going to get knee deep into pissing contests, let's make sure at least its a substantiated one.
Quote:
Aren't all Video Cards suppose to perform?
Yes but there are different degrees to which they perform. Using cars as an example, all cars are supposed to get you from A to B but consider the Ferrari F50 and a Ford Focus, some cars will do so much faster. The same kind of hierarchy applies to video cards but perhaps a little more so: with cars, almost any car can drive on the highway (safety and other concerns aside), but with video cards, only certain qualified cards can play certain video games and some cards cant play certain video games.
Quote:
You go out and spend $200+ on a video card, is it really doing anything that a $100+ Video card can't already handle?
It's not as simple as just the amount of memory however in most cases, a 256MB card will have a more advanced chip on it and cater to more premium users. I dont know the ATI equivalent or if one exists (Nephilim?), but with nVidia, consider the GeForceFX5200: it's a budget card and offers quite the performance for its price class however it is far behind the performance of its bigger brothers. So what does nVidia (rather the OEMs) try and do? They try and squeeze as much performance into the card and yet still keep it in the budget category. This is done by loading it up with 256MB of memory. Memory is cheap compared to a more advanced video chip. The total cost difference between the 128MB and 256MB versions of the GFX5200 is usually less than $20 and the 256MB performs ever so slightly better. Essentially what I'm trying to say is that the 256MB vs 128MB argument only works if you compare betweeen the same video cards: a lot of people may suggest that a 256MB GeForceFX5200 will outperform a 128MB GeForceFX5700 but that is wrong.
Quote:
What is better an ATI Pro card with 64mb of memory VS lets say a cheapo 256mb Card?
1. With the exception of the GeForceFX5200 (and ATI's 256MB equivalent), there are no "cheapo" 256MB video cards
Quote:
Someone made a comment about Sapphire cards being the worst choice to pick with the ATI name on it. What makes the sapphire cards bad?
Sapphire is the budget arm of ATI. Their cards are usually cheaper and perform slightly worse than stock ATI cards.
Quote:
When you play a newer advanced game, does it not make the game run smooth and crisp? it's a video card isn't it? it was made to work and perform and do what a video card does right?
A video card is designed and required to do one thing: display 16 colours at 640x480 -- hardly optimal gaming there. Like my analogy with cars and highways, not all video cards can play them: consider FarCry and UT2004 for instance: with a performance oriented card (or even midrange) card, you can get good to excellent results playing however, try to play using a budget orient card and you may find that the game may not start and if it does, it runs horribly slow or, in order to improve the performance, you have to drop the quality level.
Quote:
No expert like I said, but I don't see Sapphire sucking all that bad, they make a crap load of cards ranging in price.
They do make cards ranging in all price ranged HOWEVER if you compare those cards made by Sapphire for a specific price bracket with, say, the stock ATI equivalent, you will notice the performance will be a tad less. Probably not horribly so (which is why Sapphire is so successful) but if you are looking for bragging rights, Sapphire wouldnt be the way to go.
Quote:
To me a 128mb is a 128mb card, maybe it won't have certain features on it like Dual DVI or whatever, or other features. I don't see why it wouldn't run any game like a champ though.
I think Ive made the distinction clear for you about the different categories of video cards but to be honest what you are essentially saying is that "any car that is red is like this Ferrari that is red" and you and I both know that isnt the case.
Quote:
If you see someone playing a game on their computer, can you tell what kind of video card they have in their machine by looking at the game and how it runs?
To a degree yes. Hell if you spend enough time around computer hardware (especially from a more sale/retail oriented perspective), you may even be able to pin down the exact model and specifications of the card (based on trends and buying-personality). For instance: you can run UT2004 using an antiquated GeForce3Ti500 -- you can even run it at 1024x768 with the settings ramped to max. This however will results in very poor framerates (a measure of how 'smooth' a game looks when you are playing, the higher the better). I would think the framerate would be in the 10-20fps range using those settings. Now consider a GeForceFX5700, using those same settings, the framerates will probably be in the 40-60fps range. An eye-noticeable difference. Naturally there is a limit to which the eye will be able to estimate framerates and detect lag however this test is only really effective when you run the game at the maximum threshold of the card (i used an obvious example above to accentuate a point).
Quote:
Anyway the games they make for PC are only as good as the game makers make them.
