Ati or Nvidia

[Death To Mel]

Hey guys havn't posted in like forever but here is my delemma:

I am looking to get a new video card and am considering a Ati Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb or a asus GeforceFX V9950 256mb.

The ati costs: 619 Canadain
The Geforce costs: 594 Canadian

What do you guys think??? Thanks for the opinions and I'll be sure to let you know what I pick based on your comments and my own. Look forward to you POV's.

Richard

[Someone Stupid]

ATI, better image quality (mainly in 3D, nvidia is pretty much on par with ATI finally on 2D image quality) and less performance hits from filtering effects (not much less, but less). Runs D9 better, runs OGL a bit worse than nvidia.

Nvidia, still a bit better supported by games (occasionally ATI cards will have a problem that needs a patch or a new driver to fix compared to nvidia, but that is due to marketshare). Lower image quality in 3D and about par in 2D. Runs OGL games a bit better, D9 a bit worse than ATI.

Personal opinion now: Either way with both cards being top end you really can't go wrong. I don't agree with some of nvidia's optimizations such as removing trilinear filtering yet saying it is there, but the tinkering they've done finally has gotten good performance at little image loss for the cards compared to earlier this year when perfomance and image quality was abysmal.

If your one that doesn't want any hassles at all and just wants the games to run and can't wait or bother troubleshooting a problem away (which is generally all it takes), then go nvidia. If you want more filtering power and image quality with an occasional troubleshooting session (short and easy generally), then ATI.

[Death To Mel]

See I was thinkning the same thing as far as "Ati=looks better.......Nvidia=runs faster" Is that still the way it is? I mean if I played the most graphic intensive game and turned up all the effects both cards have to offer... which one would be faster and how much better would the radeon look?? heh

[iceblue]

I dont really like "ati or nvidia" comparisons as both have their advantages but in the most simplistic way... a 9800 pro offers top DirectX9 performance while a 5900 ultra has top OpenGL performance. Image quality is no longer much of an issue between the two cards. Trilinear filtering and all those little things people make such a big deal about isnt anything to worry about. From the reviews of both cards there is no difference in the image comparisons. The graphics of most popular titles out there are also already so pristine that the max AA/AF settings of both cards dont show disagreement. Lastly, Nvidia offers better driver support for Linux.

[Someone Stupid]

ATI runs D9 faster, OGL slower - Nvidia, D9 slower, OGL faster. The differences aren't much between either card, especially for the top end versions - both are going to be blazingly fast.

[tgxiii]

Have you considered getting 128MB versions of those cards? Right now, there aren't any games that needs 256MB (afaik) and I've also seen benchmarks that show the 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro beating the 256MB version.

[Someone Stupid]

Currently CoD has 256 meg tectures which they recommend be on the card. I can run it on my system with a G4 4200 ti (128 megs) with 256 meg textures with only one map being a problem. On the 9800 Pro with 128 megs, it has no problem running the 256 meg texture sets. So keep that in mind - some games may eventually need it, but you can move so much across the AGP bus, long as you can load it into the apeture if it won't fit on the card, I don't see it hurting performance. I doubt CoD uses much more than 128 megs (and nvidia needs ram more than ATI due to how things are processed currently for them on the FX cards) so eventually a 256 meg card will be needed for full candy without some frame drop, but I doubt that will be anything out soon.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Given direct X 9 will be the future of games especially given the waning use of OGL nowadays (*sniff*) and amongst the present crop of cards Ati has the fastest DX9 performance per performance tier, i have to say Ati

--Jakk:t

[tantone]

I recently bought a 9800 pro 128MB and I have never been happier. CoD looks and plays awesome!!!!!!!!

[Cyan]

If you do dual monitors (or TV out) I'd go with Nvidia along with the current wave of drivers, also I find Nvidia's setup to simply be 'cleaner' and/or 'simpler'

But I got my dad a A-I-W 9800 Pro 128mb (for TV IN) and I gotta say, he was playing MOHAA-Spearhead, I was impressed. But then again, I haven’t seen what the new Nvidia cards are capable of.

I'm basically an Nvidia fan-boy, but with reason I.E. if ATI has a better card than Nvidia, I'll just sit back and wait for Nvidia to be back on top before I buy the next best thing.

:t

If RTCW is you favorite game, go with Nvidia for sure! :D

-Edit: Spelling (I'm so ashamed)

[Bigjakkstaffa]

If RTCW is you favorite game go with Nvidia for sure!

Why? RTCW is such an old game that even a gf3 will throw it around at high detail alright

--Jakk:t

[Rugor]

One big issue with the GfFX series is they require a lot more optimizations than ATI's current parts. So if your favorite game is some little obscure one that NV didn't optimize for then you will have much lower performance on Nvidia than ATI.

