nvidia vs ati

[zeebs]

Starting to explore the wide open world of video cards and I noticed a lot of guys in systopt use ati over nvidia. Curious as to why and what the differences are, if any?

[BipolarBill]

ATi cards run better with various 3D options enabled and have rather nice 2D quality besides. Unfortunately, ATi drivers are overdone and less than perfect.

nVidia stuff rocks with the options off, but pales next to ATi with them on. Desktop2D quality is inconsistent at best. Fortunately, their drivers are rock solid and simple to install.

I'm a fan of nVidia because I hate complications.

[too_much]

Well personally I use a Radeon 9500pro. I got it because there were no Direct X9 nVidia cards at the time, and the most recent offerings from nVidia just don't live up to the standards of the latest ATI cards.

I think ATI are finally winning the battle that nVidia have dominated for so long. However, ATI drivers are still ****, but I think in general their cards are better, faster, and generally more impressive :p

I'm not a techy so I can't really be more specific...

too_much

[Bigjakkstaffa]

BPB got it pretty much on the head. Ati always were the retarded cousin of Nvidia but in recent years have gotten back on a level pegging. Frame for frame Nvidia usually smoke em, however with visual enhancments such as Anisotropy and Anti Aliasing Ati cards tend to be much faster, they also have better image quality.

Recently Nvidia has shot emselves in the foot somewhat with the FX series, and Ati truly are king of the hill when it comes to high end solutions with the 9500Pro, 9700Pro and 9800Pro all rockin very big bells, the only thing Nvidia has to better them is the fx5900 and to be honest its the 9800Pro's equal at best,

ATM if your in the market for the best performing card going then your lookin at an Ati...and this is from someone who's had terrible experiences with em in the past :eek:

--Jakk:t

[tech-noo]

why have they shot themselves in the foot with the fx series?

[fishybawb]

Because most of them perform like a drugged donkey. I should know, I've got one :)

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Indeed, the FX series has to be one of the biggest failures of recent years, what with all the hype that went with it and the actuality of lacklustre performance easily surpassed by existing models of quite some age.

Unless your looking at the FX5900 (in which case i would styrongly direct you at the r9800PRo), then the FX series as a whole aint worth a second glance

--Jakk:t

[fishybawb]

I stand by my opinion that the FX 5200 is a good option for moderate gamers who don't want to run everything at maximum resolution and detail settings. A decent one will outperform similarly priced ATI options like the 8500/9000/9200s, plus I love nVidia's drivers.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Aye, when you lookit the cheaper, 60quid sort of price range they are decent enough for the (very) occasional or rare gamer , but when you start lookin at the likes of Creatives FX5200 offering clocking up 100quid theyre a rip off when you consider you can have a 128mb ti4200 for 80quid.

IMHO the ti4200 128mb is the entry level card for anoyone wanting to play games, wether it be occasional or otherwise.

...then again i have been accused of overkill where hardware and gaming is concerned more than once :p

--Jakk:t

[Sark]

Personally, I think the FX 5200 is a good cheap DX9 card for the future:D
I think you will see a lot of people with FX 5200's, its cheap, performs well enough and its a "card for the future" (DX9)

The 5900 isnt bad if u want to mortgage your house:r

A Geforce 4 as an entry level video card?
lol, IMHO I do think that is overkill.

[BipolarBill]

Well the price spread between the 5200 and the Ti4200 is, what, $20?

[Someone Stupid]

I used to be an nvidia fan exclusively because the cards were solid as were the drivers. ATI had them beat visually, but the drivers were hell. Now after nvidia released the overhyped blowdryer and quickly pulled that off the shelves to where if you have one, it's practically a collectors item. Then they release a bit more **** to finally come out with the 5900 that runs on par pretty much with the 9800 Pro. All that while ATI was polishing it's drivers as they have had the hardware side nailed down just could never get good drivers. Now they have good drivers for the most part - maybe not on nvidia's level, but they are close enough to cause me to switch to ATI and I was a die hard nvidia fan. But I'm not paying for garbage, period.

