ATI or GeForce??

Igloo · February 08, 2004, 04:38 hrs

Hi there, i am in the middle of trying to upgrade my computer, i have just purchased a Thermaltake Xaser III lanfire case, and i would like to upgrade my graphics card, i currently have a sparkle 64mb Geforce2 mx400, and i would like a new one with minimum of 128mb :P this has not been easy, as i dnt know what the difference / similarities are, the ATI cards seem a bit more expensive though.....

please help

Igloo

query · February 08, 2004, 05:38 hrs

What do you want to do with the system, and how much are you planning to spend?

Igloo · February 08, 2004, 09:57 hrs

it will mainly be a gaming / instant messaging system, but i will alos need it for homework, so it needs to be pretty substancial, i just dont know whats the difference / wich one to choose, planning to spend ?40-?70

query · February 08, 2004, 10:05 hrs

At that price range, you can probably toss a coin and choose either a low-end ATI or nVidia, and not be able to tell the difference. The Radeon 9200 and nVidia 5200 are about the only chips you'll find at that low end - though I'd give the edge to the 9200 over the 5600, neither would be the wrong choice.

Igloo · February 08, 2004, 10:08 hrs

ok thanks query, nice fast reply, very much appreciated, :)

going out to get Tiberium Sun later, and maybeh a nvidia geforce fx5200 tomorrow :)

thanks alot again query, uve helped me loads of times now, :)

Wade777 · February 08, 2004, 10:14 hrs

honestly, the fx5200 isn't going to be a significant improvement from your MX.

the sheeep · February 08, 2004, 12:12 hrs

nvidia used to pwn ati but now the ati 9800 series i have to say kicks nvidias ####

Nestor · February 09, 2004, 10:59 hrs

Although ATI has the power, I, for some unknowable reason, prefer Nvidia. Both my School computer and my personal computer are running Nvidia.

Tranquility_Base · February 09, 2004, 12:02 hrs

I would have agreed with u had this been a year ago. NVIDIA had deals with a lot of content developers who optimised their games to run on NVIDIA cards, and no one denies the power of the legendary titanium series for DirectX 8.

But DirectX 9 is a whole new story. If u wanna play the newest games with all the eye candy applied, u need to get an ATI DirectX 9 compatible card. ATI now rules over NVIDIA in the high end market. First of all, all of the high end and midrange ATI cards starting from the 9500 Pro to the 9800XT perform better than the NVIDIA FX 5900 Ultra in preliminary half life 2 benchies, which indicates a problem with the NVIDIA architecture. If the 5800 core fiasco is any indication, NVIDIA is becoming less reliable in the graphics card market. Sure, new firmware might improve the situation but for the time being, half life 2 on NVIDIA cards needs to be run with a mixture of 16 bit and 32 bit pixels, which equals degraded visuals.

ATI has the lead in the high end market. The 9800 Pro, then the XT, have an edge over the 5900 Ultra and the 5950 Ultra respectively, even if its by a few frame rates.
The next on the chart is the 9700 Pro, followed by the 9600 XT and Pro, not the 5700 Ultra, which comes after the 9600 Pro, followed by the 5600 Ultra.

Its even difficult to say now tht NVIDIA is the best bang for the buck in the budget market, becoz their titanium series are now harder to find and are INCREASING in price becoz of high market demand and low supply.

saoirse · February 09, 2004, 20:42 hrs

I don?t feel it?s fair to base an argument against nVidia on the basis of its Half life 2 shortcomings. Yes, preliminary tests have showed an edge with ATI's solutions, but the matter is by no means final. With all high end cards, you attain exceptional performance. A few bench points here and there, mean very little.

nVidia cards are capable of higher colour accuracy: 32-bit compared to ATI's 24-bit. The extra calculations performed here can slow things up. nVidia cards have a way of overcoming this issue - they utilize a separate 16-bit path, for shader instructions. This doesn't quite meet the DX9.0 standard, and is perhaps the 'design flaw', though a novel compromise.

It?s true high-end ATI cards can process pixels at a greater rate. The chipset uses eight pixel pipelines, compared to nVidia's four (with two separate shader units per pipeline). This extra increase probably gives ATI a slight edge, but only to the technophile.

The debate is endless.

saoirse

Nestor · February 10, 2004, 11:47 hrs

Yeah, what he sed^

I wouldn't know about any of that, I'm a mid-range gamer, and I only do that on the weekends, cuz I'm stuying for my A+. (Ahh, the toil) but Nvidia does support what I need it for, (DVD Importing) and the one I currently have is a legacy card- imagine that.

Whizbang · February 10, 2004, 17:25 hrs

Until about two years ago, nVidia ruled, but ATI's 7500 64 meg DDR began to lick the slats out of the low price corral and raised the stakes. The slick graphics available with ATI Built cards sold me. I do little gaming but really like the pro touch of the Hydravision package.

Carskick · February 17, 2004, 21:17 hrs

A ti4200 will give you good performance for a great price, and will outperform both the fx5200 and 9200 in almost everything.

trav · February 18, 2004, 12:11 hrs

Why is it that some older videocard models outrun newer ones?

QuotePosted by: Carskick Posted on: February 17, 2004, 08:17:34 PM
A ti4200 will give you good performance for a great price, and will outperform both the fx5200 and 9200 in almost everything.

???

Wade777 · February 18, 2004, 21:16 hrs

well.. they are better :)
I am so very happy with my Ti 4400 and I've had it for about a year now ... and notice that the price is significantly higher than the low FX's

Eric M. · February 19, 2004, 05:29 hrs

Travis, there are two styles of nVidia card up until the FXs. That's the MX and the TI, the MX is always the cheaper average consumer card. The TI is a much more powerful card than the MX. With the FX cards, nVidia stopped using MX/TI, so you could say that the FX5200 is like an MX version of the FX series, it's just a cheapy little card. The 9200 is sort of an ATI equivalent I believe.

