Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI preferred?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • GPUs
  • ATI
  • Nvidia
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 13, 2006 10:05:48 PM

It seems when people have their system spec in their signature most of the ones I've seen in several forums here have ATI cards. I've always had Nvidia cards and will be building a new system when Conroe comes out. I will be looking for a budget (under $200) GPU so am researching which GPU to get.

So why does it seem (to me) that ATI is more popular than Nvidia? I read the "sticky" on GPU's for recommendations based on price but I want to know what made you pick ATI.

Thanks!!

Eddie G

More about : ati preferred

June 13, 2006 10:27:24 PM

ATI more popular than nVidia? I don't think so. Interesting observation you made.

Do you have AGP or PCI-E? For $200, you can get a pretty good card.

AGP - X800GTO, 6800GS, X800XL, X850XT (possibly)

PCI-E - X850XT, 7600GT.

What are your system specs?
June 13, 2006 10:27:25 PM

Its mostly a personal preference. ATI cards tend to have better shader performance than Nvidia cards, plus better image quality, but more or less are the same really.
Related resources
June 13, 2006 10:41:04 PM

Quote:
ATI more popular than nVidia? I don't think so. Interesting observation you made.

Do you have AGP or PCI-E? For $200, you can get a pretty good card.

AGP - X800GTO, 6800GS, X800XL, X850XT (possibly)

PCI-E - X850XT, 7600GT.

What are your system specs?


System specs WILL be Conroe 2.66 ghz, PCI-E x16 mobo, 2 gigs RAM.

Eddie
June 13, 2006 10:48:18 PM

Quote:
I want to know what made you pick ATI.


Anti-Aliasing and (Open EXR) HDR simultaneously. Only ATI x1xx can do that for now.
June 13, 2006 10:49:25 PM

Double post. My bad.
June 13, 2006 10:50:30 PM

the reason ati is considered better is mainly for their high mid range and high end cards, hav the ability to do aa which smooths out lines and lets u enable hdr(high dynamic lighting) at the same time

if anything u shoudl be buying a better video card, x1900xt, and lower processor considering games are really gfx dependent nowadays, and lower cpu, that cpu already performs better then a fx-62 and its about $400 cheaper, so goin lower is no problem
June 13, 2006 11:12:38 PM

If I were to make a guess, I'd say that it was maybe 30/70 in nVidia's favor when you include some of the business PCs with integrated graphics capabilities. ATI now has the performance crown so their sales will be improving and probably are already. Someone said, here I think, that everybody buys from the company who makes the fastest though usually don't buy the fastest theirself. Interesting observation.

Personally, I was quite content with my All in Wonder Radeon. Vibrant colors, quick enough and TV to boot! But I finally got fed up with Windows. Ati drivers for Linux can be terribly flaky and extremely difficult to get installed properly. I never managed to in fact. Actually the drivers can be ultra finicky in Windows too. But now I'm a self-confessed nVidiot by default. Make no mistake however, I really do like my 7900GT. A LOT! I still use Windows for gaming, just not for anything serious as it is far too insecure for my use and the 7900GT, to me, is nothing shy of awesome.

Now that we're essentially down to two major GPU manufacturers, the choices are excellent because we have at least two. Competition is a beautiful thing, especially for the consumer.
June 13, 2006 11:17:09 PM

I agree, get a less expensive processor and up the graphics card. I would go by the rule that your processor should cost less or cost as much as your graphics card.
June 13, 2006 11:31:25 PM

i like nvidias 7 series cards, except for the 7900gtx(not including the quad sli cards) because the price range is with the x1900xt and xtxs, but those cards perform a lot better with shader heavy games, the 7900gt is a lot cheaper while stil pwerful enough to get u really high gfx settings
June 13, 2006 11:37:11 PM

Quote:
System specs WILL be Conroe 2.66 ghz, PCI-E x16 mobo, 2 gigs RAM.

Then you should consider getting a better card. Drop to the 2.4GHz Conroe, and get something like a X1800XT or 7900GT.
June 13, 2006 11:42:44 PM

Quote:
ATI preferred?

On this forum....yes.

But try to see through it, and be partial. I've been an ATi supporter(coughfanboycough) for years, but I'm not currently using one of their cards. I believe either will satisfy, and features/speed per dollar are where you should be looking.
June 13, 2006 11:47:09 PM

true to wat this guys says, if ur looking for lets say a true champ of gfx cards, no single card in the same class beats the other company wise by lets say around 30fps and over on average for benchmark games
June 14, 2006 12:20:56 AM

par·tial ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pärshl)
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or affecting only a part; not total; incomplete: The plan calls for partial deployment of missiles. The police have only a partial description of the suspect.
Favoring one person or side over another or others; biased or prejudiced: a decision that was partial to the plaintiff.
Having a particular liking or fondness for something or someone: partial to spicy food.
Mathematics. Of or being operations or sequences of operations, such as differentiation and integration, when applied to only one of several variables at a time.
June 14, 2006 2:39:27 AM

Quote:
System specs WILL be Conroe 2.66 ghz, PCI-E x16 mobo, 2 gigs RAM.

Then you should consider getting a better card. Drop to the 2.4GHz Conroe, and get something like a X1800XT or 7900GT.

