Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI Inferior to NVidia?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 27, 2006 1:51:17 PM

Monday's edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail contained a review of AMD's acquisition of ATI. Journalist Shawn McCarthy quoted Rob Enderle of Enderle Group as saying that ATI graphics are inferior to NVidia. Enderle still thinks the acquisition a positive move overall [since AMD ends up with better graphics than Intel can provide with the Centrino platform].

I'm not entirely convinced that the characterization of NVidia as a perennial frontrunner is accurate; rather, I think a tug-of-war not unlike that between AMD and Intel for superiority, more closely describes the current state of graphics prowess.

I'm curious to know what others think. To buttress my argument I ask people to consider 2 things, among other factors: ATI replacing NVidia as chipmaker for the Xbox last year [yes, I realize NVidia didn't have the best relationship with Microsoft], and the pronouncement by Microsoft at this year's WinHEC, that ATI shows off Vista best.

What about benchmarks? What do the gaming crowd gurus think? What does Tom think?

Cheers -

KentEl

More about : ati inferior nvidia

July 27, 2006 1:55:20 PM

i think ati sucks.
July 27, 2006 1:58:49 PM

Well, thanks for sharing:) 

Care to give reasons?
Related resources
July 27, 2006 2:00:54 PM

Quote:
What about benchmarks? What do the gaming crowd gurus think? What does Tom think?

In gaming, nowadays, both nVidia, and ATI are great, and there is no clear winner. Performance wise, any of those is great with current cards.
July 27, 2006 2:13:51 PM

My take on the two has always been this:

nVidia has the raw power. When you have high resolutions and some effects, nVidia can really smoke a game. However, when special effects are turned up, the FPS drops down significantly. ATI is a little more consistent with their FPS. Initially, they may be a little slower than nV, but when the effects are cranked up, their FPS stay relatively constant.

Now this is just nitpicking really, as both have shown similar performance in similar prices categories, but that's just my impression most of the time when I read reviews.
July 27, 2006 2:21:40 PM

Well, I don't think nV has more "raw power" since current GeForces and Radeons are build on different technologies, so it can't be really compared in that way.
July 27, 2006 2:29:04 PM

Not only that but a single x1900XTX has beaten even the GX2 cards in benchmarks until resolutions over 1600x1200. And theres very few people that play over that resolution. Pretty impressive for ATIs technology if one of its cards can outperform the competitions dual GPU card at any resolution in any game. And its not like its just one game either. Its a lot of them.

They're on a fairly even playing field but ATI has an advantage, especially with all the goodies turned on.
July 27, 2006 2:31:40 PM

At this point it seems a matter of preference, maybe with the acquisition one company will be a clear frontrunner, probably nVidia.
July 27, 2006 2:38:04 PM

ATI has always held its own. The two have traded blows for as long as they've been around, there's no clear winner in a series of games that have equal representation of OpenGL and DirectX. Both architectures are great, both have their advantages.

My first video card was a Radeon, based on a Rage 6, that was an upgrade for the old Gateway Pentium MMX 200MHz. It let me play Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, so I was a happy camper.

After that, I had the integrated Intel graphics in my notebook. That phase lasted four painful years.

Now, I have a 7900GT. I looked at benchmarks from both companies, have been for the past year or so. I decided on the GeForce. It was either that or an X1800XT. Since I wanted the capability to do multi-GPU rendering (doesn't mean I will, I just wanted the option), and there were no Crossfire boards for Socket AM2 (still aren't, actually), the 7900GT looked like the best choice.

There is no clear-cut winner. Both companies make great cards, it just depends on what you want to do. I've never used an X1800XT, or any Radeon card other than the Rage 6, for any length of time, so I can't comment. nVidia seemed like the more flexible option, so I went with that. But I do like both companies' products.
July 27, 2006 2:41:15 PM

"The two most common elements in this universe are Hydrogen and stupidity."

That's a lot of laughing gas? ;-)

I thought it was cows and methane, billions and billions served. OK enuff.
July 27, 2006 2:41:29 PM

Quote:
Not only that but a single x1900XTX has beaten even the GX2 cards in benchmarks until resolutions over 1600x1200. And theres very few people that play over that resolution. Pretty impressive for ATIs technology if one of its cards can outperform the competitions dual GPU card at any resolution in any game. And its not like its just one game either. Its a lot of them.

They're on a fairly even playing field but ATI has an advantage, especially with all the goodies turned on.



yeah like I'm gonna spend over $400 to get a 1900xtx to play at 800x600 or 1028x764......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....especially now that i dropped almost a grand on my new flatpanel with an insanely high resolution on it.....riiiiiiiiiiight

i think MORE companies should aim their flagship graphics cards at the 800x600 resolution crowd...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

"Look mom I just popped $1500 on a new 2400x1800 flat panel and UBER-grpahics card....but i only play at 800x600 cause that's its performance "sweet-spot"'.......riiiiiiiiiiiiight
July 27, 2006 2:41:35 PM

Quote:
Well, I don't think nV has more "raw power" since current GeForces and Radeons are build on different technologies, so it can't be really compared in that way.