And most of those makers are quite competent programmers. Furthermore, in many cases (especially with RPG and FPS genres), games will license graphics engines from one or two major companies -- these companies have spent tons of time refining their graphics engine and as such, one can kinda say, "cutting edge graphics engines are in almost all major titles"
Quote:
Any 128mb Video card should be able to max out the beauty of the game and how it is suppose to run.
Consider the car example: "any red car should be able to drive at a speed that satisfies anyone" -- obviously not true. You'd be hard pressed to get a Radeon9800/GFX5950 with 128MB to run UT2004 at 2048x1536 with detail settings ramped to max ---- very difficult to the point of infeasible.
Quote:
To me it's all about memory, if you have plenty of memory you are doing good.
Like I said, Red Car A not neccessarily the same performer as Red Car B.
Quote:
see what you are saying but the more expensive g-card is usually better in ati's case
Well no crap -- they have to justify charging $500+ for a chunk of silicon, plastic, aluminum, copper and PCB somehow. That's like saying a Ferrari is faster than a Focus. And If you didnt realize it (after owning two GeForce cards), it applies to nVidia too .... oh and get this.. this is going to blow your mind: it's true virtually everywhere in life (gasp). It's what drives most economies.
Quote:
EG: an X800 playing Far Cry compared to a Radeon 7000 playing the same game, come on you know the answer to that (der). Eg: a radeon 9200 against a 9800, the 9800 is better
Oh for crying out loud, NO SHIT. The X800 is current bleeding edge technology while the Radeon 7000 was circa 2000 -- four years ago. The Radeon9200 is a budget oriented card and the Radeon9800 was designed to be a performance at any cost card. That's like saying a current Ferrari F50 is faster than .... a ten year Honda Civic.
Quote:
get the idea
I get the idea that you've got your biases and I fully respect that. What I dont get is that your biases are wholly unsubstantiated --- other than "they sucked" or "ATI is just better". So like I said, I'll let this turn into a pissing contest but let's not make it an unsubstantated pissing contest: if you're gonna take a stand, be prepared to back it up.
Quote:
they wouldnt make newer gcards if they werent supposed to be better
Since you're and ATI guy I'll fill you in on something: consider the Radeon9700 and the Radeon9200SE. Obviously I can't compare those two because the cards fit into different roles
JSRife
Leave the pissing contests to (a) rich people and (b) people who dont actually have the cards but want to talk about the cards as if they did. If you're looking for a video card but dont want to break your budget, any midrange video card (Radeon9600/GFX5700) should be good enough for you.
EDIT:
Quote:
The hardware ie. the # of shaders /pixel pipelines etc. are like V8 Chevy vs. I4 Ford or vice versa; they might both have 128MB buffer memory.
Ok so you do see my point hee hee :) You cant go around complaining that ATI/nVidia cards suck when you are comparing a bleeding edge card to one that is 4 generations old. Just as the comparison of "Car A" to "Car B" makes absolutely no sense, a comparison of "Radeon9800" to "Radeon 7000" makes no sense -- just because they are both video cards doesnt mean they are worth comparing -- sure you can compare them but you're not going to get anything useful out of it.
Quote:
Go to Tom's Hardware and learn about the design of all the different recent generations of vid boards (you can compare Ford & Chevy in great detail!)
Dont put too much faith into Tom's Hardware though .... with their review of the 6800 when they compared it with the current 9800 card, they used a Sapphire card -- not that noticeable of a difference but still a biased (and low) approach.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. June 2004 @ 07:08
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
19. June 2004 @ 07:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
that took a long time to read. ATI still kick Nvidia's arse, no shit. But which ATI card is best, sapphire, hightech, creative or something else.
oli
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
19. June 2004 @ 07:39 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
ATI still kick Nvidia's arse, no shit.
That's just my point about completely unsubstiated claims. If you're going to get into or start a pissing contest, at least back up what you are saying. As I've said before, neither ATI nor nVidia is kicking the other's arse. Both companies offer superb cards. Now if you've got something useful to say regarding ATI or nVidia, by all means, let's hear it but lets hear something more intellectually stimulating than "it sucks" ... there's a term for talking about something without backing it up.... i cant quite remember what that was.....