According to the benchmarks at http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/1/page_1_benchmar... or http://tinyurl.com/g9mqo the E6600 is not as good as the Athlon A2 64 x2 5000+ or the 64 FX-62. If I were to save money on the CPU and get a better GPU I'd take advantage of AMD price drops and get the Athlon. I'd rather get a budget 256mb card (i.e. 7600 gt or ATI equivelent) and stick with the Conroe E6700.

Anyway, the CPU issue is not the question here, not that I don't appreciate your suggestions...I truley do. Thank you!!

Eddie
June 14, 2006 3:28:24 AM

I use to buy mostly ATI cards, but that changed when the 6800GT outperformed the X800 XT on Doom3.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2006 4:11:06 AM

It totally depends on the timing and pricing as to which company has the best card to offer. Neither company owns all price ranges and dominates all games. Right now both are doing a good job in PCI-e and a bad job in AGP. I decide what offers the best bang in the games that matter for whatever buck I'm spending and on the day I am ordering. Be it ATI or NV...doesn't matter. You may get lucky and find the $200-250 cards dropping into your price range.

Look for X1800XT, X1900GT, 7900GT. All great cards in the $215-250 range. Who knows maybe you'll luck out and find one for under $200.

7800GT and X1800XL would be next down on the list and good buys if prices dropped, but right now they are priced at or higher the faster cards above. Still would be good cards if the price was right.

In the current $135-180 range are the 7600GT, X1800GTO, and X850XT.

Anyway, personally if I had to buy for myself today, I'd go X1900XT for $365, X1800XT 256MB for $220, or if that was over budget, 7600GT for $150. The 7900GT for $240 is a good card, just not as good as the X1800XT in the games that matter to me.

If forced to buy AGP, a 7800GS for $265(ouch), X800 pro for $140, and X1600 pro for $105 are the only cards I'd consider based on the prices I am seeing.

So I guess 4 out of 6 cards I'd buy in various price ranges are (today) ATI, 2 NV. But 2 of the last 3 cards in my main gaming rig have been NV (6800U-7800GT-X1800XT), so it just depends on timing/pricing/the games that matter most. I was happy with the 7800GT until seeing it blows at Oblivion. Seeing how I expected most of my following 4 months of gaming time being in Oblivion, I picked up a X1800XT (which is so much better in that game). Anyway, Many of us own/use cards from both companies but just post our current best one in the sig. Don't let peoples sigs fool you as what might have been a good buy for them back when they purchased it is quite possibly not what they would currently buy today. Just look what card in your price range offers the best performance in the games that matter to you.
a c 365 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 14, 2006 4:16:12 AM

I will be building a PC in August or September and I am on the fence as to which GPU I want to buy. I am debating between the 7900GT or the X1900XT. I don't really play that many games, in fact I haven't bought a game for almost a year. But I do want to play Oblivion.

The Radeon x1xxx offers the best performance for Oblivion. That's actually not surprising since the Xbox 360 uses an ATI GPU. There's two problems with the X1900XT though, excluding the price:

1. With the heatsink fan, it takes up 2 slots.
2. It draws 108w of power at stock speed.

The 7900GT is cheaper, but it's performance in Oblivion is slower. Even the the more expensive 7900GTX is a little slower than the Radeon X1900XT. Plus it can't do HDR and AA. The good things about the 7900GT:

1. Cheaper than the X1900XT
2. Only occupies 1 slot
3. Even an OC'ed 7900GT uses only 57w.

That means a cooler running card, and potentially a less noisy card since I won't have to have a Zalman VF900 fan running at full speed.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2006 4:19:35 AM

And I didn't & still don't care at all about Doom 3 yet still ended up with a 6800U because I got it cheaper than the 6800GT was selling for at the time, and the X800XT that I wanted was almost $100 more. Only 3 cards/deals I was looking at were 6800GT or X800 pro for under $300 and X800XT for under $400. But none were close and Then boom a BFG 6800U OC for $350 appeared and I jumped on it. Very nice card, but As it turned out, NFSU2, Farcry and then HL2 were the 3 games that were important to me at the time, so the X800XT would have been better in all three had it been priced anywhere near the 6800U. Still the price was right and it served me well.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2006 4:33:55 AM

Those two cards are in different leagues. Why is the X1800XT not in with those options? It's better than a 7900GT in Oblivion and it's currently cheaper. But who knows what prices/availablity will be come August/Sept.

I actually prefer a two slot cooling design to throw the hot air directly out of the case instead of circulating it throughout. I never put anything directly under the GPU anyway so the loss of a rear slot means little. And I tell you, currently my computer room is still fairly cool, so that helps keep the case temps down too. But for me, my X1800XT is far more pleasent sounding than the evga 7800GT it replaced. The X1800XT fan is super loud at 100% which I tried while finding max overclock But otherwise, the thing plays Oblivion for hours at 50% or less RPM, which is quieter/more pleasent than the 7800GT fan while gaming. And ATI tool makes adjust rpm/temp ranges so easy if you find the defaults aren't best for you. Anyway, I just am not understanding why people have issues with the X1800XT and X1900XT reference fans. Must be high overclocking in need of high RPM, poor case flow, or hot room temps.
June 14, 2006 4:37:57 AM

I have the x1900xt OCed at 675/775 and have no problems whatsoever with the fan noise. I don't get it either.
June 14, 2006 4:57:32 AM

I've used both ATI and Nvidia cards in the past. Both were good. I picked mainly by what was best at the time. My present main machine has a 7800 GTX, but I'm saving to put in a Saphire 1900 XTX Toxic, cause its blazing fast and does both HDR and AA at the same time. Might be getting that next month. Then again, maybe something else will come out that's better before I buy and I'll get that.

