Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nerm

ATi vs. nVidia

Recommended Posts

Ok as i have posted before if you havent owned both ATI and nVidia then you shouldn't be posting.. I have owned both a 9600Xt and now a FX5900.. Now i know most of you base your opinions off of articles instead of personal experience.. And ATI may "BENCH" higher but nVidia comes in very close if not higher in many instances.. As you may know we all have different setups so never will the benchmarks be as accurate as we hopped they would be.. And i would like to say my FX5900 @ 525/975 pwns the 9600 series, 9700 series, the 9800 non-pro and can be compared to the 9800 Pro... So my Vote goes with NVidia..

 

 

Oh and eVGA all the way!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And i would like to say my FX5900 @ 525/975 pwns the 9600 series, 9700 series, the 9800 non-pro and can be compared to the 9800 Pro... So my Vote goes with NVidia..

 

 

Oh and eVGA all the way!!

I'm not doubting your claim at all, but take a look at the clock difference between the geforce and the radeon. The 5900 needs what, an extra 145mhz core and 255mhz memory to equal the 9800 pro. They're both running 8 x 1 pipe configurations (well, that's kinda sketchy on the geforce...it's 8 x 1 sometimes) and 256-bit memory buses...why does it take so much extra clock speed for the geforce to equal the radeon? Because the chip isn't as well designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that very tru im just tried of people bashing Nvidia when they dobnt even own one is all! But plus mines a regular so it wasnt meant to compete with the 9800 pro but it comes close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you've at least showed that the nvidia cards can equal the ati cards. Your card is actually running faster than an fx5900 ultra, though, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ballz2TheWallz

hes running faster than 5950 which runs 475/950 he runs 525/975. he had memory at 1ghz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 9000 pro is poorer than an 8500? :blink:

 

See, that's what I don't get. I was under the assumption that higher model numbers meant a better card.

 

Just looking at the specs (fill rate, etc), it sounds like my old 7000 should have blown anything away. I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still an nVidia fan, but that's because my last ATI card (a 7000) didn't impress me much. Maybe it was just the drivers, but I didn't like the way it stuttered in GTA3.

 

I bought a 9000 Pro, had exactly the same problem. Possibly just the drivers. I was so disgusted that I returned it, and wrote as the reason "Hate it."

 

My GF3, on the other hand, has never let me down. I can play any game I have (or trial versions of new games that I don't own for that matter) at 1024x768x32 bit at full quality settings, with no problems at all. No slowdowns, no stutters. I get decent 3d2001marks as well. (6750 range with PC in sig)

 

For a while (actaully before the 7000) I had a GF4 MX420. Good card, decent benchmarks, but it didn't support hardware DVD decoding. At the time I was using my PC as a DVD player, connected to the TV. I wanted hardware decompression, so I eBay'ed it and get the 7000, which I found was good for 2-d but not so good for 3-d.

 

Just my experience, and why I'm still an nVidia fan.

hmmm, i had a gf4 mx420 aswell and it stuttered in gta3 as did my gf 3Ti 200 (128mb version) did the same thing, the gta3 game didnt like my setups at all, and that gf3 could play bf1942 at almost all the way up settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, for ati cards the model numbers are not representative of their speed. The first number is the product generation, and the last three numbers designate the card's place within that generation. As you stated, an 8500 is faster than a 9000pro and a 9200. (<----these two are almost identical) This is because the 8500 was the top of the line card, while the 9000 and 9200 are low-end cards. They had to reduce the die size, so they cut out the second texture unit. Likewise, the 9600pro is not faster than the 9500pro. This, however, was done for a different reason. The 9500pro was simply too powerful to be their mainstream card (due to the r300 core). People didn't have enough incentive to buy the high-end cards (9700 and 9700 pro) because 9500 cards could be modded to have pretty much identical performance. Ati solved that problem by making the rv350 core different from the r350 core, thus making sure the 9600 cards stayed in their performance category. ATI killed 2 birds with one stone with this move, because the 9600 cores are much smaller, cheaper, cooler running, and less power demanding (no molex connector) than the big brother 9800. Those r300 and r350 cores sure are powerful, but they're also huge, hot, expensive, and power sucking. Just like I like my computer hardware! By the way, go ATI!!!!!

Edited by Eva_Unit_0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmm, i had a gf4 mx420 aswell and it stuttered in gta3 as did my gf 3Ti 200 (128mb version) did the same thing, the gta3 game didnt like my setups at all, and that gf3 could play bf1942 at almost all the way up settings.

My mx420 had no problems at all playing GTA3, nor does my GF3. But mine's a ti500.

 

My 7000 also wasn't all that great at DVD decoding, either. Stuttered now and then.

 

I do realize the 7000 wasn't the top-of-the-line card, but like I said before, just looking at the fill rates and so on made me think it should have been the fastest card I'd ever seen. I don't know if the drivers were holding it back from realizing its full potential or what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say all of the little gimmicks graphics card companies are using are starting to bugging me. You know get ATI cuz it will work good for Doom 3 and Half Life 2 or get nVidia cuz it will work good with Halo (Xbox was powered by nVidia so it should be better, right?). The one that really bothered me was all the crap about how ATI cards werent running Call of Duty to well. I own a Radeon 9800 and it works perfectly fine. Never had any troubles. A friend of mine who has a 5900 Ultra and Call of Duty said it also ran silky smooth never had any problems. So what was all this fuss about? Stupid people not updating thier drivers, I think. So im not going to pick either side. I would probably be happy with either nVidia or ATI But we'll wait 5 or 6 months when Doom 3 and HL2 come out and then Overclockers Club should have this discussion all over again.

 

 

Oh yeah and NewEgg.com is having a sale for eVGA 5900 Ultra 256MB for $220!!

The sale ends on January 6 if anybody cares.

Edited by BeanerSchnitzel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×