[RamonGTP]

Normally I would say go nVidia, but as of late, ATI has more appealing products... Like alraedy mentioned, the only FX card thats worth a glance is the 5900/5900 Ultra... Where as ATI has cards like the 9500/9600 Pro, and the 9700/9800 Pro's which all rock. My personal PC is equipped with a GF4 Ti4400, but i've installed several ATI cards for friends/family and haven't had any issues with their catalyst drivers.

[Rugor]

If you had come here a couple of years ago, before the 9700 Pro was released, you would have found that almost everyone was running and recommending Nvidia cards exclusively. ATI users were a very small minority, and too many of those were former 3Dfx fans buying ATI on the "anything but Nvidia" platform.

Nvidia hit a real homerun with the Gf4 Ti series, but the Gf4MX series hurt their reputation. It wasn't that the Gf4MX series were bad cards, but that as far as most were concerned no DX7 hardware deserved a name past GF2. They earned a lot of resentment for what was perceived as false advertising.

Then ATI came out with the 9700 Pro and just rocked everyone's world. It demolished everything that had gone before, completely and utterly. It was like the original Voodoo Graphics. They went from strength to strength, while Nvidia ran into troubles with the transition to .13 Micron, and the disaster that was the FX 5800 Ultra.

Now Nvidia is on the comeback trail, but they've alienated a lot of people with what have been almost universally decried as benchmark cheats. Part of the problem they have is that the new NV3x architecture is fundamentally different than anything that has gone before, and requires a lot more optimizations than any previous cores.

[tech-noo]

on the budget level. fx5200 vs 9200 who do u thinks on top?

[BipolarBill]

They both stink. I would buy and older mid-line card like the ATi 8500 or the NV Ti4200.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

What he said, i strongly second th echoice of the ti4200, fantastic cards, can be had for peanuts and overclock really well to boot. Manufacturers to look for, Albatron, MSI and Gainward

--Jakk:t

[tech-noo]

thanx guys

[tech-noo]

so are the older midranges better even if they cost the same. ive found some but they are dearer then expected.

[Rugor]

I don't like either that much, but most of the reviews I have seen put the FX5200 on top, PROVIDED you don't get the model with a 64-bit memory interface.

[rsfnatik]

ATI still gets my vote. I've used many ATI products over the years with the odd driver issues then switched from an Xpert 2000 32MB to a Gainward GF2 GTS Pro 64MB DDR - I needed an FPS boost and I got it. The GF2 has been a good card but i'm going back to ATI... my 9500 Pro is on the way. :)

While ATI may have some driver issues i've never really noticed anything terribly instrusive... i've found a few glitches with the nView stuff too. ATI is only raising the bar by matching their multimedia/2D features with increasing 3D performance.

[Rugor]

You won't be disappointed with the 9500 Pro, they're great cards. Two of our gaming systems were up for new video cards back in March and I threw 9500 Pros in both of them.

I'm very satisfied.

[tech-noo]

yeah thanx im looking into these in order:

at the NEW atek ti4200 64 for £60-80

if it gets into the 70s i think i might go for the:

8500le 64 with no extras or leads - they dont mention make and i think its used for around £32
or the same card (i think) new for £42

[Bigjakkstaffa]

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=46138

Decent card, decent price :cool:

--Jakk:t

[tech-noo]

i will wait till the new graphicscards come out. when does doom3/hl2/deusex2 etc come out as im waiting for a real good game to come out b4 i need one. so wil the ti's still be available then and if so when will they be cheaper

[Bigjakkstaffa]

HL2 should be between september and the end of the year, Doom 3 'should' be here by the end of the Year.

A ti4xxx shoudl run both titles no hassle but if you wanna run these games with all the bells and whistles on, i hate to piddle on your chips, but even a gf4 ti wont do it for you. You want high quality, you gotta pay high money these days :(

--Jakk:t

[CaptHandsome]

tech-noo, im not a whiz like most of these guys, but i do know that if you decide to get a 9500 pro get it ASAP, literally, because they have been discontinued and only god knows when the shelf space over the 9500pro price tag will start collecting dust. (just a metaphor). Im sure even if places like newegg ran out completely you could manage to scrape one up off of ebay or maybe even frys if you're lucky, but the sooner the better w/the 9500pro.

