Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are ATI really as bad as people say they are?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 7, 2006 7:29:32 PM

I have a Radeon x300 (don't laugh, lol) graphics card and looking into other ATI cards. When I talk to my nerd brethen they tell me to go to Nvidia because ATI drivers are crap. Is this completely true or just a few bad moments???

More about : ati bad people

July 7, 2006 7:31:35 PM

I'm gonna go on a limb and say your "nerd" friends, really arent that nerdish.
If they were, they would know that the driver issues are very much a thing of the past.

Don't worry if you go ATI, I've had more of their GPU's than I can count and I've only had very few isolated driver based issues.
a b U Graphics card
July 7, 2006 7:40:32 PM

Yup, I'm with you. They are fanbois or wanna-be nerds living in the past.
Related resources
July 7, 2006 7:45:32 PM

I havent heard alot of people who had driver problems but I have heard a few things from ATI. I do want a Geforce 7600 but the Radoen X1600 looks nice too.
July 7, 2006 7:57:39 PM

ati drivers will need dot net installed. u have been warned!! :twisted:
July 7, 2006 7:58:44 PM

If you're looking at the 7600GT, then there is no contest between it and an X1600. The 7600GT wins. I suspect a 7600GS would still pull ahead (if not trade blows) of the X1600 but I'm not certain and I'm sure others can shed some more light on it.
July 7, 2006 8:01:25 PM

Very true. ATI's midranged cards (x6,700, x1300,x1600) are not worth considering compared to their Nv counter parts. Perhaps the x800, or X1800GTO and X1900GT are nice midrange. But my vote of those two would be for the 7600GT. Not becuase of driver issues, but due to preformance difficeit on the X1600 side.
July 7, 2006 8:02:54 PM

The X300 may suck but ATI certainly does not.
July 7, 2006 8:07:22 PM

I like ATi, but the 7600gt is much better than a x1600. ATi has better image quality and much better DVD playback.
July 7, 2006 8:25:41 PM

Quote:
Yup, I'm with you. They are fanbois or wanna-be nerds living in the past.

My thoughts.
July 7, 2006 8:29:06 PM

Thats 7600 Will Eat That X1600 For Lunch, However Im Not Sure About The Others
a b U Graphics card
July 7, 2006 11:06:01 PM

Whomever tol you to buy based on that alone isn't worthy of your attention.
There are driver issues with both companies, but they are minor, and nothing to concern yourself with (or else you're stuck with Intel, which may have less driver issues, but that's easy when you can't play anything :twisted: ).

To get an idea of the balance of issues (and they are small like little unsinhy water or something) look at this site which has the best visual comparo IMO;
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0506/itogi...

Looks pretty even to me, or even the reverse of what you heard.

Quote:
I havent heard alot of people who had driver problems but I have heard a few things from ATI. I do want a Geforce 7600 but the Radoen X1600 looks nice too.


Well straight up IMO most often the GF7600 in the price range of the X1600 you're considering is usually the better buy. The GF7600GT is better than the X1600XT, and the GF7600GS is a better than the X1600Pro in most cases. The X1600XT versus the GF7600GS is alot closer though.

There are some app/game specific benefits to the X1600 series, but I'd usually favour the GF7600 for most games.
a b U Graphics card
July 7, 2006 11:12:19 PM

Quote:
ati drivers will need dot net installed. u have been warned!! :twisted:


Actually they can be run without it (voila .NET-less Control Panel with Cat 6.4 best to add ATiToolTray to give more features like ControlCentre);



And soon enough they'll all need it because that's the way M$ demanded it, nothing else for Vista.
Also, the new nV control-centre rip off is worse interface IMO, but I'll grant you that it avoids the .NET bloat, which can also be avoided for ATi too.
July 7, 2006 11:39:58 PM

ATI definitely does not suck. "Bad drivers" is just an excuse used by nVidia fanboys who don't know any better. nVidia does not suck either, but ATI is ahead just by a little bit at the moment. In the next generation, this might change. People really need to stick with whats good and not be a fanboy.
July 7, 2006 11:49:14 PM

Im An Nvidia Fanboy, But Im Not Gonna Knock ATI, I Just Dont Use Them
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 12:09:26 AM

hey i may be an nvidiot but, who says ati cards are bad?
July 8, 2006 12:20:40 AM

ATI drivers are absolutely fine. Granted, the X300 is a POS but even good drivers can't save it.
July 8, 2006 12:22:11 AM

Low to mid-range go ATI. High-end it's nVidia all the way (right now). Ask again next week.
July 8, 2006 12:27:19 AM

Quote:
If you're looking at the 7600GT, then there is no contest between it and an X1600. The 7600GT wins. I suspect a 7600GS would still pull ahead (if not trade blows) of the X1600 but I'm not certain and I'm sure others can shed some more light on it.