Main thing is get the best card you can for the money you have. If the money is close between a 7600 GT and a 7900 GT, you might be better off saving an extra week and getting the 7900. Either way, keep in mind that in 6 months or so a new generation of cards is going to come out and that card will be the prize for everyone to dream about.
a c 365 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 14, 2006 5:08:17 AM

Quote:
Those two cards are in different leagues. Why is the X1800XT not in with those options? It's better than a 7900GT in Oblivion and it's currently cheaper. But who knows what prices/availablity will be come August/Sept.


I was actually recalling GPU prices from memory, and I just checked Newegg's site. Apparently I need to upgrade my brain since the 7900GT is less expensive than I recalled.

Quote:

But for me, my X1800XT is far more pleasent sounding than the evga 7800GT it replaced. The X1800XT fan is super loud at 100% which I tried while finding max overclock But otherwise, the thing plays Oblivion for hours at 50% or less RPM, which is quieter/more pleasent than the 7800GT fan while gaming. And ATI tool makes adjust rpm/temp ranges so easy if you find the defaults aren't best for you. Anyway, I just am not understanding why people have issues with the X1800XT and X1900XT reference fans. Must be high overclocking in need of high RPM, poor case flow, or hot room temps.


I guess I'm one of those fanatics from www.silentpcreview.com who demands the most performance for the least amount of noise. That means spending money on a Zalman VF900 to replace the stock GPU HSF, and using the Scythe Ninja to passively cool a Conroe (seems to offer better performance than the Athlon), and buying at least 2 Smart Drive 2002 Copper Cool Enclosures to both silence my hard drives and keep them cool.

Basically, the loudest things I want to hear from my PC are the two Nexus 120mm quiet fans, and the fan in my Seasonic S12 500.
June 14, 2006 7:03:29 AM

Well, the last video card I bought was my Radeon X800XT. I bought it for a number of reasons. When I got it, it was pretty level with the 6800GT, though since then, a LOT of things have made me glad of the choice:[*:7911d49d70]I use AGP, since I was one of the first adopters of the Athlon64. (I've got a socket 754 machine) It was 2005 when I bought it, and PCI-e, was already all the way in.
[*:7911d49d70]When I got the X800XT, I spotted an AGP version on sale at TigerDirect for $250US. OEM version, yes, but it turned out to possibly be the best deal any AGP owner might ever see, with AGP prices tending to go UP now.
[*:7911d49d70]Oblivion occupies pretty much all of my "next-gen" PC gaming, where the X800XT can actually best a 7800GT. For other 3D gaming, it's chiefly Unreal Tournament 2004, where the X800XT is sufficient to max things out at 1024x768 (my preferred resolution) at a constant 60fps. (the game is chiefly CPU-bound anyway)
[*:7911d49d70]Using HDR isn't really a priority; Oblivion is the only game I have that has it, and I turn up my nose at developers that use a SM 3.0 variant.
[*:7911d49d70]It should be noted that most Tech demos (such as Masa's RITHDRIBL or Debevec's RNL) use SM 2.0 HDR, and Oblivion can use it as well (along with MSAA) through a mod made by the user known as "Timeslip." I currently use this mod, and enjoy HDR+x6 AA in Oblivion, on my X800XT.However, I personally have little PERSONAL reasons for either card. Neither of them gives me any money (with me as an investor, employee, advertiser, whatever) so why should I? I go with what's best at the time.

Currently, I'd hand my money to ATi; I like their AA and AF methods better, (x6 MSAA looks great in my opinion, for a lot less power than nVidia's x8S) as well as the fact that currently, ATi cards have roughly twice the pixel shader power of their nVidia counterparts. Since games are starting to move away from plain color textures as the source of detail, and into heavy pixel-shader usage, (F.E.A.R. and Oblivion are two of the first examples) I consider it a good idea to get a card with lots of shader power.

However, both companies, I'll say, make great cards. The only problem is that they both also make some crappy cards; I wouldn't touch a GeForce 6200, Radeon X300, a GeForce 7300GS, or anything with "TurboCache" or "Hypermemory" in its name with a 10-foot pole. Similarly, ATi's "All-in-Wonder X1900" left me scratching my head a little; I'd think it might just be smarter to get an X1900XT and a separate tuner card for about the same price.

Currently, I'd agree with the "recommended list" that's stickied in this forum. I've spent a lot of time researching the stuff, and have come to pretty much the same conclusions 99% (or more) of the time. Watch it over time, and you'll see the cards change, as well as who's making the cards. This, is the graphics card war. Good thing that we (referring to us system builders/hardware enthusiasts/PC gamers) are the ones who win out on this.
June 14, 2006 2:12:36 PM

Quote:
System specs WILL be Conroe 2.66 ghz, PCI-E x16 mobo, 2 gigs RAM.

Then you should consider getting a better card. Drop to the 2.4GHz Conroe, and get something like a X1800XT or 7900GT.