Another kicker is that ATI's AF has a much lower performance hit than Nvidia's and their AA looks better. So they tend to run faster with all settings maxed out.

If you're an AA freak go for ATI, if you want insane FPS rates with the eye-candy disabled in Q3 based games go Nvidia.

In general I would recommend a current R3xx based card over an equivalent NV3x card.

[Cyan]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Why? RTCW is such an old game that even a gf3 will throw it around at high detail alright

--Jakk:t

It's partially a joke, but fully true. For Example

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030930/radeon_9800-18.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/radeon9600xt-11.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-27.html

RTCW might be "old", but it's still well made, and still a good play IMO

[iceblue]

not even that old of a game actually (March 2003).

[Cyan]

Originally posted by Rugor
If you're an AA freak go for ATI, if you want insane FPS rates with the eye-candy disabled in Q3 based games go Nvidia.


You wouldn't need the Eye-Candy disabled. Ever have a Nvidia card? Great for higher res with quincunx (sp?) on OpenGL graphics at full detail.

[bob05]

Both cards are honestly fine. Go for whatever's cheaper. :t

[Death To Mel]

Well I phoned canada computers and they said they didn't have any FX9950's in so then I put one on order... lol but I looked at tom's hardware guide and the 9800pro 256 looks like a better card.... not always the fastest but I mean if it looks better and the performance differences are so close... I dunno. Plus I noticed that alot of the newer games ran better on the 9800... going with that whole dx9 kick. So what I think I am going to do is jump off the nvidia wagon for now... and get a 9800 Pro 256mb card... if anyone can tell me a reason not too PLEASE DO. If not then that will be my new card. :) (9800pro XT is way too much for 5-10% increase...heh ;) )

[Rugor]

originally posted by Cyan
You wouldn't need the Eye-Candy disabled. Ever have a Nvidia card? Great for higher res with quincunx (sp?) on OpenGL graphics at full detail.

Let's see, Nvidia, ATI, Matrox, S3, SiS, Trident, 3Dfx; I don't think I left anyone out. And that's just what we have in the house right now. So yes, I have owned Nvidia cards. In fact I had nothing but Nvidia cards in my personal rig for several years running.

ATI has a better looking AA implementation at the moment. AF is a bit harder to compare because ATI doesn't filter all angles while Nvidia does. However, ATI takes more samples and Nvidia has forced what's been called "brilinear" filtering so it can be considered a wash. However, ATI does suffer less of a performance hit, which can be an advantage.

The end result is Nvidia's cards are often faster with AF and AA disabled, while ATI's are generally faster with both at maximum settings. So if you want full eye candy you will generally have better performance with an ATI card.

Right now, Nvidia cards are better for certain specific games, ATI cards are better overall, especially in DX9.

[Death To Mel]

Well I phoned the place and they were outta geforcefx 5900's (as you knew) and they were also out of ati radeon 9800 pro 256's so I am the proud new owner of a Asus Radeon 9800XT 256 Mb card. Was a little steep in the price for sure... but hopefully it'll last me a while. :) (I REALLY HOPE LOL)

[Tweb]

I have a GF FX 5900 an all my games, OGL an DX, run at the max FPS that I have my desktop properties set at an it doesn't go below it even on line! Just the 52.16 drivers SUCK in OGL, I get only 12 FPS in my favorite OGL game, it sutters bad, I went back to the 45.23, these seem to have the best performance in OGL.

[Death To Mel]

Heh... just for fun I did a bench in qauke 2 at 1600*1200 everything maxed (Was forced into window mode cause my monitor doesn't support 1600*1200 and I got 278.3fps 16X AF 8XAA everything on quality jacked... I thought that was pretty good. heh (especialy because of the windowed mode)

[Someone Stupid]

Quake 2? That isn't exactly a shining powerhorse of a monster there. Your not even utilizing the card to anywhere near it's potential, even with Quake 3 your not utilizing much either. Kinda easy to get skyhigh frames on nearly any "modern" card with heavy filtering on.

[Death To Mel]

I know I know heh... I just remember getting around 45 fps with my voodoo3 3000 way back when... ;)


Edit: I mena my voodoo5 5500...heh

[Yoshi]

ASUS 9800XT, GREAT CARD + HL2 for free:D :D :D

[ichorid]

personally, check the sticky in this forum.

i wouldve got (and i might get in the future) a r9800 sapphire style, then mod it up to 9800 pro.

much cheaper than the xt, and nearly as fast



as for 9800pro v 5900 ultra, id say the ati, just because im drooling about how HL2 would look maxed out on a 9800pro...





:t
*drool*