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
19. June 2004 @ 08:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
ok then you want proof. i got given a an ATI Rage 128 Pro 16MB from someone and a an Nvidia MX440 32MB and the ATI rocks the NVIADIA one is slow and jogs alot on JK2 did the same thing but used the ATI one and there was a little jogging but it was surtainly better than NVIDIA card. you wanted proof so you got it.
oli
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
19. June 2004 @ 09:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
oli- I bet they both play Doom2 real good. ;)
NVidia basically developed the first 'modern' vid board with the GeForce256 DDR, circa 2000.
(It will still keep up with some newer GeForceMX models)
Again, I offer that THG link as a newbie-friendly intro into vid board design and engineering.
Sapphire boards use the ATI reference chipsets but are mfg in Taiwan not Canada, on proprietary (Sapphire) circuit boards. Hopefully they achieve their cost savings through being in The Republic of China and not by cheapifying the actual PCB... so in theory actual performance spec's between the same model ATI-label vs. Sapphire-label should be insignificant or traced to lower-spec memory.
It would seem that the $20 bucks saving on the Sapphire might be offset by your worries about longevity/reliability/cooling solution/memory chips used/physical quality of PCB and assembly etc.
3dfx used to only sell their chips to others to mfg the finished product, then they started making their own.
ATI used to only make their own, just recently making their chips avail to others to mfg so there is choice.
NVidia only makes the chips, others (like Asus) making the retail product.
I have used many Sapphire boards, never had prob.
The overall quality, assembly, packaging etc seem good.
I used ATI boards in the 1980s when the little startup on Victoria Park Avenue in Toronto was the worldwide state-of-the-art! (They used to convert EGA graphics to different textures, visible on monochrome monitor - I know, unbelievable right? but true)
THG is not for Praetor but Jason and Oli could advance their knowledge (and thus their arguments) immeasurably.
Gotta go (USGP)
ABit AB9 Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.4GHz
2GB OCZ PC2-6400 Platinum XTC R2
ATI Radeon X1900XT 512MB
Enermax Liberty 620W
320GB/16MB WD, 150GB/16MB Raptor
Plextor PX-755SA DVD (SATA)
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
19. June 2004 @ 09:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Interesting, but i bet you'll never believe this...i never played any of the Doom series!
oli
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. June 2004 @ 11:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
Probably not a single game out right now that a standard Nvidia 5200 couldn't play just perfect. I agree times progress and leave the old hardware behind. Video Cards are like Computers, after awhile you won't see them on the shelves anymore. For example I bought my computer back in Feb of 2003, the computer came out in Nov, 2002. They no longer carry this model of computer, times have changed. You won't go into Best Buy or circuit city and be able to buy a Video card from lets say 1998, it's done and over with. Pretty much what the stores keep on the shelves at the present time as far as Video cards go are all up to date. You won't go to Best Buy and find a 32mb video card. The 64mb Chips are dying out also, Soon it will be only 128 and 256 chips, then what? 256 and 512 chips and so on. I'm not getting in my Time machine going back to 10 years ago buying a video card and coming back to present time and asking if this video card I bought will run the newest latest game. People say this and that card are back from the year 2000, lets say an ATI 9000 Card. Do you honestly think the ATI 9000 card from then is exactly the same as a ATI 9000 card you would buy today? Is a Mustang GT from 1995 the same as a Mustang GT from 2004? they are totally different cars , but it's still considered the same car, because it has the same name. Original ATI 9000 Video card from back when it was made, and a ATI 9000 card you would find today would probably be different. What would be the point of making outdated video cards? What would be the point of making an outdated computer? I do believe they still make crappy video cards to support People that still do have the older model computers, but overall those video cards have to up to date for newer computers. As far as running DOOM 2 , My computer now would run that perfect, and I have intergrated graphics on my machine, so i'm hoping any 128mb Video card would be able to run that game perfect, Most likely the 128mb video card is going to run any game out at the present time. That is what it is designed to do run games. It doesn't take an ATI 9800 Pro to run a game good. I hear all the hype about the ATI 9800 pro card, never hear anything about a PNY Quadro fx3000 Video card, they cost around $1,499.99 if People are going to argue what is the best, why not talk about the best.
Jason Rife
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. June 2004 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
The Quadro FX3000 is a Workstation card I know. Everyone seems to want to overkill it, so why not just get it right? I mean you gotta have at least a Nvidia 5950 Ultra or ATI 9800 Pro to run any new game these days right? The way you talk if you have anything less than a ATI 9600 Pro you aren't running anything , but DOOM 2....LOL
Jason Rife
|
|
