Nintendofan64 Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Which would you Prefer Nvida or radeon I would Say that Nvidia Has the Highest Fan Rate But Which would u Prefer Nvidia 7800GTX's Rock ! Nintendofan
Andrew Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 The title should actually read 'nVidia or ATI'.... According to a recent Steampowered survey of gamers, 52% have nVidia cards and 48% have ATI cards so it's fairly even. It seems that some cards are biased towards certain games, for example ATI cards perform much better with Half Life 2 than nVidia cards do, but vice-versa with Doom3. I've always had ATI cards and my x700 Pro chews through the most demanding games such as Farcry so I'm happy. I definitely could not justify spending several hundred £££'s on a top-end card when there's no need yet.
dabookerman Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 I myself have searched far and wide and FINALLY found the X1900 all in wonder gpu. according to reviews it is the best card of its type around, should do me well for the next 2 years or so, untill DX10 is fully out. the problem is my x1900 hasnt arrived yet:'(
Guest Jordan Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 In the past, i would have said go for an ATi card... but now i'd say get nVidia. Price and proformance reasons.
Nintendofan64 Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 I myself have searched far and wide and FINALLY found the X1900 all in wonder gpu. according to reviews it is the best card of its type around, should do me well for the next 2 years or so, untill DX10 is fully out. the problem is my x1900 hasnt arrived yet:'( That sucks !
Colin Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 For me it has to be Nvidia aswell.......purely because of the better OpenGL support. I've now put my purchase of a new laptop on hold until the 7900 Go is available in Sept/Oct.
Bogbas Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Performance - ATI Stability - nVidia And nVidia probably has the voodoo fanbase also, as 3dfx were bought by them.
Guest Jordan Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 I myself have searched far and wide and FINALLY found the X1900 all in wonder gpu. according to reviews it is the best card of its type around, should do me well for the next 2 years or so, untill DX10 is fully out. the problem is my x1900 hasnt arrived yet:'( ....2 years? Dude, there are DX10 games are coming out on Vista's launch in Autumn!!
dabookerman Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 ....2 years? Dude, there are DX10 games are coming out on Vista's launch in Autumn!! Yes i am perfectly aware of that, but the first DX10 cards wont be out for some time aswell, and DX10 wont be mainstream till around 18-24 months...
Konfucius Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 In the past, i would have said go for an ATi card... but now i'd say get nVidia. Price and proformance reasons. Seconded, about a year ago I also thought that ATi was better but now I think nVidia is better. Besides I read that the high end ATi cards are a bit louder than the nVidia ones and I also read that SLI works better than Crossfire and there's also a new technology called Havoc FX that will work with all nVidia cards that support SM3 and DX or OpenGL, then the graphics chip will calculate physics instead of the CPU, precisely it will calculate dust, liquid, debris, collision, gravitation, mass, speed and friction. Hellgate: London will be the first game to use it and nVidia also states that it will work especially well with SLI. source: gamestar.de
RoadKill Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Performance - ATIStability - nVidia And nVidia probably has the voodoo fanbase also, as 3dfx were bought by them. Wrong and wrong. (Although right on the last point. 3Dfx's assets were indeed bought by nVIDIA). nVIDIA's cards have the highest performance potential (quad-SLI), and ATi's solutions are generally accepted as having better image quality (especially video quality now with AVIVO). Stability is a completely pointless thing that's unquantifiable in this case, because neither wins or loses. Infact this may be the first time I've seen stability used as an argument in a graphics card manufacturer comparison.
Bogbas Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Wrong and wrong. (Although right on the last point. 3Dfx's assets were indeed bought by nVIDIA). nVIDIA's cards have the highest performance potential (quad-SLI), and ATi's solutions are generally accepted as having better image quality (especially video quality now with AVIVO). Stability is a completely pointless thing that's unquantifiable in this case, because neither wins or loses. But who the heck would want to buy a pc with 4 high end gpu's? And as have been said getting the other 1-3 cards later when their prices have dropped is a bad idea. You can't be sure if they're still compatible with the old ones. And the stability issue comes from the r350 core (radeon 9700...) as I haven't gotten into the latest hardware on both. I still have some problems with my rad 9700 pro, but the latest drivers have fixed quite a bunch of bugs. but since the card is 3-4 years old it's quite late in it's lifespan to get working almost correctly. And the nvidia which I'm comparing it to is even older (Geforce 2 GTS) But they have one thing in common. They both were high-end cards when they were released. But the nvidia hasn't crashed/behaved strangely ever. Not even with the drivers that came with the card on a cd. If I would have wanted to go for image quality I would have gone for matrox. Infact this may be the first time I've seen stability used as an argument in a graphics card manufacturer comparison Well for this reason my next graphics card will be nvidia. I'm too tired to installing drivers searching the net for tweaks to get the games I want play playable.
