|
Nvidia vs ATI
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
11. August 2004 @ 13:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
That rather contradicts your signature, finding a bargain as good as that!!
Well i did mean X800 pro, the XT's "little" brother.
UT04 does run at low res fine on stuff like onboard 32MB AGP 4x, but i like to play hectic games at very high resolutions because of my particular screen (:D) and so 33 characters at High detail at 1920x1200 does require some graphical punch.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
11. August 2004 @ 15:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm happy with my GeForce FX5600ultra.
Gif by Phantom69
 |
Moderator
|
11. August 2004 @ 18:38 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
9200-FX5200: Radeon wins - FX5200 is a joke of a card - should never have been called a DX9 card.
They're both jokes.
Quote:
9600-FX5600: Radeon wins - FX5600 again is a crap card - even the Ultra version is slow - the ATI 9600 is decent as far as budget cards go.
Poor comparison. The 9600 platform competes with the 5700 platform.
Quote:
9700-FX5900: GeForce wins - at the moment if you want the best bang for your money the FX5900 is the way to go - have seen ASUS ones going cheaper than the slower FX5900XT.
Another poor comparison. The 9700 series competed with the 5800 series.
Quote:
9800XT-FX5950 Ultra: Radeon wins - 9800XT is a very fast card - so that isn't suprising.
Neither one owns the other, simple as that. Only in people's minds does one own the other.
Quote:
X800Pro-6800ultra: Radeon wins - X800's are the fastest card I have seen so far - they have a small fan in comparison to 6800 and it very quiet. 3DMark2003 scores are huge on them.
Another poor comparison. The X800Pro competes with the 6800GT and the X800XT competes with the 6800Ultra.
The X800XT got handed it's ass on a platter by the 6800Ultra in Doom 3. Even the 6800GT, which is a step below, kept up with the X800XT. Whether the Cat 4.9's will rectify this remains to be seen.
The bottom line is that when considering each company's cards within a price/performance bracket there isn't a single card that stomps the other.
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
|
11. August 2004 @ 18:41 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
ATI have released their 4.9 drives 4 weeks in advance - they aren't official - have no support - no WHQL
Which driver revisions have WHQL support?
Quote:
Also don't forget that DOOM3 is capped at 60 fps - regardless - and the latest ATI's should hit that.
I dont know what crap you're "hearing" but wouldnt it make just a bit of sense to look deeper into a remark like that?
If you look closely you'll note that the 6800Ultra is running 68.5fps -- so much for that supposed 60fps cap eh? Read up: http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQyLDI=
Quote:
Once Half-Life 2 appears this will all happen again as ATI will have better performance
You know this for a fact? Let's not forget OpenGL used to be ATI's domain and now look how the ATI cards are proverbially biting the dust with Doom3.
Quote:
blah blah blah...it's all about bragging rights.
No it's about having intelligent discussions and throwing in a dash of common sense and open-mindedness.
Quote:
9200-FX5200: Radeon wins
9600-FX5600: Radeon winds
9700-FX5900: GeForce wins
9800XT-FX5950 Ultra: Radeon wins
and even possibly
X800Pro-6800ultra: Radeon wins (just)
Some unfair comparisons there; the 9600 is supposed to be matched up with the 5700 and the 9700 was matched up against Ti4600. I wont talk about the new flagship cards -- yet.
Quote:
9200-FX5200: Radeon wins - FX5200 is a joke of a card - should never have been called a DX9 card.
WOW. Talk about blatent fanboyism here. Listen child, just because the card performs poorly or that it is clocked really slow doesnt deny the fact that it IS a hardware DX9 card.
Quote:
9600-FX5600: Radeon wins - FX5600 again is a crap card - even the Ultra version is slow - the ATI 9600 is decent as far as budget cards go.
Again more misinformed fanboyism.
Quote:
9700-FX5900: GeForce wins - at the moment if you want the best bang for your money the FX5900 is the way to go - have seen ASUS ones going cheaper than the slower FX5900XT. You can pick them up for £120 - that's going to be like $160 or so - BARGAIN.
