|
Nvidia vs ATI
|
|
|
askyew
Member
|
23. August 2004 @ 01:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have read quite a few articles about the fx5900xt. It is highly reguarded as an excellent overclocker. It comes in at under 200usd on new egg. I like my ATI card but damn their drivers. It overclocks well but you have to change the heatsink and install a fan or you will get heat stutters. I was suprised to find on ATI tool that the core in my AIW9600NP was an R360, but with the standard passive cooling it didn't matter anyway.Now as far as the 6800 vs. X800 in DOOM III I read that the person that worked on the doom engine also worked with nvidia on their drivers so that may have something to do with it. Nvidia vs. ATI which is better? The answer is neither, but looking at the latest prices I am glad there are two of them instead of one monopoly(think about the price).
P4 2.8c @ 3.2
Abit IC7-G
2x80 gb seagates barracudas
ATI AIW 9600 soft mod by w1zzard
2 x 256 pc 3200 Kingston valueram(hynix chips)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. August 2004 @ 02:02
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. August 2004 @ 04:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
What's the internet have to do with file sharing...ha ha
Jason Rife
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
23. August 2004 @ 05:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
[QUOTE]What's the internet have to do with file sharing...ha ha[/QUOTE] P2P is cool. Obviously you use the internet to share (no shit).
oli
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
23. August 2004 @ 06:33 |
Link to this message
|
I can watch TV on a 17" LCD flatpanel (KDS Radius).
Its source is my old Pentium Pro that runs an AVerMedia TV board, and the (NTSC) display is 640x480.
Similar resolution for DVDs - the point is, this 'low' resolution looks pretty good on a non-interlaced monitor!
This explains why I am happily playing Doom3 at 640x480 (FX5200, I know, it sounds sad) but it looks pretty good :-) all special effects enabled.
Quote:
Supported Chipsets: ATI Radeon 8500, 9000, 9200 ... All nVidia GeForce 3/Ti, 4MX...
Hell, just about everybody can play Doom3, those requirements aren't too tough.
But I'm gonna grab either a Radeon 9600XT or a GeForce FX 5700 (both 256MB, both same $) but WHICH??
I want 800x600. Gotta pull the trigger on this before I waste all my money on gasoline or something...
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
|
23. August 2004 @ 08:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
get a TV Tuner!
oli
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
23. August 2004 @ 08:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
?
Oli, what makes you think I don't have (numerous) TV tuners...?
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)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. August 2004 @ 02:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Everyone can play Doom 3? That's not the case i know, but MOST people, I get what you're saying. and to Praetor, we did cease that Bt stuff. I whole-heartedly agree with askyew in his general respect. Neither company are better for all situations, but for your own situation, usually there is a card that you prefer. Not always the case though. Just in my specific case, i am in favour of ATi. But i do agree about ATi's drivers, have they released support for higher resolutions yet or are we still "stuck" at 1920x1440? Because my monitor and several programs use 2048x1536 but the damn driver doesn't support them!!! How ridiculous!!
|
|
Xian
Senior Member
|
25. August 2004 @ 05:55 |
Link to this message
|
An interesting commentary at
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18029
talking about how ATI will be behind Nvidia for the next couple years in most respects.
Of particular interest to me was the licensing of game engines and the commentary was right on target I think. While ATI runs Half Life 2 better and Nvidia runs Doom 3 better, whose engine is everyone going to license? I have to agree that there will be a lot more developers licensing the Doom 3 engine than the Half Life 2 engine. Following that line of reasoning, since the performance of that engine is superior on the Nvidia platform the flood of games in the near future using that engine will also perform better on Nvidia hardware.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. August 2004 @ 05:56
|
|
The_OGS
Senior Member
|
25. August 2004 @ 06:53 |
Link to this message
|
Very interesting; great read, thanks Xian :-)
Quote:
the pimped out Ultra-Platinum-StupidlyExpensive Edition ... here too, ATI is sucking wind, and has been for quite a while.
It's VERY hot in the kitchen (but ATI claims to be able to cook, so...) LoL
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. August 2004 @ 10:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, as I hear, Nvidia's graphics engine is more complex and difficult to program, so as i see it, ATi will have more takers, but the biggest games may use Nvidia. So what, really, yes, nvidia may be slightly faster, but it's the other properties (power, size, etc. that keep me with ATi) as long as there is an Ati card not outrageously expensive that handles big games well (i'm not bothered if it "only" gets 80fps instead of 90, what is the point???) really for the "modest" gamer there is no crucial advantage.
It's still ATi for me at the moment, i'm afraid.
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
26. August 2004 @ 08:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
But it gets worse. ATI has no PS3.0 part, and never will.
Ouch. Any idea why the hell ATi skipped out on that boat??
Quote:
ATI has a crappy line up other than the high end. This is nothing new, it started in the last generation. The capabilities of the Nvidia low end lineup hits most of the checkboxes that the high end 5950 cards do. ATI just rebadges the previous generation, and uses its numbering scheme to make it sound like they have something that it doesn't. It is more than enough to fool some of the consumers, but then again, there are a lot of machines sold with Celerons in them
.