According to the benchmarks at http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/1/page_1_benchmar... or http://tinyurl.com/g9mqo the E6600 is not as good as the Athlon A2 64 x2 5000+ or the 64 FX-62. If I were to save money on the CPU and get a better GPU I'd take advantage of AMD price drops and get the Athlon. I'd rather get a budget 256mb card (i.e. 7600 gt or ATI equivelent) and stick with the Conroe E6700.

Anyway, the CPU issue is not the question here, not that I don't appreciate your suggestions...I truley do. Thank you!!

Eddie


Uhm sorry man but I think you need to get your eyes checked. Take another look or something because ALLLLLLLL, let me stress that again, ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of the Conroe chips beat out the AMD chips in that article that you posted. Hell they beat out all of the AMD chips in EVERY benchmark on the internet.
June 14, 2006 3:06:47 PM

Quote:
I read the "sticky" on GPU's for recommendations based on price but I want to know what made you pick ATI.


Most of the cards I've bought over the years (maybe 50 or 60?) have been nvidia. I tried an ATI a long time ago, it was a POS and customer service was worse so I swore to never return. Then I went for years innocently using nvidia cards, many of them eVga, with no problems. Fast forward to last winter... I put together a video editing box that was to do a little gameing, got a great deal on an eVga 6800GS. It was a great card for the price. Then the 7900 series arrived to glowing reviews and I made a huge mistake - I bought a 7900GTX. I happened to get one of the cards from a bad run that had voltage regulation issues. eVga kept telling me it was a power supply problem and that turned out to be a line of BS.

I tried a bunch of different power supplies, all of them nvidia SLI certified and none of them would run the GTX. To their credit, eVga did cross-ship me another GTX but guess what? DOA. Next, they talked me into trying a superclocked GTX and even paid for the shipping themselves. It did run briefly in my son's box, which has a single 12V rail, but even 850 watt 4-rail power supplies couldn't run the beast. I gave up, returned all of the cards and put my GS back in, then surveyed all of the money I'd thrown at Fedex...

Then I got a call from an eVga tech that knew of my problems and he talked me into using the eVga upgrade program to bump my GS up to a 7900GT. His logic was that the GT used less current than the GTX, yada, yada. and his guarantee was that if it didn't work, I'd get a full refund including all shipping costs. At this point, I was ready to walk away from eVga forever, so I went for it and simultaneously ordered a Gigabyte X1900XT. Guess what? The 7900GT arrived DOA, eVga blamed the power supply again. Now mind you, I had four quality power supplies in house, the least powerful being the 620 watt Enermax Liberty. But none of them could power the beast. But all of them could run the supposedly power-hungry X1900XT. In fact, all of them could manage to run two 1900XTs in XFire.

Thus ends my sad tale... There are many, many happy 7900 series card owners. What's the odds of me receiving four DOA cards? Check out the forums and you'll see I am not the only person with this kind of experience - far from it. I was a very loyal eVga customer but I'm done with them and nvidia. I'm ATI all the way (for now...). The good side is that I learned more about power supplies than I would have without such a disaster and more importantly, I learned that some companies put forth a nice face while all is well, but when you really need them, they turn their back and crap in your kitchen. I found stuff in the eVga forums after I was already knee-deep into it and found that all of the PS garbage I was getting from customer service was just a bunch of stall tactics. The knew damn well that they had problems with the 7900s but rather than face up to it, they blamed a bunch of power supplies that were nvidia certified and sent me on numerous wild goose chases. If I never have to swap out another power supply, it'll be too soon...
June 14, 2006 3:22:25 PM

Quote:
Hell they beat out all of the AMD chips in EVERY benchmark on the internet.


No, they didn't. Do more searching. in general, the Conroe benchmarks are 10 or more percent faster than AM2 FX but the FX did win a few here and there and I'm talking about reviews from a wide range of sources.

Even more than that, my friend that has too many toys has been working with AM2 and Conroe engineering samples a while. A couple of weeks ago, he was running through piles of DDR2 in an attempt go get a pair that would tweak his AM2 OC to the max and was making slow progress. And he was simultaneously tweaking his Conroe rigs (like 6 of them). This is no fan boy, he's just all about performance. And guess what? His AM2/Conroe gaps were closer than I expected. Just by a quick eyeball observation, I'd say Conroe had the lead in maybe 70 to 80% of his benchmarks and the gaps were a few percent smaller than what I see in many Internet reviews. But he's getting great OCs out of both on air and they absolutely fly. His FX rig has the best pair of DDR2 in it that he's found and they alone yielded something like 5% above his second best pair. Those sticks didn't help his Conroe rigs at all. But he's a memory freak and has exotic tests for picking RAM, and he specs RAM 24/4, has piles of the stuff. Talk about the Holy Grail.
June 14, 2006 3:25:11 PM

Quote:
I tried an ATI a long time ago, it was a POS and customer service was worse so I swore to never return.


Like you say though, that was a long time ago.

Nvidia has made more than their share of POS cards (FX series, anyone?), but that doesn't stop them from offering great cards today.

I've both bought and reviewed a good sampling of contemporary video cards... 9700 PROs, X1800 XL, X1600 XT, 7900 GTs, 6800 Ultra to name some - and I can tell you, for gaming use both Nvidia and Ati cards provide excellent hardware and drivers (they BOTH have a few irritating querks but who doesn't?), and they perform so closely that I wouldn't recommend against either based on brand.