What kidna comparison is this? The 9700 is circa GeForce4 dude.
Quote:
X800Pro-6800ultra: Radeon wins - X800's are the fastest card I have seen so far - they have a small fan in comparison to 6800 and it very quiet. 3DMark2003 scores are huge on them.
I'll be kind and give you a chance to do some reading. All I can say is WOW. I thought I had seen fanboyism .... until you set the bar so much higher.
Quote:
along with how Half-Life2 runs on the new Geforce Cards - my bet is there will be very little difference between the two.
Actually HL2 runs quite well on GF cards... included a GF3Ti500. Hell ... my Etch-A-Sketch can play HL2! :P
Quote:
The X800XT got handed it's ass on a platter by the 6800Ultra in Doom 3. Even the 6800GT, which is a step below, kept up with the X800XT.
Very well said ... perhaps it would do him some good to do some reading.
|
|
buxton
Member
|
12. August 2004 @ 10:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Jesus Christ Lads Take It Easy - Never seen a Forum go off one quicker than this place.
At anyone calling me a Fanboy - bollox - owned nVidia cards since I had a Voodoo2 - only got an ATI because it was a 9800Pro for £95 - thats about 4 months ago! All I had was a GF4Ti4200 at the time. Before that a GF3Ti500. Before that GF2-MX.
NEPHILIM
I agree they aren't like for like comparisons - but then I didn't make them - he said "I leave you to meditate" I just commented on what he put. And unless they make strides on the 4.9 Drivers I don't think it will make much difference.
PRAETOR
God Almighty boss take a chill pill.
4.7 Drivers are WHQL - 4.8 might be, not sure, but not officially released yet - try Guru3D. 4.9 are out now, but in Sept officially with WHQL, but they are on ATI's website as a Doom3 stopgap.
"At a recent NVIDIA Editors' Day, id Software CEO Todd Hollenshed announced that DOOM 3 will be capped to 60 frames per second in the rendering engine.
John Carmack - "The game tic simulation, including player movement, runs at 60hz, so if it rendered any faster, it would just be rendering identical frames. A fixed tic rate removes issues like Quake 3 had, where some jumps could only be made at certain framerates. In Doom, the same player inputs will produce the same motions, no matter what the framerate is."
Maybe it can be switched off for benching? Or maybe they changed their minds.
"9200-FX5200: Radeon wins - FX5200 is a joke of a card - should never have been called a DX9 card."
Look - don't call me a child - before the FX5200 was even on the shelf we had a guy from a card manufacturer in showing us the range they had - shouldn't be called a DX9 card was his honest oppinion - if you disagree fine - don't stoop to insults though please.
5600 and 5600 Ultra are also pants - 5900XT was the best budget card nVidia came up with and was almost in my machine till I got my ATI for £50 less - my heart said nVidia my head said £50 saving.
Once again I didn't make the comparisons - just commented on the ones in the other post.
Don't really see how saying the X800 is the fastest card I have seen is raising the level of fanboyism - it is the fastest card I have seen - in general it has a way smaller fan and runs almost silent - that's just a statement of fact. We benched them both on the fastest current Intel and AMDFX CPU's - ATI was the fastest - that's all I am saying.
Sorry I missed one -
No I don't know HL2 will run better - I made an assumption based around HL2 being a partner game with ATI - the same as Doom3 with nVidia.
I can't be bothered with the last comment.
Sorry I missed another one...
The bragging rights was aimed at nVidia and ATI not at anyone on this forum.
ALso to remove the fanboy accusation - read what I put at the end of that post - Personally I prefer nVidia.
_
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. August 2004 @ 10:17
|
Moderator
|
12. August 2004 @ 11:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I agree they aren't like for like comparisons - but then I didn't make them - he said "I leave you to meditate" I just commented on what he put.
True, true.
Quote:
And unless they make strides on the 4.9 Drivers I don't think it will make much difference.
Let's hope for ATI's sake they do make strides. I love a spirited fight but it looks like ATI just took a pretty good left hook with Doom 3.
