|
Nvidia vs ATI
|
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. June 2004 @ 15:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
What is the better card between an ATI Radeon 9600 XT or an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro? In the ATI serious of cards which is better to go with? I noticed the XT card cost more than the Pro. Don't know why.
Jason Rife
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Moderator
|
22. June 2004 @ 15:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Alright, no more funny business (directed at myself). On to the vid card debate.
I've been looking at the specs for the Radeon X800 Pro and Platinum and I don't see enough difference between the two to justify the extra 80 or so bucks.
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 |
Moderator
|
22. June 2004 @ 16:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
The practical difference between the XT and Pro model is about a 10% performance boost. The XT's have a thermal sensor in them that will allow the card to slightly overclock itself within a certain temperature range though the benefit is pretty limited.
I could have bought a 9800XT when I got my 9800Pro but the price/performance increase wasn't worth it to me.
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
|
23. June 2004 @ 04:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Saw that an ATI 9700 pro cost a few more Dollars than the ATI 9800 Pro....Why is this?
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
23. June 2004 @ 05:40 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The XT's have a thermal sensor in them that will allow the card to slightly overclock itself within a certain temperature range though the benefit is pretty limited.
This is an auto-OC? I never liked anything that auto-reclocked my system (aside from laptop processors running battery mode) ... is there a way to manualOC and/or disable this autoOC?
As for the 97Pro vs 98Pro I think it's just fluke (or marketing)
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
23. June 2004 @ 06:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
its like selling two bannanas for £5 and one banana for £1
oli
|
Moderator
|
23. June 2004 @ 10:17 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Saw that an ATI 9700 pro cost a few more Dollars than the ATI 9800 Pro....Why is this?
Was the 9700 Pro an All-In-Wonder? I've seen those still for sale but I haven't seen a stock 9700 Pro for sale in a while.
Quote:
This is an auto-OC?
Yep. It's very conservative though, nothing like you'd get using PowerStrip.
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
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
23. June 2004 @ 10:27 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Was the 9700 Pro an All-In-Wonder? I've seen those still for sale but I haven't seen a stock 9700 Pro for sale in a while
Same thought occured here too.
Quote:
Yep. It's very conservative though, nothing like you'd get using PowerStrip.
Pooooooooooooooo! Is there any way to turn this "feature" off?
Quote:
its like selling two bannanas for £5 and one banana for £1
I was gonna put something here ... but im laughing too hard and cant remember what it was.
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
23. June 2004 @ 11:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
sorry i got that wrong.... i meant....its like selling 1 banana for £5 and 2 bananas for £1
oli
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
23. June 2004 @ 11:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL yeah that makes a bit more sense! heehee. In either case i suspect it is the 97AIW since those are still quite common and do cost more than the plain 98P for obvious reasons :)
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. June 2004 @ 12:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Nope....Saw an ATI 9700 Pro plain Jane without the All in Wonder Package, and it costed a few bucks more than the ATI 9800 Pro.
Jason Rife
|
Moderator
|
23. June 2004 @ 12:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
If that's the case, it's not a very good deal at all! Maybe they're charging extra just for the nostalgia factor :P
I see 9800 Pro's going for just over $200 now which is a helluva deal for such a great performing card.
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
|
Moderator
|
23. June 2004 @ 12:49 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Pooooooooooooooo! Is there any way to turn this "feature" off?
I'm not sure. I don't remember reading/hearing anything about that but then again my memory is quite lacking :)
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
|
23. June 2004 @ 12:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Maybe there site got hacked :)
oli
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. June 2004 @ 08:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is off the Video card subject....But is related in a way (it's all bout the memory) HA HA. What would you guys recommend as far as memory goes in a system? This is the way my computer came when I bought it. HP Pavilion desktop...128mb DDR 2100 memory, 40gig HD, AMD 1800+ Athlon , Mother board max is 1gig(2 512mb sticks DDr2100) Windows Xp Home edition..... The only thing I did to this thing is add a 256mb memory chip which I now have 384mb of ddr memory, which my computer uses some of the memory puts me down to 352mb DDR memory. Is it true with windows XP you should have at least 512mb of ram? I am picking up a 512mb DDR 2100 chip off of NewEgg.com for $72, good deal by the way, adding it with my 256mb chip which then gives me 768mb of memory...Do you guys think I will see a big difference in performace with the 768mb vs 384mb? will is make my computer much faster? With more memory does it make it easier to multi task online? and run smoother? I'm still getting a video card, don't really care about the brand or perfomance, if it's a 128mb video card that will free up my DDR memory also right? Instead if using my DDR memory to run Video, the Video card will kick in and take care of all Video correct? I don't play the latest greatest games or anything, not really into Video games a whole heck of alot. I love Diablo 2 however, which I been playing just fine without a video card, just want to beef up my system adding a 512MB Chip and a cheap ass 128mb Video card....Do you guys think with those 2 things my computer will be much better perfomace wise? Let me know.