Performance for the dollar is what counts, and both Nvidia and Ati offer best-in-class products at different price points...
June 14, 2006 3:52:22 PM

Quote:
I tried an ATI a long time ago, it was a POS and customer service was worse so I swore to never return.


Like you say though, that was a long time ago.

Nvidia has made more than their share of POS cards (FX series, anyone?), but that doesn't stop them from offering great cards today.

I hear you. Obviously, from my long story, you can see that I gave eVga multiple chances this go around. What really irked me is that they knew they had a bad run of cards out there and rather than just have me RMA the cards, they kept telling me to try different power supplies. This took a problem that could have been solved quickly and bumped it out to four months! That's total BS. They have forgotten what the S in CS stands for. It came to a head when four different power supplies rated 620, 700, 700 and 850 watts could not run a 7900GT. All four SLI rated, all capable of running 1900XTs. Sad, really sad. You can't say I didn't try.
June 14, 2006 4:12:52 PM

I was a Nvidia gamer for a long time but after 2002 I would say ATI was leading. ATI had the fastest and best cards out and their all in wonders made it easy to use my PC has a DVR. Even now for single video card setups based on cost I don't think Nvidia can beat ATI. SLI Nvidia has the lead but for the normal "I work and pay rent gamer" Paying over 300 per card is not an option.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2006 4:51:03 PM

I haven't seen many people bring up the name Nexus. I've become a quiet PC fanatic nowadays too. I have a nexus power supply and nexus 120mm fans in a Antec SLK 3700. Also dremeled out the rear fan holes...See silent PC's review of the case. Very nice quiet setup although nexus PSU's are too expensive for the specs.

I have to tell ya, the Antec TX640B I am using for my gaming machine now is very quiet with the stock 400W Smartpower 2.0 PSU and the 3 speed 120MM fan. It honestly comes very very close to the nexus setup if the 120mm fan is set to low RPM. I upgraded to the Truecontrol 550W PSU. The thing I like about that X1800XT fan is In normal 2D when I need things quiet, it runs 23-27% RPM and is amazingly quiet. Durning gaming at 49% the card is still not bad at all, but considering I have the 5.1 speakers turned up or even headphones at times, that wouldn't bother me at all. Anyway, while not as silent as you might want, I'm amazed as this is the quietest gaming rig I have owned by a long shot. I built one for a customer and was so impressed I had to upgrade my own system. Forget Sonata's and SLK3700's the TX640B is my new favorite case if it's big enough for the build. Anyway, seeing Nexus just set me off on a Tangent, sorry. I haven't used the Zalman VGA cooler you speak of, but I'd like to try it on my 7800GT.
June 14, 2006 5:34:04 PM

Quote:
And I didn't & still don't care at all about Doom 3 yet still ended up with a 6800U because I got it cheaper than the 6800GT was selling for at the time, and the X800XT that I wanted was almost $100 more. Only 3 cards/deals I was looking at were 6800GT or X800 pro for under $300 and X800XT for under $400. But none were close and Then boom a BFG 6800U OC for $350 appeared and I jumped on it. Very nice card, but As it turned out, NFSU2, Farcry and then HL2 were the 3 games that were important to me at the time, so the X800XT would have been better in all three had it been priced anywhere near the 6800U. Still the price was right and it served me well.
I waited a long time for Doom3 so I wasn't going to risk it. (The game was a bit of a disappointment) I had it on preorder for 8 months!
June 14, 2006 11:00:15 PM

Quote:
System specs WILL be Conroe 2.66 ghz, PCI-E x16 mobo, 2 gigs RAM.

Then you should consider getting a better card. Drop to the 2.4GHz Conroe, and get something like a X1800XT or 7900GT.

According to the benchmarks at http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/914/1/page_1_benchmar... or http://tinyurl.com/g9mqo the E6600 is not as good as the Athlon A2 64 x2 5000+ or the 64 FX-62. If I were to save money on the CPU and get a better GPU I'd take advantage of AMD price drops and get the Athlon. I'd rather get a budget 256mb card (i.e. 7600 gt or ATI equivelent) and stick with the Conroe E6700.

Anyway, the CPU issue is not the question here, not that I don't appreciate your suggestions...I truley do. Thank you!!

Eddie


Uhm sorry man but I think you need to get your eyes checked. Take another look or something because ALLLLLLLL, let me stress that again, ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of the Conroe chips beat out the AMD chips in that article that you posted. Hell they beat out all of the AMD chips in EVERY benchmark on the internet.

Sorry...I was looking at the wrong color...I thought the e6600 was orange, not pink. Anyway, in the games with FPS your are correct, but with the first set of benchmarks (ie sciencemark) the x2 5000+ was a little better.
June 14, 2006 11:52:46 PM

Quote:

Sorry...I was looking at the wrong color...I thought the e6600 was orange, not pink. Anyway, in the games with FPS your are correct, but with the first set of benchmarks (ie sciencemark) the x2 5000+ was a little better.