The 7600GT is faster than all the X1600s. The 7600GS is faster than the X1600Pro, and is about equal to the X1600XT.
July 8, 2006 12:34:47 AM

Quote:
Low to mid-range go ATI. High-end it's nVidia all the way (right now). Ask again next week.


I think you have that backward completely....
July 8, 2006 12:37:34 AM

All I know is that I love my x1900XT. I'm running Cat 6.5 with no issues on F.E.A.R.
I never thought I would ever blow that kind of cash on a vid card, but I'm glad I did.
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 12:54:16 AM

Y'all are crazy!

MATROX RULZ !!!
July 8, 2006 1:15:17 AM

Quote:
Y'all are crazy!

MATROX RULZ !!!


NO!


VIA CHROME INTEGRATED GPU RULES!
July 8, 2006 1:20:21 AM

The good thing to do is wait for the best deal for the money d'ont worry about the brand !

I have had both nv and ati card.

i found the ATI way a little less user friendly but overall good.

You should get at least a nv6600 or ati x700 (minimum card in my book)

the x300 is money wasted...
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 1:21:15 AM

Give me a good ole V8 anyway. :) 
July 8, 2006 1:21:48 AM

I think you're both wrong... 3dfx SLI pwns you both.
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 1:26:47 AM

Oh boy, we are all trash (card) talking *:twisted: Matrox sorry Grape* I sense either Cleeve or Grape is about to whip out the big fast card and shut everyone up.
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 2:39:07 AM

All I gotta say is it's so Damn good that THG picked them for their Mother-Of-All tests;





Feel it!
8MB of SGRAM on 1 SINGLE card!

:mrgreen:


Ok, off to go drink!

I'll leave Cleeve to post the BitchinFast! :twisted:
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 2:43:19 AM

man where can i get one of those bad boys.
and can i run them in ssli?

<slow scalable link interface>

LOL.
July 8, 2006 2:43:59 AM

I still have my Banshee 9850, dont make me go get it damnit....
July 8, 2006 3:59:15 AM

I have no doubt that Nvidia makes a great card, I am just partial to ATI. I recently picked up an X1800GTO and am completely floored by it's performance. I got an average of 87fps on the hl2:lost coast with 4xAA all high settings and 1440x900 res. I had an x1600pro before this, but this thing will beat it up and steal it's lunch.
July 8, 2006 12:06:24 PM

Raven_87 wrote:

I think you have that backward completely....


Nope, and I'm not a fanboy. I'm running both right now, and I'm only commenting on "right now" Ever hear of the 7950 GX2? Six hundred bucks for a freakin' gig of ddr3 with dual gpu's. I can't wait till ATI hits back. Sometime around Christmas I'm gonna build my long-awaited killer rig and I hope a couple more generations go by, by then. Maybe the 7950 will drop a hundred or so.
July 8, 2006 1:02:31 PM

Quote:
All I know is that I love my x1900XT. I'm running Cat 6.5 with no issues on F.E.A.R. I never thought I would ever blow that kind of cash on a vid card, but I'm glad I did.


I can precisely relate to your comments. When I popped $170 for a 7600GS (good card for the money back then), I thought I'd bought overkill. But my kids kept finding GPU-intensive games to load on that machine. Then a good sale came around on the 1900XT and I jumped in both feet first...
July 8, 2006 2:36:35 PM

@ Baddog

Thats fine, however the 7950 is a multi-GPU solution, so I don't even bother comparing the X1900XTX to it.

ATI's midranged is crap, no way around that fact, unless were talking about the X1800GTO or X1900GT. Otherwise, anything else (unless were talking 2003 when ATI had the better midranged class) is utter garbage.

High end NV, the other thing I'll consider maybe is the 7900GT and the 7950.

However seeing as how X1900XT prices are dropping sharply the 7900GT is nearly out of the equation, and I personally wouldnt bother dropping my coin on a 7900GTX. So high end solution from NV is the 7950 @ $600.......maybe if Vista wasnt on the horizon I might throw the cash down, but at this point in the game its almost a complete waste if you ask me.
July 8, 2006 3:49:37 PM

Quote:
ATI's midranged is crap, no way around that fact, unless were talking about the X1800GTO or X1900GT.


Have to disagree with you, buddy. If anything I'd say the X1900 GT is the crap card for the money, and the rest of the new Ati line is pretty competitive on price.

sub $100 the X1300 isn't an embarassing card at all, the 6600 is a bit better but I don't think it's crap...