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
24. June 2004 @ 10:02 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
This is off the Video card subject
Well then make a new thread. Simple as that.
|
|
Xian
Senior Member
|
24. June 2004 @ 10:11 |
Link to this message
|
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16782
I just saw this on a site talking about the release of Doom 3, which is relevant to the current topic:
This game is very important for Nvidia since this is where its rendering marchitecture will actually pay off. From NV30 upwards all Nvidia GPUs are able to render texture values without Z or Color information. The NV40, Geforce 6800 series has full 16 pipelines that can process one texture and can render as much as 32 textures without Z or Color info.
This means that in Doom 3, Nvidia's tech is likely to be much faster then ATI's R420. We heard as much as 50 per cent faster but we'll have to wait for the official release and do our own tests to verify that.
|
Moderator
|
24. June 2004 @ 10:26 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
This means that in Doom 3, Nvidia's tech is likely to be much faster then ATI's R420. We heard as much as 50 per cent faster but we'll have to wait for the official release and do our own tests to verify that.
WOW! Now that is something to talk about. So we have finally have a game that will take advantage of nVidia's architecture advantages. It seems ATI has normally focused on the "here and now" aspect of performance whereas nVidia has been looking further down the road and it looks like it will pay off in a big way with Doom3.
Please let us know what you find out when you get the game Xian, although if it turns out the way you say, Praetor will never let me hear the end of it!
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
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
24. June 2004 @ 10:30 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
It seems ATI has normally focused on the "here and now" aspect of performance whereas nVidia has been looking further down the road and it looks like it will pay off in a big way with Doom3.
The things is about ATI/nVidia's philosophy is that something like this has never happened before.... the Doom3/HL2-calibre of games have never been available before and so ATI's philosophy of here and now has been successful.
Quote:
if it turns out the way you say, Praetor will never let me hear the end of it!
What do you mean.... if?
|
Moderator
|
24. June 2004 @ 13:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
You never know!
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
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
24. June 2004 @ 14:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
You also never know what the future holds. Nvidia made good use of the money they got from the X-Box and ATI is in a similar situation with the X-Box 2. It's not quite the same since the original was PC based so the technology transferred pretty directly to their cards, but it will be interesting as always.
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. June 2004 @ 04:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
It just amazes me the top of the line video cards now, starting with the X800 and 6800Ultra cost over $350 and then you have the 9800Pro In the $200 range. It's a known fact these 3 cards are top of the line and play games wonderfully. Then on the other hand you can go and buy a Playstation 2 or Xbox for only $149 and they probably play these newer games almost as good as these video cards costing way more. Does it cost alot to make a video card or something? for top of the line? Is it a marketing tactic, they know People will pay? Are these processors inside PS2 and Xbox cheaper to make? It's kinda sad though when they are doing the exact same thing as the video cards as far as gaming goes, and that's what video cards main purpose is, to play games and that's PS2 and Xbox main purpose, Graphic wise they are on the same level. What's inside those vide game consoles?
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
27. June 2004 @ 06:37 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
It's a known fact these 3 cards are top of the line and play games wonderfully.
Like I said before about comparing between generations and such ... true the 98P was one of the top cards of its time its nowhere near the level of the X800 -- its a full generation behind the latest and greatest
Quote:
Then on the other hand you can go and buy a Playstation 2 or Xbox for only $149 and they probably play these newer games almost as good as these video cards costing way more
First you're comparing between generations now you're comparing between devices? Consoles dont come anywhere near PC game for two reasons (1) the dp/resolutions of a TV is nothing to worry about and (2) AA/Ansio for TV games is ... uh... easy.
Quote:
I's kinda sad though when they are doing the exact same thing as the video cards as far as gaming goes, and that's what video cards main purpose is, to play games and that's PS2 and Xbox main purpose
Reminds me of the the "every video card should polay any game" -- not the case... and you cant compare between devices!!!
|
Moderator
|
28. June 2004 @ 09:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Compare Max Payne side by side with a PS2 on a television and a PC and the difference will become abundantly clear.
You seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy theory to defraud people buying these latest gen video cards. Do you actually believe that the card makers are pulling the wool over millions of tech savvy people's eyes by charging $500 for a card that does nothing special?
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
28. June 2004 @ 10:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Even besides the technical requirements, there's a whole list of reasons why you can't compare a PC card to "equivalent" technology in a console. Costs for promotion, packaging, distribution, and the like aren't paid for by the video chip manufacturer. Sony and Micro$haft are responsible for that, and neither company expects to make much, if any, profit from selling hardware. The money is in licensing fees paid for by software companies and passed on to you in the price of the games. That doesn't even take into account the lifespan of a console graphics chip compared to that of a video card, which I won't get into since this is off topic already.
|