OK You got me there. The Conroe is beat in the Science mark benchs. But only by a few points. And when you compare the price of the E6600 ($316), and the E6700 ($530), that little margin of loss is still a major gain since you are paying $685 for the X2 5000+ and $1034 for the FX-62 both the AM2 version. Hell man, even the X6800 at $999 and then a price reduction by Q4 of this year is more inviting that the AMD chips.

I like the more bang for the buck, instead of spending the extra $150-$450 just so on a small number of benchmarks I can get a few points over the competition.

Quote:
No, they didn't. Do more searching. in general, the Conroe benchmarks are 10 or more percent faster than AM2 FX but the FX did win a few here and there and I'm talking about reviews from a wide range of sources.

Even more than that, my friend that has too many toys has been working with AM2 and Conroe engineering samples a while. A couple of weeks ago, he was running through piles of DDR2 in an attempt go get a pair that would tweak his AM2 OC to the max and was making slow progress. And he was simultaneously tweaking his Conroe rigs (like 6 of them). This is no fan boy, he's just all about performance. And guess what? His AM2/Conroe gaps were closer than I expected. Just by a quick eyeball observation, I'd say Conroe had the lead in maybe 70 to 80% of his benchmarks and the gaps were a few percent smaller than what I see in many Internet reviews. But he's getting great OCs out of both on air and they absolutely fly. His FX rig has the best pair of DDR2 in it that he's found and they alone yielded something like 5% above his second best pair. Those sticks didn't help his Conroe rigs at all. But he's a memory freak and has exotic tests for picking RAM, and he specs RAM 24/4, has piles of the stuff. Talk about the Holy Grail.


Sorry but not everyone has the money, nor the time to fiddle with every kind of memory on the planet and discovery what he has. For the average person they are going to spend maybe 150-300 on 2GB of RAM. And not only that, most people do not over clock and try to squeeze every ounce of power from their box.

And I guess that since the new AM2 chips are so powerful, they should have broken all of the records a few weeks ago, that Conroe is now setting. Sure the AM2 chips might take a slight edge in some tasks, but its that way with video cards as well. ATI works better for shader intensive tasks, where nVidia falls behind.

Sorry but I have seen way too much data to suggest that the AM2 chip is in the same league as Conroe. And I am far from alone on this. And please, dont assume that because I write this that I am a Intel Fanboy. I have been using AMD since the day I built my first computer because they were cheaper and faster. But the tides have changed and I am going where the power/econmy lies.
June 15, 2006 12:24:00 AM

Yep, if anything I've always been an AMD fan, but those Conroes look like they are the shiznit.

If there's a cheap overclockable Conroe in their opening lineup, I'm going to snatch one up for sure...
June 15, 2006 12:50:03 AM

Quote:

Sorry...I was looking at the wrong color...I thought the e6600 was orange, not pink. Anyway, in the games with FPS your are correct, but with the first set of benchmarks (ie sciencemark) the x2 5000+ was a little better.


OK You got me there. The Conroe is beat in the Science mark benchs. But only by a few points. And when you compare the price of the E6600 ($316), and the E6700 ($530), that little margin of loss is still a major gain since you are paying $685 for the X2 5000+ and $1034 for the FX-62 both the AM2 version. Hell man, even the X6800 at $999 and then a price reduction by Q4 of this year is more inviting that the AMD chips.

When it comes to CPU's I ask myself this: How much more time will the E6700 get me over the E6600 until it is time to upgrade when that time comes? Is the extra money worth it? And if I can wait I should wait for Q4 to build a new machine as you said the prices will drop?
June 15, 2006 3:50:20 AM

Core Extreme Edition Series - 1333MHz FSB, EM64T, EIST, VT, SSE4
Core X6900 - 3.2GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 32+32KB L1, 4MB L2, Dual Core, TDP 80W - $999 - Q4
Core X6800 - 2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 32+32KB L1, 4MB L2, Dual Core, TDP 65W - $999 - Q3, Price reduced by Q4.

Core E6000 Series - 1066MHz FSB, EM64T, EIST, VT, SSE4
Core E6700 - 2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 32+32KB L1, 4MB L2, Dual Core, TDP 65W - $530 - Q3
Core E6600 - 2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 32+32KB L1, 4MB L2, Dual Core, TDP 65W - $316 - Q3
Core E6400 - 2.13GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 32+32KB L1, 4MB L2, Dual Core, TDP <65W - $224 - Q3
Core E6300 - 1.86GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 32+32KB L1, 4MB L2, Dual Core, TDP <65W - $183 - Q3

Core E4000 Series - 800MHz FSB, EM64T, EIST, SSE4
Core E4200 - 1.6GHz, 800MHz FSB, 32+32KB L1, 2MB L2, Dual Core, TDP 40W - $___ - Q4 <-- Allendale?

Taken from the main Conroe thread in the Hardware -> CPU section of THG fourmz. http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Collection-Conr...