The X1600 XT performs right on par with the 7600 GS for the same price

The X1800 GTO is on par with the 7600 GT for about the same price. The X1800 GTO is a bit more, but has more overclocking potential

The X1800 XT is on par with the 7900 GT for the same price, if not cheaper

X1900 XT is almost as fast as a 7900 GTX for less money, a much better buy IMHO

I don't see a big disparity at all...
July 8, 2006 4:02:18 PM

No, I agree Cleeve. The X1900GT IS crap = for the money.
However Its still a performer either way you look at it, regardless of price.

If the X1600pro is any indication of the XT's abilities, then it does suck, becuase I had the priviledge of sampling one, and it blew more than a hurricane.

Sub $100. The x1300 isnt an embarassing card for HTPC, in fact it would probably be my first choice, but when compared to the 6600 in terms of a gaming need.....my dollar goes to the 6600.

The X1600XT I havent used, but like I said earlier, if the pro is any shadow of its ability then the GS would in the long term smoke it. I've tampered with a 7600GT becuase we have one @ work - that damn little thing overclocks like a sum bitch :lol: 

Obviously you know my choice between the X1800XT and 7900GT even though its not in my sig anymore (speaking of which, I have a nice WB coming for it in the next couple days, so I'm going to dedicate a thread to X1800XT overclocking :wink: )

As for the 7900GTX. Anybody for AA&HDR?... no? GRAW & AA?..... no?
The 7900GTX is nothing more than a simple clock speed boost, and
personally with the X1900XT being so cheap, it shouldnt be in any sane persons buying category.
a c 172 U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 4:42:14 PM

I didn't see anyone do this, so I will. The last Nvidia card I owned was a TNT2 Ultra. After that, it was an AIW 9600pro, 9700pro, and I just moved up to an X1800XT. Why ATI? Beats me, I like their cards. I don't have any issues with the drivers. The worst part is CCC, which you can ignore. The second worst part is trying to overclock. I wish ATI would/could develop something like Coolbits. This too can be overcome by using ATItool. Yes, we might not like .net, but ATI isn't the only person out there using it. Chances are good that if you use other software, they will also require .net. I went with the x1xxx series because I felt it was better then the GF7 series. (not really, when I bought my CPU, I had the option of buying a crossfire motherboard for <$50. Asus A8R-MVP) The x1xxx series supports sm3, ATIs video conversion thing, and HDR with AA. I also got my x1800XT for ~$235, the same price as the 7900GT I was looking at.
The honest truth? I look at my friends Nvidia cards, and I'd never notice the difference. As long as the card is fast enough to play your game(s), and cheap enough to fit your budget, I doubt you'll care who makes it.
July 8, 2006 4:48:22 PM

Good point, I've been really having a ball with Avivo lately, and TBH, I dont think I can't see myself not using at this point. Its easy to take my AVI files and convert them to say MPEG4.

ATI tool is a fine overclocking utility if you ask me. Just look @ the fact that I am able to use it for an NV gpu as well......can I do the same with coolbits? Didnt think so...

I'm not using the Cat's...I use the Omega drivers so therefore the CCC really doesnt impact my arguement at all, thank god. So I'm sitting quite happily as of right now.
a c 172 U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 6:19:54 PM

I mention ATItool only because I'm having issues with it. The last stable build doesn't see my x1800xt, and the beta has issues. I used the find max core button last night, and it didn't go so well. It took the stock core from 600MHz (shouldn't it be 625?) and cranked it up to 635MHz. I had lines and artifacts all over the place, and it kept going. The screen eventually went black, and I thought it might have died. CCC came on and told me something about GPU recovery kicked in, and wanted me to send a report to ATI. This is why I said I wish something like Coolbits existed for ATI. In driver overclocking, so I don't have to mess with someone elses program. I like ATItool, used it on my 9600/9700pros. Just wished they had something for the x1800XT.
July 8, 2006 6:22:55 PM

Use .25 Beta 14....that one should work, and if it doesnt there's a problem lying elsewhere.
a c 172 U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 7:30:54 PM

And thats the one I was using. If you have any idea where "elsewhere" might be, I'd love to hear it...
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2006 8:46:10 PM

Not to get into the whole AvsB thing again, I'll just point out a few things. A I agree that the X1900GT uderperforms, in many games, but it is competative in some, so it depends.

Quote:

sub $100 the X1300 isn't an embarassing card at all, the 6600 is a bit better but I don't think it's crap...

The X1600 XT performs right on par with the 7600 GS for the same price


But this forgets the fact that it's not the X1300 which prices alongside the GF6609 series but the low-end of the X1600, hec even an HIS X1600Pro (also 6 under $100 BEFORE rebate) which decimates the GF6600 in it's class, even the GF6600GT is much more expensive, and even with the GF7600GS, I can find the XT for cheaper.