[zeebs]

HL2 should be between september and the end of the year, Doom 3 'should' be here by the end of the Year.

Bigjakkstaffa,
i posted before about building a gaming machine well the parts should be here in a few days.. how well it run...hl2, doom3, and other newer released games, as well as existing counterstrike, unrealtournament2003?

AMD Barton Core 2500 Athlon XP
ATI RADEON 9500 PRO 128MB DDR DVI AGP RETAIL
Buffalo Technology 512MB 6 Layer PC3200 DDR Memory
Antec - LANBOY - Aluminum Mid-Tower Case w/ 350 Watt PSU

[Bigjakkstaffa]

No problems there :cool:

Plenty of potential in there too, XP2500+ and R9500Pro all overclock very well

--Jakk:t

[tech-noo]

i cant afford a 9500. just gonna get a ti4200
thanx for all the info
do u think ti's price will drop when new cards are out.

that sux bigjakkstafa. so what detail could i play it at. medium? low?

[tech-noo]

ps. and ive only got a 1.2 so there aint any point in getting anything better then ti4200. gutted

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Ti4200 armed with a 2ghz+ CPU will today run Ut2003 at medium-highish detail at 1024x768 but AA and AF are out of the question.

I imagine it woudl be capable of similar if not slightly better with HL2, but doom 3, i reckon 800x600 medium detail might be about right.

A 1.2Ghz CPU is gonan be a serious bottleneck too :(, if you aint overclocked yet, i would be thinking about it soon

--Jakk:t

[Rugor]

Well, to be honest, I never worry about too much card for the box. One of our systems here has a Duron 850 with a Radeon 9500 Pro.

[Sark]

Uh, all I know is my Radeon 8500 is hugely bottlenecked by my cpu. And it does make a big difference. That Duron 850 and Radeon 9500 is, no offense a waste.

[Rugor]

No I don't think so.

Yes, the system is CPU limited, but I think long term. Buying a good vid card at the time means when the system gets upgraded I won't have to worry later.

[Sark]

IF the system gets upgraded, otherwise it's still just a waste.

[Rugor]

Nahhhhhhh, it will be upgraded, you don't know this household, and so long as the person who spends the money approves it works :)

[Sark]

lol, ok, in your case it makes sense and I know what you mean. What I'm saying is if you dont upgrade it, there s a big waste of performance. Believe me, I know:mad: lol

[MJCfromCT]

i have an nvidia ti-4600 what would be a comporable ati card to this? would it be the radeon 9600? or just b/c the numbers match up doesn't make it so ? :)

[ComPooTer]

i have a radeon 9600 pro im sure your geforce4 ti smokes mine in 3dmark01 but if we bring it to 3dmark03 its my ballpark :D

i think in terms of raw fps the ti can beat my 9600 pro really well but the difference is with AA and AF enabled, that is where my card shines

[Rugor]

The best real comparison to the Ti4600 is a Radeon 9500 Pro.

The 4600 is generally faster in a Non-AA/Non-AF environment, and the 9500 Pro is usually faster once you enable those features, and it has better image quality overall.

[MJCfromCT]

...at the rate Nvidia is going, the next video card I buy (around xmas time) will more than likely be an ati...that is unless 5900 Ultra's come down in price a few hundred bucks

[ComPooTer]

as long as the fx5900 ultra is nvidia's flagship i dont think the price will go down

[Rugor]

I think the 5900 Ultra has to be a lot cheaper than the 9800 Pro to be worth buying.

[gjimene2]

to me the best FX 5900 Ultra is the one from Asus. Slim cooling, and at the price of $495:eek: It's roughly the same price as the 256mb version of the 9800 pro though.

[tech-noo]

is it worth getting a ti4200 with a 1.2?

[Dreamwalker]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Ti4200 armed with a 2ghz+ CPU will today run Ut2003 at medium-highish detail at 1024x768 but AA and AF are out of the question.

