Who's Better, ATI or nVidia
danball1976
Wichita Falls, TX
Ok, in your opinion, who's better, ATI or nVidia?
According to general consensus in this forum its ATI, but where I work, it seems they like nVidia, particularly the new GeForce6 6800.
A few claim that not all games will run properly on an ATI, but with the knowledge of this forum, I bet you can prove them wrong.
According to general consensus in this forum its ATI, but where I work, it seems they like nVidia, particularly the new GeForce6 6800.
A few claim that not all games will run properly on an ATI, but with the knowledge of this forum, I bet you can prove them wrong.
0
Comments
the X800 core is basicly a beefed up version of the 9800 core while nVidias is a completly new core so in the longer run of things the 6800 should be able to meet the x800 in performance, but when PCI-X comes out, all bets are off
2. The ATI Radeon X800 is faster than the GeForce6 6800. Benchmarked. Signed, sealed, delivered.
3. In this generation of cards, both are pretty much equal in terms of performance and image quality. The new ATI offerings barely squeeze ahead of the nVidia offerings in real testing.
4. The "Pixel Shader 3" crap is a marketing ploy. Is PS3 nice? Why yes, however both nVidia and ATI cards are 100% DX9-approved. Across the board. Entirely. Pixel Shader 3 is a groovy new term that really doesn't mean a lot. PixS2 can do what PS3 can.
So prices being roughly equal, image quality being equal, and the ATI offerings being slightly better in real testing: ATI wins.
rofl. Your co-workers don't have any hands-on experience with any ATi products newer than the original Radeon, do they?
I've only ever run into one compatibility issue with any of my ATi cards, and that's with the Radeon 9700 and Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2. And that was EA's fault, not ATi's. AND it runs fine on all my other ATi cards, just not the 9000 (and I think EA/ATi have fixed the issue on the 9700 anyhow)
ATi also has far better image quality than nVidia. AND the X800 cards are still faster than the 6800, AND they don't use 2 power connectors and require a 460w (and a GOOD 460w) PSU at minimum, either.
Basically, nVidia has not done anything right since the release of the nForce2 (altho the nForce3 250 is supposed to be good, but I haven't looked, since I will not touch single cpu socket 940 boards, and I won't touch s754 period).
So, to summarize:
ATi's cards are faster, have better image quality, no longer have driver or compatibility issues, and they don't use 2 power connectors, require 460w PSUs, and take up 2 slots the way the nVidia cards do.
Does that make the decision any easier?
lol Dan you should have some of your co-workers read this thread. That'd shut 'em up real quick!
I chose ATi, but I consider myself a fanboy, so my vote prolly doesn't count lol.
The ATI X800 XT/PE offers better performance in all titles EXCEPT Quake 3 powered games (NVidia's implementation of OpenGL is still vastly superior to ATI's) than NVidia's 6800 Ultra. NVidia's Digital Vibrance Control (DVC) is better than ATI's implementation of sliders & adjusters in the control panel. However, performance wise, the X800 XT/PE is the best choice for a high-end video card, at least until we see the 6850/6850 Ultra.
From an overclockers point of view, the new NVidia 6800GT is the best choice over the X800 Pro. Why? The 6800GT is simply an underclocked 6800 Ultra. No disabled pipelines (it's 16x1). Overclock that beast and you've basically got a 6800 Ultra for less than the cost of a real one, offering better performance than both a stock and overclocked X800 Pro.
AFAIK, ATI is hardlocking their X800 Pro's so you can't soft-mod them, and they don't overclock far enough to offer the same performance as an X800 XT on their 12x1 pipeline setup.
Catalyst still has some issues to be worked out, mainly with their VPU Recovery software, so Detonator/Forceware gets the thumbs up here.
Pixel Shader 3? Marketing fud. Who cares. PS2B offers just as good performance in today's titles. Chances are by the time PS3 comes to mainstream, next-generation video accelerators will be out that both properly support PS3 and beyond.
Both companies have had their trouble running game titles, but it's nothing a new (or OLD) set of drivers can't fix. Realistically, both ATI and NVidia cards are compatible with the same software packages.
To sum it all up?
Pre R300 World: NVidia.
Post R300 World: ATI.
Hands down ATI's mascot wins
Indeed!
It doesn't matter to me really. Whoever has the faster card at the time is who I buy. I've had nVidia, ATI, Voodoos, etc.
Voodoo 3's were the damned devil. Yay 16-bit rendering
I am running GF2 Ultra, GF4Ti4200, R8500, 9600SE, 9600XT. None of these card has ever given me any trouble, though the 9600SE is slower than crap.
In the newer card ATI clearly has the upper hand. With older cards (and drivers) NV was the strong one.
Nvidia kicked the graphics industry up the arse, ATI was caught off gaurd, and Nvidia got a great head start. However once ATI found it's feet again, they really proved and are proving, how powerfull a force they can be.
ATI for me at the moment.
In the long run this benefits us all. Now if only they'd have a price war.
(hehe that came from this Limp Bizkit album I just happened to be listening to.)