Ouch. Harsh but yeah, true.
Quote:
It gets worse though. There has been no response at all since tha SLI announcement, and this is a classic sign of one side getting caught with its pants down. What we know of the R500 and NV50 is that they will be PS4.0 and DX(insert marketing term here) parts. ATI will never have a PS3.0 part. It probably won't have an SLI part in that generation either. How do I know?
That'll be a shot in the nuts for ATi if that ever happens but with the way nVidia does things (i.e, announce something now but release it ten thousand years from now), ATi does have quite the opportunity to reply ... i dont think it will come out soon enough to deal with the blow dealt by Doom3
The way i see things is that nVidia comes out with the groundbreaking, proof-of-concept stuff first .... they just cant get the stuff out to the market fast enough. Look at the 6800 line for instance ... they annnounced that a full month ahead of the X800 ... but what hit the streets first? nVidia has a lot of work to do in the "deliver ontime" department
|
|
buxton
Member
|
26. August 2004 @ 10:12 |
Link to this message
|
I don't think they have PS 3.0 for the simple reason they didn't think it was required. PS 3.0 was a big nVidia selling point. Hard to say if it is the great technology it is supposed to be. The difference between PS 2.0 and 3.0 isn't that great in a still, it's going to be nearly impossible to tell the difference in game.
If I had to guess why no PS 3.0 and SLI - by the time the next crop of games appear - Doom3, HL2 or Far Cry Engines both ATI and nVidia will have PS 4.0. SLI mode needs a PCI-X compatible motherboard - major upgrade - and at the moment still quite expensive - same as above, by the time the price is withing reach if the average man on the street, the next gen card will be here (Nearly Here).
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_fx/
This has a whole glut of screen shots of HL2 using DX8, 8.1 and 9.
There is also some benchmarks here
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half-life2_vst/
Looks like HL2 will indeed favour ATI.
You can also see the differences in performance between PS 2.0, 2.0b and 3.0.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/far_cry_ps2.0b/
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
27. August 2004 @ 07:35 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I don't think they have PS 3.0 for the simple reason they didn't think it was required. PS 3.0 was a big nVidia selling point. Hard to say if it is the great technology it is supposed to be. The difference between PS 2.0 and 3.0 isn't that great in a still, it's going to be nearly impossible to tell the difference in game.
I wont argue visual quality as im sure I wont notice a difference either but for certain PS3.0 gives quite the adrenalene jolt to NV cards (and im sure also to Ati cards too had they implemented PS3.0)
Quote:
If I had to guess why no PS 3.0 and SLI - by the time the next crop of games appear - Doom3, HL2 or Far Cry Engines both ATI and nVidia will have PS 4.0. SLI mode needs a PCI-X compatible motherboard - major upgrade - and at the moment still quite expensive - same as above, by the time the price is withing reach if the average man on the street, the next gen card will be here (Nearly Here).
Note however that even midrange OEM machiens (for which most of the sales account for), are starting to come as PCI-express platforms
|
|
buxton
Member
|
27. August 2004 @ 08:53 |
Link to this message
|
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
|
28. August 2004 @ 01:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
To be quite frank, at the moment, SLI is absolutely useless. You need three expansion slots and a sever-based motherboard by ONE MANUFACTURER ONLY, with two PCI express 16x slots. It's a far-off dream for the moment, and I don't think it should give ATi any concern.
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
28. August 2004 @ 04:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Who knows what will happen. Maybe the new games of today don't need ps3.0 or whatever it is that only Nvidia has.
Jason Rife
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. August 2004 @ 06:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
well, i don't think its the ps3 business that causes ati's lag in doom 3, so who knows.
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
28. August 2004 @ 07:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
ATi lagged a bit in doom 3 because doom 3 is shit, no offence to fans and ati wont lag in HL2 because HL2 isnt shit (duh). Im goina buy an ATi X800XT 256MB DDR3 and ive already ordered a Maxtor 160GB Serial ATA HD.
oli
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
28. August 2004 @ 12:15 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
This is a good read - why no PS 3.0 on ATI - and the issues this is about to cause them. And it's not in a way you might think.
A good read indeed however the point still remains that a lot of casual PC buyers (i.e., from OEMs or 1st time DIY builders) are gonna go nVidia because of the sheer marketing tsunami that goes with "all those checkboxes" etc ... I was quite shocked myself hearing first that the "X" series wouldnt have PS3 support and then hearing that ATi wouldnt be dabbling with it ever.
Quote:
To be quite frank, at the moment, SLI is absolutely useless. You need three expansion slots and a sever-based motherboard by ONE MANUFACTURER ONLY, with two PCI express 16x slots. It's a far-off dream for the moment, and I don't think it should give ATi any concern.