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
|
12. August 2004 @ 14:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok so perhaps I was a bit harsh :P, sorry ... a couple things though
- To call the 5900 a budget card is quite an unfair statement. Not everyone's got cash to shell out for that card (and thus we have the 5200 and 5500-5700). It is by no means whatsoever a budget card.
- As for the 5600 -- there have been benchmarks showing that they can take on the 9600 -- much to my surprise -- but since i cant find them for the life of me, ill treat it like heresay. (too bad to, i do believe that was quite an interesting article even though i only skimmed it)
- The 5800/59x0 aside, the new 6800s run damn near silent too. They have virtually the same cooler really on both the ATI and nVidia cards. Especailly if you mention the 6800 by name (rather than the series), it's potentially argueable that the 6800 cooler runs quieter than that of the X800 (but that's a moot point considering it's a decible or two); as for the GT and the Ultra, the GT will easily match any ATi card for lack-of-noise and the Ultra, depending on the make, will also match it (however the more common Ultra's wont)
- I think the assumption that HL2 will run "better" on ATI is a fair one but as it stands, especially for being a "partnered" game, ATI cards dont quite have a dominating lead (yet).
- I did note that you said that they werent your comparisons etc (and I did see that you're an nVidia fan); perhaps I jumped the gun when i saw points being made based on some fairly ridiculous comparisons (and in all fairness they are quite meaningless comparisons). You seemed like a fairly knoweledgeable fella -- i guess I expected to see a concrete comment something along the lines of "yes i know this is a ridiculous comparison but...." rather than the more open-ended "meditate on that" remark :)
- I'm here to enforce open-ended objective arguments in favor of both ATi and nVidia and will pounce (so to speak) on the first trace of fanboyism -- real or percieved. I must congratulate you however: this is the first case where I've made a bad-call as far as fanboyism comes. :P
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
12. August 2004 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
Buxton's no Fanboy ;-(
Just to note that Buxton's 120 Pounds Sterling is $300 (Aus/Cdn) or $225 (US).
I can get an Asus Radeon 9600XT 128MbDDR AGP TV-Out Retail Box for $250 Canadian (or about 100 Pounds).
The closest NVidia is Asus v9570/TD GeForce FX 5700 256MbDDR AGP Retail Box, a few quid less.
These are 2 'affordable' performance boards right now, any higher model rises dramatically in price...
What about these two, direct comparison?
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
|
12. August 2004 @ 21:39 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
What about these two, direct comparison?
The 9600 and 5700 are rougly on par with each other
|
|
buxton
Member
|
13. August 2004 @ 09:48 |
Link to this message
|
Praetor - Cheers and phew. Fanboy is just to damn close to nerd for my liking :)
It's almost impossible to really compare cards as ATI and nVidia choose (for obvious reasons) not to release cards at the same time - so with each release one company takes the lead for two months then the other takes over and on and on.
Toms Hardware has about the best table of VGA comparisons I have seen - but it hasn't got the new stuff on. It's not perfect but it gives a decent "overall" on where each card stands on a like for like system.
The FX5900 is really a budget card now in the UK - this may not count for everywere - I really didn't take exchange rates into account - so I take your point.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/FX5900_Series.html
The ASUS is only £119 - for an FX5900 that is phenominal value for money.
As far as HL2 goes, I just get the feeling ATI are in deep trouble if nVidia can compete on that game, especially if they don't get Doom3 upto speed, so I can see HL2 using every ATI trick in the book to make that so.
Asked around at work and apparently Doom3 is still locked at 60Fps - but I can't confirm it. The quotes are from just before Christmas - so they may have abandoned that idea over the past 8 months or so.
So I remain to be corrected on that one if I am wrong.
Once again I missed a point.
The problem with the FX5200 and even the Ultra version is that it is esentially useless in DX9 - and so it kind of defeats the point of what nVidia were attempting - top to bottom DX9 regardless of price. Although I don't rate the 5600 at least that can cope to a certain extent and the Ultra version even more so.
The 5600Ultra should have been the 5600 to start off with and the 5200 should have been left on the drawing board. But then again I suppose it's all about money and how much it costs to manufacture them.