--Jakk:t

My 2.0ghz p4, and MX420(OC)...can run UT2k3 at 1024x768 at high details settings with a playable framerate(800x600 is a lot more enjoyable though), but I imagine a 4200 would do a little better than that.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

64mb ti4200 will do around the 70FPS mark at that level at 1024x768x32 at medium detail with no AA/AF, on the FPS killa types though its much less, about 40. I expect this to be a bit better on the 128mb incarnations of the card though

Me's playing Ut2003 with 4xAA/16xAF at 1024x768x32bpp with detail at high on my new Radeon 9800 Pro without dropping below 70Fps :cool:

--Jakk:t

[Bluehail]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa

Me's playing Ut2003 with 4xAA/16xAF at 1024x768x32bpp with detail at high on my new Radeon 9800 Pro without dropping below 70Fps :cool:

--Jakk:t

:eek:

[Dreamwalker]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
64mb ti4200 will do around the 70FPS mark at that level at 1024x768x32 at medium detail with no AA/AF, on the FPS killa types though its much less, about 40. I expect this to be a bit better on the 128mb incarnations of the card though

Me's playing Ut2003 with 4xAA/16xAF at 1024x768x32bpp with detail at high on my new Radeon 9800 Pro without dropping below 70Fps :cool:

--Jakk:t


:rolleyes:
:)

By the time I save up enough to get a new video card (the last thing on my list, already have the Mb, RAM, PS, Case)..they will have a new line of cards out...blah.

EDIT: I'm an idiot.

[S_rangeBrew]

My personal favorite at the moment is the ATI Radeon 9800 (non-Pro).
It's only $250, and can usually be overclocked to 9800Pro speeds without any issues. Considering a 9800Pro costs from $350 to $400, and is the top video card out there, that's not a bad deal.

If I was getting a midrange-budget card, I'd probably pick up a 9500 non-pro for around $130, and use tweak software to turn it into a 9500pro.

[gokado]

hi! i just wanna ask u all this:

i have a:
AMD Athlon XP 2600+
512 DDR pc3200 400mhz
gf4 440MX 64mb (4x)<- i wanna new one!

and im trying to get a:
Abit Siluro gf ti4200 8x 128mb (OTES)

Do u think is a good option? for all the new games, and games to come, because with my gf4 440mx is doing just fine. Well the latest game i have is Enter the matrix and it plays just fine (800*600 and low in everything pfcourse)
(my motherboard does support 8x)

[bblqj78]

The GF4 Ti4200 is a good card (i had one)...but is getting a wee bit dated now. A safer buy for not tooo munch more pennies would be the ATI 9500, 9600 series. If you can spend a litttle bit more..get the 9500pro or 9600pro...these will allow you to play games and definitely a high level of detail...and a higher resolution. If ur a gamer...I would highly recommend!

Games to come...I think the GF4 ti4200 will struggle and also DX8...you get get all the effex!

:t

[gokado]

Thx!!... im not a big fan of high detail, to me 800*600 and 1280*720 is the same hahaha (sorry for the ppl that do like high detail) So what im trying to say is that in a low detail bases a gf ti 4200 8x would do fine? for the new games?

[bblqj78]

Even at a low resolution...you will be lkeaving behind some of the special effects in the new DX9 games. ATI would give you that extra...for nearly same cash. However....Ti4200 should run most games over the next year or so...at a reasonable detail.
Quite sure BigJakk will add something here.

:cool:

[Cybercuz11]

I myself like nvidia. If it wasn't for them, we will still be running crappy old cards, they may not be equal competion to ati, but they are competition, non the less. I have tried a number of different cards, the gainward ti4200 was a nice 1, but recenctly I installed a 5200 ultra, from pny. at 150 bucks(with a free full copy of splinter cell in the box) , it's my favorite card for the money. Runs unreal at high res great, and although it doesn't bench on top, it does run 3d mark and aquamark with no hang ups. That aint to bad on my old kg7 boeard.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

I would jump up to Radeon 9600Pro rather than goign for the ti4200, also, not to put a downer on things, but Enter The Matrix is the most godawful thing since Daikatana

--Jakk:t

[Someone Stupid]

I liked nvidia before all their GPU engineers developed a heroin addiction and they just turned into marketting monster instead of a bonafide graphics card company. The only good thing they have out right now are chipsets, but when competing against VIA, that isn't saying much.