I plan to more than likely go with the E6600 since it is less than $100 more than the E6400 and 200mhz faster. Course with over clocking you could save yourself the extra $100, throw that into ram/gfx card and get the same if not better performance... or probably better yet throw it into a water cooling system to better protect the chip when over clocked. All I know is that the conroe is going to fly off the shelfs, and that in its self will prove to everyone, AMD lover alike, that the Conroe really is the king of the hill.
June 15, 2006 5:15:59 AM

Simple answer: All-In-Wonder with kick-ass performance thrown in! I'm on my fourth with an AIW X800XT on the way (used, of course). :D 

Edit: oops!
a c 177 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 15, 2006 5:32:52 AM

I'm getting ready to buy my new rig. I have the money, I'm just waiting for the AMD price cuts to take effect. I'm planning on getting the x1800gto, like this one here. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681... Why? First, its only a hair over $200, under $190 after rebate and shipping. Second, I hear these things can have the X1800XL bios flashed onto them, unlocking the "extra" pipes. (seeing as these cards were brought out to combate the 7600GT, I believe most of them can be unlocked with no ill effects.) After that, I plan on slapping on one of those KuFormula VF1's that toms reviewed. http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/04/14/is_the_kuformula... I figure that with this, I can then overclock the holy %^$#2 out of it, providing me with some monster frame rates. Not bad for a ~$200 card... Does anyone know of a Nvidia can that will overclock like this?
June 15, 2006 7:43:34 AM

Just a head up. I had the same plan as you about 2-3 years ago with a 9600. Read some where about unlocking the pipelines and making it as fast as the 9800 i believe. After buying the card I then realized that i had purchased too old of a production and they had locked the pipelines on the hardware level some how.. I know what im saying it sketchy, but if any ol' person could flash the bios of a card and make it as fast as a card that is $200 more, how could ATI stand to make any money?
a c 177 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 15, 2006 8:28:56 AM

For the record, the 9600 is not a cut down card. It was possible to flash a 9500pro into a 9700pro, at least for some of them.
ATI makes money because most people don't do this. ATI has in the past, the 9500/9700 is probably the most famous example, done this very thing. What made me think to do this is a report I read on why the x1800GTO came about. Nvidia released the 7600GT, and it was faster then anything ATI had on the market. ATI released this card not to recover more GPUs (due to a failed set of pipes), but to have a card around the $200 price point in which to compete against Nvidias 7600GT.
June 15, 2006 8:34:26 AM

Wasnt trying to discredit you on what you've read or your plans. Just raises some eyebrows. You hear about this being possible on ATI cards, but when it comes to nVidia i have yet to hear of it?


And I am more than possitive its the 9600 that i read about, because spent about a week looking into it TRYING to make sure i had the right card for it.... but turns out I did not.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 15, 2006 3:21:37 PM

Quote:
Wasnt trying to discredit you on what you've read or your plans. Just raises some eyebrows. You hear about this being possible on ATI cards, but when it comes to nVidia i have yet to hear of it?


Huh? Then you need to read hear/read more. The GF6200 in NV43 for was unlockable, but not in nV44 form, the GF6800 was unlockable at first as a NV40 but not as NV41 or NV42, same with AGP GF6800GS (NV40 [unlockable]) versus PCIe GF6800GS (NV42 [only 12pp]). There were other Atis too (like the R9800SE [Wusy's favorite], X800Pro , X800SE, X800GTOseries). Most are now laser cut though so unlocking is harder to find, and even the software/firmware side has gotten harder.

Quote:
And I am more than possitive its the 9600 that i read about,


Not possible, never was, and no reputable review would've written so. I owned one from week 1 and read everything there was to write about them, and wrote a bit myself and eplored the card from stem to stern. There was overclocking potential, but NEVER unlocking potential, you may have been trying to get on the bandwagon late, and miss the R9500 train and caught the R9600 thinking they were the same.

Quote:
because spent about a week looking into it TRYING to make sure i had the right card for it.... but turns out I did not.


Wasted effort, and all the early reviews pointed out no opportunity to unlock, so when put up against the R9500 (unlockable) and the R9500Pro (already fast and slightly modable) it was being ripped for not living up to the previous 'cut-down' giant.

There are only 2 unlockable series in the R3xx series, and that was the R9500 and the R9800SE. Others were overclockable and slightly tweakable but not unlockabe pipeline wise.
June 15, 2006 3:33:30 PM

I second Ape's post.

The motion is carried...
June 15, 2006 4:30:47 PM

WEll hell maybe it was a 9500 then. I don't know anymore ill have to take a look at it. Its been around 3 years so, judging by your vast knowledge, im prolly mistaken. And yeah I did jump on the bandwagon late, was just a tide me over card for $100 and was passive cooled i think.

As for the nVidia unlocking, i never looked into it that is why I'd never heard of it. Would've thought it would be more of a main stream knowledge but apparently not...
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2006 6:09:49 PM

Quote:
If I were to make a guess, I'd say that it was maybe 30/70 in nVidia's favor when you include some of the business PCs with integrated graphics capabilities. ATI now has the performance crown so their sales will be improving and probably are already. Someone said, here I think, that everybody buys from the company who makes the fastest though usually don't buy the fastest theirself. Interesting observation.

Personally, I was quite content with my All in Wonder Radeon. Vibrant colors, quick enough and TV to boot! But I finally got fed up with Windows. Ati drivers for Linux can be terribly flaky and extremely difficult to get installed properly. I never managed to in fact. Actually the drivers can be ultra finicky in Windows too. But now I'm a self-confessed nVidiot by default. Make no mistake however, I really do like my 7900GT. A LOT! I still use Windows for gaming, just not for anything serious as it is far too insecure for my use and the 7900GT, to me, is nothing shy of awesome.