It would have been a lot better if they could have released the 5600 instead of the 5200. And then have the 5700 instead of the 5600. With the Ultra version inbetween.
I can't tell you the ammount of arguments with customers we had over this - MY F**KING GF4MX IS FASTER THAN THIS IN 3DMARK or MY F**KING GF4TI4200 WAS TWICE AS FAST AS THIS CRAP
Yes they swear a lot.
Try explaining GFX card fundementals to a guy who knows sod all about everything - BUT - sees DX9 on the box.
Maybe it's this that leaves a bitter tase as far as the FX5200 goes.
EDITED FOR A VAST AMMOUNT OF BAD SPELLING.
_
_
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. August 2004 @ 10:04
|
Moderator
|
13. August 2004 @ 10:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Try explaining GFX card fundementals to a guy who knows sod all about everything - BUT - sees DX9 on the box.
I imagine that would be akin to pissing into the wind :)
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
|
13. August 2004 @ 13:37 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Praetor - Cheers and phew. Fanboy is just to damn close to nerd for my liking :)
Believe me... "nerd" from me comes as a compliment :)
Quote:
especially if they don't get Doom3 upto speed, so I can see HL2 using every ATI trick in the book to make that so.
Who wants to bet HL2 wont use DirectX9.0c (i.e., PS3.0) so ATi isnt at a disadvantage? :P
Quote:
It would have been a lot better if they could have released the 5600 instead of the 5200. And then have the 5700 instead of the 5600. With the Ultra version inbetween.
Agreeded but lets also not forget the profile of the 9200/5200. It was NOT designed as gamer card.... it was NOT designed as a budget gamer card (even thought you'll probably find it under those categories) ... it WAS designed as a business end card (and eventually marketed as a gamer card when both companies saw the niche for budget cards). And as a business card, sheer performance (or even ANY performance) is not really quite neccesary. The low price and improved perfomance over the previous generation make it a tempting choice for startup companies and others looking to upgrade :)
Quote:
I can't tell you the ammount of arguments with customers we had over this - MY F**KING GF4MX IS FASTER THAN THIS IN 3DMARK or MY F**KING GF4TI4200 WAS TWICE AS FAST AS THIS CRAP
Indeed but those customers (and i'm in retail so I know) DIDNT bother to do reading -- they DIDNT bother to ask questions about reccomendations (or they talked to dumbass employees trying to get sales) -- they DID fall for the "bigger number is better" routine and you know what? Too bad. As much as I sympathize -- if you shell out mnoney for it and you werent actually scammed and it was dissapointing becuase you didnt do your background research -- too bad. A big warning bell should have come up when the "new card" is cheaper than the "old card" -- qeustions should be asked, reading should be done.
Quote:
Try explaining GFX card fundementals to a guy who knows sod all about everything - BUT - sees DX9 on the box
Good point and it slightly negates my previous remarks however you and I both know that the 52/92 are both bad cards but our opinion is voiced by not buying them. The companies are out there trying to sell cards ... they are concerned with the bottom line. Sure they see you and me slamming those cards yeah yeah but they also see a crapload of sales of them too.
In all honesty it's not that difficult to do: if people are able to let themselves get convinced by dumbass technoweenies at the computer store than its not so hard for competent person to explain basically which card is the ideal one for that person's budget and requirement. Consider this: you get a person who comes in and they want to get their first family PC and it'll be for schoolwork, chatting, email, mp3s -- basic shit. There is NOT a reason in the world for anyone to suggest anything past the 5200/9200 simply because that is all the person needs.
|
|
buxton
Member
|
16. August 2004 @ 01:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
If HL2 comes with DX9c on the Disk I will be very suprised.
I can see your point on the budget cards - companies like MSI and XFX now sell them as a "Home Theater" with remote control and TV receiver - it's clearer now who the card was aimed at. As a marketing ploy the DX9 was clever and worked.
And just to clear the Doom3 issue - it is locked at 60Fps - but only in game mode. Timedemo unlocks it and hence the higher rates in benchmarking. So we were both right on that one.
