Geforce 7900 GTX 512mb or ATI x1900 gtx 512mb

I am building a machine and the only thing I have not decided yet is which card to get. I want quality and speed. I want full SM 3.0 support.

I am a big fan of Nvidia but the ATI is suppose to be a better card have have better image quality.

Can someone help me break this down.

Well supposely there is an issue where NV will not do AA and HDR at the same time or something and ATI does not have these limitations.

I would go with a Radeon X1900XT, because it is cheaper than the 7900GTX, has the ability to do HDR + AA, and it has higher image quality. It will also perform pretty much the same.

Well the other question I have is, all these super duper gaming machines that Dell is building and you see in Maximum PC use the NV cards. Now is that because of the stacking ability? Do you think if they wanted to demostrate a single card solution they would suggest the x1900?

Quad SLI is, at the moment at least, purely a gimmick. Sure, in a lot of cases the results can be fantastic but there are so many bugs that need to be worked out that a final and stable version could be months away. Nvidia was the first to come out with multiple GPU setups and decided to up the ante further when ATI caught up. Remember, the graphics cards companies WANT you to buy more cards. It's gravy to them. It doesn't mean that it's a wise decision to fall for it, though. Especially when all they really have to do is a redesign of cards they already have and throw together a marginally performing driver in an attempt to make them work. And yes, I honestly think that if they wanted to demonstrate the best single-card setup it would be the ATI x1900xt. (Well, actually the xtx)

Well normally i would tell you or anyone to get an nvidia, because iv never had any problems with them at all. But when i bought oblivion and when i tried turning AA on with hdr it said "you cannot turn on these at the same time" or something of that matter, that almost made me an instant ATI fan when i realized the x1900 could do both. both are exactly same in speed , althought ati can do hdr +AA like everyone else has been saying...thats prolly the way to go.. < coming from an Nvidia fan.

That's a pile of crap! Is quad SLI efficient? NO!!! Is it cost-effective? NO!!! But it is not a gimmick. If you read the benchmarks in this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] _for_four/

You'll see that quad SLI performs about equal to high end SLI and XF in some tests (like low res) but performs significantly better in high res benchmarks. As in: QSLI pulls more video info out and does it more quickly. That's not a gimmick - that's performance. But you gotta want it REAL bad.

You shouldn't be surprised in the least about this. Typical for any new step in technology development.

I see it this way: if you ain't got enough money to live comfortably, it's a real important need in your life. If you have extra cash, you can choose to be "responsible" or you can buy toys, give to a charity, etc. There are quite a few wealthy people in the world and their pocketbooks drive this kind of recreational technology development. Granted, pro graphics folks figure into it too, but they also have lotsa spare change. So, sure, nVidia would love to see QSLI in millions of PCs, but are you down on Intel for wanting everyone to buy their products in multiples? Are you down on the people here that have more than one home computer? This is the way life is right now and really, the basics don't change, just the boundaries and the objects within.

Note that I said "at the moment." I never made any claim as to its long-term viability. As for your benchmark link, I have already seen it. I have one for you:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] _quad_sli/

You say that a Quad SLI setup is a great performer for high-res. However; Call of Duty 2, Oblivion and Far Cry cannot be played at these resolutions according to the benchmark. That's HALF of the games tested. Let me state again, it does work well WHEN IT WORKS!

As for being surprised about the glitches, I never said I was.

Also, one of dictionary.com's definitions of gimmick is:
An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.

So, where exactly was I in error in my post?

Like I said, if quad-sli is the future, then quad core Prescotts is a fantastic idea, that require a phase changer for stock cooling.

Yep... if you're playing Oblivion on an NVidia card, you won't have that option... it's either AA or HDR... not both. With an ATI card, you at least have that option (assuming your system can handle it)

I have a 7800 GTX and I really wish I had an 1800/1900 series ATI card right now. I'd definitely go with ATI if I were about to buy.

Well it seems that ATI is the way to go, especially doing a single card machine.

HRD + AA seems to be a deciding factor for most.

I am going to go with ATI unless a new line of cards come out right when I am ready to buy.

Well, you're gonna believe what you're gonna believe. Although each QSLI sells four fairly expensive cards, you know that nVidia is not going to make a bunch of money selling QSLI as compared to the rest of their product line. They do have an image to protect and the only way that can be propogated is to develop technology. Personally, I don't care that much about the leading edge specifics because they don't apply to my life. I watch the ripple effects and try to buy what I can after the price drops. Then I can attempt to persuade myself that I got a good deal.