Now that we're essentially down to two major GPU manufacturers, the choices are excellent because we have at least two. Competition is a beautiful thing, especially for the consumer.


Where did you get that 30/70 information? Did you know ATi is a larger and bigger company then nVIDIA? Did you know they not only control more marketshare then nVIDIA but also more assets and are worth more?

Here ya go.

ATi vs nVIDIA Marketshare

In teh desktop arena.. ATi controls 27% of the market.. while nVIDIA controls 18% (Intel pretty much controls the rest of course these numbers have increased for ATi since they started to be the ones producing chipsets for Intel this year with intergrated video).

In the Discrete market.. ATi hold a commanding lead at 51% vs 43% for nVIDIA.

In the add-in Notebook market ATi still holds a commanding lead over nVIDIA once more.. at 69% while nVIDIA holds 25%. In the intergrated Notebook market ATi has 19% while nVIDIA holds 6%.

Since the release of teh X1K series.. ATi has actually increased it's presence and it back in the black ink (after spending a year in the red ink with the x8x0 series).

In other words.. ATi > nVIDIA in marketshare and sheer company size. Not to mention they currently have the better product being the x1900XTX.

G80 will place nVIDIA on top once more.. should be able to do HDR+AA as well as having a dedicated branching unit and high quality AF. ATi's R580+ will bring forth GDDR4 (as will G80). But this will be short lived. R600 will be faster then both and be the ONLY TRUE DX10 VPU (unified shader architecture). G80 will not be unified... nVIDIA are lagging behind ATi where technology is concerned... like 3Dfx... they're fighting back with multi GPU products... but margins are smaller on thsoe products. Another thing that will hurt nVIDIA and help ATi is masterless/Dongleless Crossfire which whould show up with R600 (internal bridge like SLI but using two highly flexible ribbons). This should bring Crossfire even with SLI and even surpass SLI (as R600 will feature the hardware compositing components on board for better AA performance).
June 15, 2006 8:18:46 PM

Bottom line, it is the deal of the day that determines whether to go nVidia or ATI. From the experience of installing and maintaining a whole range of boards from Rage3D, 9200, 9600XT, 9800pro, and later flashed to 9800xt, xpress 200, x850xt, TNT2, 440MX, FX5200, Fx5600, 6600GT, and 6800GT, etc. with all things being equal (price delta < 10% and performance delta < 10%) I'd would personally perfer nVidia, because of the following 6 things that count against ATI thru the years.

1. The customer service sucks like #@%@#!%@. It took them three weeks and endless run around to get back a yes or no answer to functionality feature support question.

2 The said functionality being the "Fixed Aspect Ratio Scaling" that ATI just doesn't do, though it should be easy enough for them to implement. It is especially valuable, for the odd native aspect ratios (i.e. not 4:3 as most games assume) that is typical of LCD panels e.g. 1280x1024 19", or 1366x768 wide screen, etc. It lets you run stuff as less than native resolution and still get a proper picture with the black bars in the right places. After all who likes looking at fat fireballs from fat imps running around on a fat looking mars? And at the same time it lets older cards still do decent frame rates at less than native res of the screen and still get decent looking picture. Who doesn't want to get more out of you cards. Older high end video cards make good HTPC cards and if they can be pushed to support some the newer games with a bit of tradeoff on the eye-candy it's all good.

3. Crappy Linux support from ATI. It's not missing but just crappy, not sure if is just better than not having any. And damn it, why can't thet release the support info on the TV-wonder stuff anyways?

4. Incompatibility with VIA chipset. Both VIA and ATI are guilty, but even if nVidia doesn't get to run at its full potential with the VIA chipsets, at least they don't do random reboots like the way the 9800s or 9600 did lots of times. The 9800xt and 9600xt had to run on ULI chipset with their voltage cranked up just to be stable.

5. NO windows 2000 support for xpress 200 mobility. One that really without bluescreeing.

6. Catalyst driver that forces to get the crappy dot.sh!t framework. And a version naming scheme that is more sensible, especially when you want to check what is currently running.... why can't it map "6.14.10.6561" to Catalyst5-12 or 5-11 instead making us look for the answer? nVidia tells you right away, if it is 71.94 or 81.98 etc.
June 15, 2006 8:53:20 PM

If you're a gamer, who uses anything but XP? The linux thing is irrelevant, as well as win 2k, for 99% of gamers.

If you're running linux, or you're doing 3d cad work, get Nvidia. End of story on that.

But from a contemporary gamer's perspective - which will be on WindowsXP, there's really no other valid choice for that - they perform pretty much identically from a driver standpoint. A whole lot of complaining has gone on about the Catalyst Control Center, most people complaining of speed, but no-one seems to complain that Nvidia's advanced driver panel takes a while to open. I find them both equally irritating, frankly.

Really, having used both manufacturer's drivers and cards very recently, on as many new game titles as I can get my hands on, the differences are more hype than anything tangible I can see. As an XP gamer, almost all of these issues are nonexistant. I honestly can't even remember the last driver problem I've had with either an Ati or Nvidia card.

Just pick the most capable card for the cash.
June 15, 2006 11:01:59 PM

What is good for games today, is determined simply by the best one for the price. But that 1.5 to 3 years from now when requirments moved up these cards will have to find a new role, that is when I find ATI disappoint. I think that should be counted against them in the up front price.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!