- Technically its two manufacturers (i think) ... Alienware made its own board too (please correct me if im wrong)
- Still, point well taken but it does allow the industry to develop engines and extend on current ones a great deal
Quote:
ATi lagged a bit in doom 3 because doom 3 is shit, no offence to fans and ati wont lag in HL2 because HL2 isnt shit (duh). Im goina buy an ATi X800XT 256MB DDR3 and ive already ordered a Maxtor 160GB Serial ATA HD.
Wow what a clueless child ... here's a charitable lesson for you:
- ATI crapped out on Doom3 because (a) the engine was designed on nVidia hardware (b) all the optimizations and efficiency structures etc for ATI cards that make them so killer were not useable thus you had a classic case of nVidia (5th gear 6000rpm) vs ATI (1st gear 6000rpm) ... naturally ATi is gonna get toasted clock for clock.
- ATi is gonna be better for HL2 because (a) an etch-a-sketch could power HL2 (b) it was designed on ATi hardware (c) it uses a 1year old, last generation graphics engine -- something the ATi hardware excels at -- not a next generation engine that Doom3 uses -- this isnt a shot at ATI/Valve ... just truth
- Dont forget to tell your parents to buy you the Platinum edition, you'll need that for the fanboy braggin rights club
- Fool. If you think ATI lagged out "a bit" you need to get your head out of the ATI spin/press-conference room. To think that the 6600GT -- thats the budget line btw -- gives comparable performance to the X800 -- thats the premium line (not to mention obliterating the X600 and X300) is nothing to shy away from. ATi cards perform4 very well no doubt (as ive personally played Doom3 on a X800 but for a $500 card i'd expect more ... then again I guess the difference is that I'd have to pay for it myself isnt it?
- Thanks Oli, gave me a good laugh
|
|
buxton
Member
|
28. August 2004 @ 12:29 |
Link to this message
|
Doom3 may be a shit game - although I liked it - it was what is was supposed to be - and from that point of view it did it well. The Engine is FAR from shit and will be powering next generation fps for the next 5 years or so. It isn't PS3.0 that causes ATI to lag in Doom3 - it's OpenGL - PS3.0 is DirectX. I think the OpenGL equivelent is used and it's compareable to PS2.0
I think it is nVidias advanced shadowing technology, that Doom3 uses in abundance throughout, that is the big difference. Add that to ATI's 12 month old GL driver....
And so now ATI's problem becoms clear - every fps, and lets face it it's fps games that get all the press on the PC, over the next five years will run better on nVidia. Anyone that decides to use the Far Cry engine can switch PS3.0 on - and again nVidia wins.
The thing that may/may not save ATI is the time frame - by the time these games appear - likely to be another 12 months - PS4.0 will be out and they may just get away with it. If some really top notch games appear before that with PS3.0 they are going to struggle...UNLESS Catalyst 4.9+ improve GL drivers and PS2.0b can be used.
And now I have lost my train of thought so I will stop :)
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
28. August 2004 @ 13:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
It isn't PS3.0 that causes ATI to lag in Doom3 - it's OpenGL - PS3.0 is DirectX. I think the OpenGL equivelent is used and it's compareable to PS2.0
Interesting thing is that OpenGL used to be an ATi dominated area
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. August 2004 @ 01:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Were they the days before nvidia? lol
To call one of the best fps games Shit is not an opinion i share. I understand that nVidia and their drivers/openGl will mean that they will give better performance on games like that, but ATi do overall have problems with their drivers: resolution support and of course memory management etc.
I'm still sticking with ATi for the time being, partly because, though they may not be quite as fast, they achieve speed subtly. Nvidia have never done that. I would rather not have my ears notice that i have a powerful GPU, when i'm typing out a spreadsheet, say.
Oh yeah, and just one extra thing, i use my pc an awful lot, in fact, probably (in a working week) about 54 hours a week.
If i kept a 6800 ultra extreme for five years, that would be an extra 130W for 14,300 hours
In short, it would cost an extra £200 on the electricity bill. That's quite substantial.
Point concluded.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. August 2004 @ 01:16
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
30. August 2004 @ 04:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think a New Video card company needs to come out and destroy ATI and NVidia both and just call it a day. Maybe Microsoft or Intel or AMD could fit the bill.
Jason Rife
|
|
Xian
Senior Member
|
30. August 2004 @ 05:09 |
Link to this message
|
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18134
An article showing a list of 12 games will support Shader Model 3.0 (which only Nvidia has), as well as announced support by the Unreal Engine 3. This goes against one of ATI's main claims, that not many games support the newer Shader Model 3.0.
What strikes me as interesting is the engine support. Next to iD's engines I would think that the Unreal engine is probably the second most licensed one in use and what many future games will be built on.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
30. August 2004 @ 08:15 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I think a New Video card company needs to come out and destroy ATI and NVidia both and just call it a day. Maybe Microsoft or Intel or AMD could fit the bill
1. I think Matorx might be able to beat them both by waiting ages then releasing a next generation graphics card(s).
2. Microsoft owns Intel, Intel and AMD, i think, should stay in the processor making thing.
oli
|