SO really it's a toss up from choice to choice nowadays, winners and losers throughout.
July 9, 2006 11:29:31 AM

Thats fine, however the 7950 is a multi-GPU solution, so I don't even bother comparing the X1900XTX to it.

Why not? It's a single-slot solution for a few percent more, and all you need is an x16 slot, not a new mobo. To get similar performance from ATI now you need two xtx's, and a special mobo designed for crossfire (not to mention that dumbass crossfire cable), which if I figure, will cost right at twice as much. And if you want to watch a dvd you'll have to disable crossfire and reboot. How lame is that? In other words I stand by my original statement ATI has their boot on the lower to middle class, but (for the moment) nVidia rules the top end.
July 9, 2006 11:33:00 AM

A I agree that the X1900GT uderperforms, in many games, but it is competative in some, so it depends.

Yeah, it (relatively) sucks in anything open-gl. When will ATI get their open-gl driver act together?
July 9, 2006 12:25:50 PM

If they really sucked that badly, would they still be in business?
July 9, 2006 1:14:47 PM

Quote:
Yeah, it (relatively) sucks in anything open-gl. When will ATI get their open-gl driver act together?


So very, very true. But if you think OpenGL on ATI cards in Windows is bad...

First, a warning: I realize that for most here this makes little difference to them, but I figured I'd put in my $.02. If you never, ever plan on using Linux, pay no mind to this post. Otherwise, let this serve as a warning.

Just for S's and G's, I tested the MATLAB "bench" benchmark on 2 systems, in Linux and Windows on both. One system was my laptop (pentium M dothan 1.7, 1gig 2700, mr 9700 w/ 128mb, 5400rpm toshiba drive), the other my older desktop (athlon xp 1700, 1 gig pc133, gf Ti4600, 7200 seagate).
In windows, my laptop soundly thumped my desktop, both in CPU tasks and the OpenGL 2d and 3d tests. Running the test again in linux, my desktop actually edges out my laptop. I checked the individual category scores to find out what happened, and I saw the CPU scores were on-par with those the laptop got in Windows, but the OpenGL tests were very low. I double-checked to make sure I had the ATI drivers installed and that they were being used. I upgraded to the latest drivers from ATI. Still the low scores persisted. I then looked around online and confirmed what I had suspected: ATI's linux drivers are just terrible.

That was two years ago. Not much has changed to this day. Their drivers are marginally better and provide slightly better performance, but nonetheless they are bad enough that anytime someone asks what card they should get for their new build, I ask them if they possibly may run linux at some point in the future, since any marginal edge ATI has in games in Windows is overshadowed by the performace (and in many cases the difficulty of installation) of the Linux drivers.
July 9, 2006 1:36:06 PM

if you want a card that puts the X1600XT To Shame try the Gainward bliss 7300 GT PCX.its an overclocked version of the 7300GT and it completely Eats The X1600XT.

SEE ThisGainward Bliss 7300 GT PCX
July 9, 2006 1:47:15 PM

It's not unusable, but it's not good. nVidia is smacking them up mostly because of the driver issues. In reality ATI has a much prettier picture. That's why I'm running them in a couple of my sff's. And I've seen the cards last much longer (I just had an nVidia pop a couple of electrolytics). But for kick-butt framerates with lot's of [/b]eye-candy, (for the moment) it's nVidia.
July 9, 2006 1:49:29 PM

Quote:
Thats fine, however the 7950 is a multi-GPU solution, so I don't even bother comparing the X1900XTX to it.

Why not? It's a single-slot solution for a few percent more, and all you need is an x16 slot, not a new mobo. To get similar performance from ATI now you need two xtx's, and a special mobo designed for crossfire (not to mention that dumbass crossfire cable), which if I figure, will cost right at twice as much. And if you want to watch a dvd you'll have to disable crossfire and reboot. How lame is that? In other words I stand by my original statement ATI has their boot on the lower to middle class, but (for the moment) nVidia rules the top end.


I dont give a damn if its a single PCI-E slot solution or not. Its still a multi-GPU designed card. And what do you mean a "few percent more"? Are you talking dollar amount? Becuase last I checked, I can get an X1900XT for $350 and a 7950 for $600...... :?: :?: :?: Thats more than a "few percent" in my book.

My DFI NF4 infinity has a 16x slot, but the requirement for those GPU's are SLI ready motherboards (if I read correctly) so yes, technically I would need a new motherboard.

Crossfire does have some gripes about it, so in that respect I agree whole heartedly. So again, midrange GPU's seem to open to NV, while high end (SINGLE GPU!!) cards are ATI for the moment.
!