RoadKill Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 But who the heck would want to buy a pc with 4 high end gpu's? And as have been said getting the other 1-3 cards later when their prices have dropped is a bad idea. You can't be sure if they're still compatible with the old ones. And the stability issue comes from the r350 core (radeon 9700...) as I haven't gotten into the latest hardware on both. I still have some problems with my rad 9700 pro, but the latest drivers have fixed quite a bunch of bugs. but since the card is 3-4 years old it's quite late in it's lifespan to get working almost correctly. And the nvidia which I'm comparing it to is even older (Geforce 2 GTS) But they have one thing in common. They both were high-end cards when they were released. But the nvidia hasn't crashed/behaved strangely ever. Not even with the drivers that came with the card on a cd. If I would have wanted to go for image quality I would have gone for matrox. Matrox are not viable as a gaming card. Basing the entire range of cards that ATi has against your own one off experience is kind of dumb.
Bogbas Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Matrox are not viable as a gaming card. Basing the entire range of cards that ATi has against your own one off experience is kind of dumb. Well I don't care much about image quality while playing. Usually the tempo of the game is too fast to notice any slight differences. It's not a one off experience. I worked in a pc shop repairing pc's and if there was some sort of problem with graphics card it 90% of all cases it was ati. And When I got my radeon 9700 pro I gave my old 9700 to my sister. But surprise surprise the card didn't work in her pc. But it worked fine in mine. And after that I got her a 9600XT which crashes after a while of gaming if the agp speed is 8x. I have nothing against ati as a company, but I'm just tired of tweaking. Hoping that an nVidia will be better. Although if they do launch a card that is reasonably cheap compared to similar model by nvidia I might still consider ati. So I'll see next fall which I'll buy for my new PC.
RoadKill Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Well I don't care much about image quality while playing. Usually the tempo of the game is too fast to notice any slight differences. It's not a one off experience. I worked in a pc shop repairing pc's and if there was some sort of problem with graphics card it 90% of all cases it was ati. And When I got my radeon 9700 pro I gave my old 9700 to my sister. But surprise surprise the card didn't work in her pc. But it worked fine in mine. And after that I got her a 9600XT which crashes after a while of gaming if the agp speed is 8x. I have nothing against ati as a company, but I'm just tired of tweaking. Hoping that an nVidia will be better. Although if they do launch a card that is reasonably cheap compared to similar model by nvidia I might still consider ati. So I'll see next fall which I'll buy for my new PC. That's more like it. It's fine if you've had general experience like that, I just figured you only had one thing.
eternal Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 never had an ATI card yet except the old ATI Fury 128 I am planning to get an ATI card because my gfx card is getting outdated any suggestion?
c0Zm1c Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I would go for ATI for a single card system, but Nvidia for a dual card system. Dual card systems seem somewhat of a waste to me though, because we're seeing the same thing happen now that happened in the 3Dfx Voodoo SLI days - a year or so down the line a single card is launched that can outpace them. I would go for a single Radeon X1900XTX graphics card myself, and make do with that for possibly three or so years - like I have with my current Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card.
Guest Jordan Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Pfft, they said my X800 would last 2 years... when i bought it summer 2004, its not even lasted that. You can't say things will last 3 years for these reasons: Games are getting more and more demanding. Developers are pushing people to have better and better systems so they don't need to do so much work for lower spec textures etc. Direct X 10 games will be shipping this time next year. Your graphics card will be outdated 6 months after you buy it.
c0Zm1c Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Actually, seeing as my Radeon 9800 Pro has served me adequately over the last three years, I think I can say such things. You just need the will power to turn settings down as games gradually become more demanding. It's how I got through Quake IV with said graphics card. It's even possible to play Oblivion with such a card. As for DirectX10, there's DirectX9.L, which will be DirectX10's Windows XP counterpart ...developer's aren't just going to ditch the existing user base, because it would impact game sales.
Nintendork Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 ATI, though budget is more of an issue when buying a card. Tom's hardware guide are the bestest as they review each card by the 'bang for your buck' The last great Nvidia cards were the.. Ge-force 2 pro and the Ti4200 cards.. I had the former one and it lasted 2 years really solid. Invest in a solid card now and you wont have to upgrade so often.
Incomplete Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 (edited) I'm running a Geforce 6600 something or rather, it's good and gets the job done. I only have an nVidia card coz it was a deal with my computer, before I got this one I liked ATi more. To be honest it really doesn't matter much to me, imo they're both quite quality, it was just a question of money and convenience at the time. ________ Chevrolet Venture history Edited January 29, 2011 by Incomplete
Recommended Posts