There is some stuff about it on rage3D - looks like ATI's performance is down to the way the drivers control things like AA - some ATI techie has hacked it - it is faster when the Doom engine controls it - at high resolutions he is getting large increases in speed. If they get that sorted on the 4.9 it could get interesting. Well as interesting as something like this can get. :)
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
16. August 2004 @ 01:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
[QUOTE]If HL2 comes with DX9c on the Disk I will be very suprised.[/QUOTE] You can already download it on the Microsoft Site
oli
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. August 2004 @ 04:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Okay, i made some mistakes in those comparisons, but for those who are saying "that ATi got trounced by the equivalent nVidia in doom 3" doom 3 gives advantages to nvidia cards because of the way the graphics are made to my knowledge.
Just because that game is a particularly well-known one that is about to come out should not swing the vote for all those other inconsistencies.
And in any case, even if Nvidia cars are better for doom 3, then surely i would be able to get good graphics performance with an Ati, as long as it was a good one, surely?
|
|
buxton
Member
|
16. August 2004 @ 04:12 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
You can already download it on the Microsoft Site
The point Praetor is making is that DirectX9c supports PS3.0 - this is nVidia only. ATI supports PS2.0b - this is a DirectX9b function. As ATI/Valve are developing HL2 as partners it will be strange if Valve introduce functions that imporve performance on a rivals card - don't forget that HL2 is bundled with certain ATI cards.
I didn't mean DirectX9c isn't out - just that if Valve put it on the CD it means HL2 supports it and it's a (Possible) dark day for ATI.
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
16. August 2004 @ 04:12 |
Link to this message
|
I think that as the fps is capped to 60 , there should be a big difference (even a little difference)
oli
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
17. August 2004 @ 03:36 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
doom 3 gives advantages to nvidia cards because of the way the graphics are made to my knowledge.
More specifically, because all the optimizations and crap that ATi cards have arent being used and thus ATi cards are fighting an uphill battle (unoptmized vs optimized)
Quote:
And in any case, even if Nvidia cars are better for doom 3, then surely I would be able to get good graphics performance with an Ati, as long as it was a good one, surely?
Oh of course, no doubt :)
Quote:
I think that as the fps is capped to 60 , there should be a big difference (even a little difference)
Huh?
|
|
buxton
Member
|
17. August 2004 @ 10:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
You can uncap the 60Fps in game as well - not tried it yet.
Catalyst 4.8 WHQL were released yesterday - they apparently have amd increase in Doom3 in certain systems.
By the time the new Catalyst 4.9 appear they are going to weigh in around 40Mb! You also need to have .NET Framework 1.1 installed 20Mb! 60 Freaking MB for a driver download, OUCH if you are on a modem.
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. August 2004 @ 01:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
A modem is a very general term. I'm on a modem but its a 512k one so thats not too much trouble. However, i agree that 60MB is a bit steep for those on 56k - that could be up to 6 hours!!!
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
18. August 2004 @ 01:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
im in a well small village and suddenly BT comes around and says "oh, your exchange will be ADSL ready in October" i was like , urrrr, whats the point hardly many people live here (let alone have broadband) why moan , its gr8!
oli
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. August 2004 @ 03:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
The point is that every telephone line in the UK is to have broadband by 2006.
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
18. August 2004 @ 04:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
[QUOTE]The point is that every telephone line in the UK is to have broadband by 2006[/QUOTE] you know what BT's like there shit , why cant the whole UK have Cable by 2006.
oli
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. August 2004 @ 04:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Bt aren't responsible for Cable, but they are running test runs of FIbre-optics in Milton Keynes. Bring on the day when we all have that!
To answer a few previous posts, I woul;dn't really call the FX5900 a budget card, but i do agree on the all round badness of the 5200/5600s.
Admittedly Doom 3 is an nVidia partner game and so nvidias should win, but i think its GL origins are what defeat ATi. UT04 was an nVidia way its meant to be played game and a lot of ATis performed better on it than nvidias becausew thst was Direct3D.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. August 2004 @ 04:57
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
18. August 2004 @ 07:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Please cease this off topic stuff. If you wanna talk about internet and BT, take it to Filesharing.
|