Tranquility_Base · February 19, 2004, 11:54 hrs

Yeah, but notice how high the prices are for the Ti cards and how often they are out of stock.
Titanium is a legendary series by all means. The Ti4400 and Ti4600 perform awesomely with almost all the new games.
Still, if u wanna play the latest directx 9 games with all the visuals enabled the way to go now is ATI.

Wade777 · February 19, 2004, 12:02 hrs

that would be personal opinion. I can play all the DX9 games with everything enabled even though my card is for DX8 methinks.

Tranquility_Base · February 20, 2004, 14:35 hrs

I meant the visuals enabled in DirectX 9 but not in DirectX 8.

Not the standard visual improvements u can make from within the game itself.

Carskick · February 20, 2004, 16:36 hrs

The upper FX cards do perform well, but it varies from game to game on whether ATI cards or Nvidia cards perform better. The problem is that none of the better FX cards are in your price range. I'd reccomend the FX5600 and above, and esspecially the ultra versions. Nvidia's ultras are more than just OCed standard versions. They even require a 4 pin conection to the PSU to function, where as the non ultras do not. I am very happy with my FX5600 ultra, especially since it is the 400/800 version. I've seen some tests where the card such as mine can ouperform even the 9600XT, which costs about $50 more. The FX5700 ultras are very nice for a $200 card as well. Although half-life 2's current tests show it will run better with ATI cards, I'd bet they'll fix that as not to **** off all the Nvidia owners.

Tranquility_Base · February 21, 2004, 15:17 hrs

5600 Ultra outperforming a 9600 XT? I am yet to see a single benchmark in which this is the outcome. I'd like to see tht test.
One of the main reasons the upper ATI cards outperform NVIDIA's is becoz ATI cards starting from the 9700 Pro have 8 pixel pipelines, whereas NVIDIA's high ends have only 4 or 6. Correct me if im wrong.

Carskick · February 22, 2004, 00:12 hrs

9600s and 5600/5700s calculate 4 pixes per cycle, and the 9700/9800 and 5900/5950 caclulate 8 pixels per cycle. I wasn't sure, so I looked it up on PNYs site.

The 5600 Ultra tested was a higher end 400/800, noth the 350/700. The 9600XT beaths the 5600 Ultra 400/800 in most tests, but not by much in many. It exceeds it in very few, but it is a cheaper card as well. I don't remember which test it was or where I saw it. I've seen so many different benchmark tests I'm loosing my mind.

Tranquility_Base · February 22, 2004, 08:26 hrs

So tht modified 5600 Ultra just an overclocked version of the standard 5600 Ultra?

Really, after the 5800 core fiasco, i distrust nvidia.

saoirse · February 22, 2004, 12:29 hrs

QuoteATI cards starting from the 9700 Pro have 8 pixel pipelines, whereas NVIDIA's high ends have only 4 or 6

.

Tranquility Base - Yes, in construction. ATI chipsets utilize 8 pipelines, but they require an extra clock cycle to process the textures. This equates to a processing of 8 pixels per 8 cycles; with nVidia, 4 pixels per 4 cycles. The rate at which these can be transferred to the frame, will always be superior on nVidia's chipsets, because of the higher clock frequency. That's just physics.

To take a stance here: The Direct X (and other) APIs, have many built-in and fully separate aspects. Where one chipset performs better on one aspect, the other falls behind - and vice versa.

The way in which game developers use the APIs, is also crucial (which is why I make the point about Half life 2). To instruct calculations to ATI's strengths - yes, it's possible (I won't expand on that point however, it's speculation).

The competition is healthy for the market, and we'll continue to have our favorites - if Intel's chips were on a price par with AMD, we would then be looking into individual performance aspects - much more so than we do today. Because nVidia and ATI are relatively similar in price, we're looking into all sorts of superfluous extras. Let's be fair here. Can anyone tell how ATI uses the Vertex Pixel Shader (2.0!) better, (or worse) than nVidia, without a benchmark? This is serious techophile stuff.

After reading everything (and anything!) my conclusion - nVidia. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe it's nothing more than a hunch.

saoirse

trav · February 22, 2004, 15:20 hrs

heh heh....i like the sound of nVidia's cards. heh heh
"Ge-Force" 8) heh heh ....Ge-Force...Ge-Fooooorce! lol im ....Ge-Force! Real Fast!

Mark H · February 22, 2004, 15:25 hrs

Quote from: Travis F on February 22, 2004, 15:20 hrs
heh heh....i like the sound of nVidia's cards. heh heh
"Ge-Force" 8) heh heh ....Ge-Force...Ge-Fooooorce! lol im ....Ge-Force! Real Fast!

Travis has been reading too many of Ace's poast.

Mark H

trav · February 22, 2004, 23:08 hrs

;D yup!

Tranquility_Base · February 24, 2004, 06:42 hrs

Believe me i dont have a favourite. Im not into brand loyalty. I take wats better for me.

Mark H · February 24, 2004, 07:37 hrs

Quote from: Tranquility_Base on February 24, 2004, 06:42 hrs
Believe me i dont have a favourite. Im not into brand loyalty. I take wats better for me.

Ditto for me too. I may even end up with a Matrox graphics card in my next PC due to its superior 2D imaging. The next PC will be a digital photo editing machine and NOT a gaming machine. I go for the best card that meets my needs without breaking the bank.

Mark H

Igloo · February 24, 2004, 10:49 hrs

well u have been busy :P all i wanted to know was wich was better, and i got all this :-\ well, anyway have gone for one incorperated into my mobo fir the time being, or untill i have enuf money for a new one

News:

ATI or GeForce??