What I meant was I've seen a lot of benchmarks where the NV card is ahead in FPS at lower resolutions/minimal effects, but when it's all turned up their FPS drop significantly, while ATI initally may be slower, their FPS remain relatively constant and at high resoltions (1280 or over) with max effects, end up being faster than NV. This is just a nitpicking, broad generalization I've come up with, but it's hard to say either one is much better than the other since they both are neck and neck as of late.
July 27, 2006 2:47:04 PM

I hope ATI and Nvidia would compete more closely like AMD and Intel. That way there's some price cuts and lower price high-end graphics cards. Man, graphics card is so expensive these days, I could buy a cpu, motherboard and rams for the price of one graphics card. I would love to get my hands on the 7950GX2. As for ATI and Nvidia, both are great cards for gaming.
July 27, 2006 2:56:45 PM

You really do have a lot of options (assuming your wallet supports them :wink:) . And with DX10 cards (figuratively speaking) just around the corner, there'll be even more options to choose from. Granted, no enthusiast will want a DX9 card after the next edition comes out, but you get the point.

I hope nVidia decides to allow cards of different families (e.g. a 7900GT and an 8900GT) in SLI mode together. That would be sweet. If the way SLI mode with physics works like I think/hope it will, it should be possible.
July 27, 2006 2:58:22 PM

A tug-o-war is a good analogy of their status in the market I think. Ati is actually older if I remember correctly. (correct me if I'm wrong) And inovation and "first to market" w/ technology 'X' has always tradeds hands from the begining.

For quite a while ati had many driver issues compared to Nv, but w/ the advent of the radeon brand and the catalyst drivers that has ceased on the windows end. They now have more devs on windows drivers then Nv, but much less on Linux. That directly translates into the quality on the respective platforms. IMO

Looking at the last few generations (on the desktop) you can see that the gf4 was killing the radeon 8x00. The radeon 9x00 (specifically the 9700) stomped the gf4 and the (horribly abyssmal) fx5x00 series from Nv, and was first w/ sm 2.0.

The gf6 came back, and ati was slow in getting out the x800s... arguably they were equal and sometimes better in "raw" performance but the gf6 had "newer" tech w/ sm 3.0 (their turn to be first). b/c they were late to the game however Nv won back much of what was lost (market-wise) to the 9x00 series.

This brings us to today's gen of cards, the gf7 and the x1k. I would argue that (as some have stated earlier) that they are roughly equal. Depending on the test and bench either one can win. The 7800 lost more to the 1800, but both "refreshes" the 7900 and 1900 trade off rather well. More centered around pixel processing as the 1900 sits heavy on that and the 7900 runs away w/ raw texture processing. (that is what Gary_Busey was getting at I think)

My personal take is that Nv is more agressive w/ marketing but more reserved w/ new tech directions. Ati engineers more "new" advancements (and is diverging farther from Nv and "traditional" gpu's very fast) but has sucked in the past w/ marketing it and even getting it to market fast enough to compete... The 9700 was so amazing when it came out (along side the gf4 ti 4600) and was still revealing performance and tech advances well past it's "prime" (even along side the gf6 series!).
That is near 3 geberations of Nv cards! Nv could not touch it until that gf6 generation. Ati lost alot w/ the slowness to market of the x800 cards, which is for too many reasons to list here. The 1900 is greatly asynchronos compared to anything else, and may prove some longevity as well as driver revs reveal more performance. (or may prove the wrong direction to go tbh... new tech is risky, which may be some of the reasoning why Nv is slower here)

If you look at market share they are about equal, and a few % points trade back and forth right now. What will happen after a few years w/ this merger is anyones guess, market or performance...
July 27, 2006 3:08:55 PM

Quote:

yeah like I'm gonna spend over $400 to get a 1900xtx to play at 800x600 or 1028x764......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....especially now that i dropped almost a grand on my new flatpanel with an insanely high resolution on it.....riiiiiiiiiiight


He said until ***OVER*** 1600x resolution you tool... :roll:
July 27, 2006 3:11:42 PM

Quote:
yeah like I'm gonna spend over $400 to get a 1900xtx to play at 800x600 or 1028x764......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....especially now that i dropped almost a grand on my new flatpanel with an insanely high resolution on it.....riiiiiiiiiiight

i think MORE companies should aim their flagship graphics cards at the 800x600 resolution crowd...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

"Look mom I just popped $1500 on a new 2400x1800 flat panel and UBER-grpahics card....but i only play at 800x600 cause that's its performance "sweet-spot"'.......riiiiiiiiiiiiight


Like to say "right" or something? Anyway once you stop acting like a dumbass listen.

I wasn't talking about 800x600. Notice I said "up to 1600x1200" 1600x1200 and below is what most people play games at because we can't afford $1000+ widescreen LCDs. But a $250-300 19" LCD and a $450 GPU is more doable. And you don't have to get the XTX. You can get the x1900XT for $350 now and easily OC it to XTX speeds for the same performance. So the point is valid that at resolutions 90% or more of people play at, a single ATI card has bested Nvidia's top dog dual gpu card.

Look at a lot of top games out there now. At 1280x1024 with full detail you can get good framerates. But even with SLI/Crossfire at 1920x1200 (or whatever it is) and higher you often get below 60 fps with all the details on. I don't know about you, but I don't spend $1000 on a monitor. I have a 19" LCD and play everything at 1280x1024. And yes, I plan on getting a X1900XT or a X1950 when they come out to play at that resolution. Because at that resolution with all the details on, the card will perform where I want it to.

So learn to pull your head out of your ass and actually read what people say.

Note to others: When I said "at any resolution in any game" read that in the attitude of that its impressive that they can do it at all. I didn't mean they outperform the GX2 in every resolution in every game.
July 27, 2006 3:29:39 PM

They may have more people working on drivers, but they still suck. More people != better.

I think right now ATi has the right idea being heavy into shaders since they're doing the majority of the work in modern games. And if their linux/driver support didn't still suck, I'd probably buy one. As is, there's a 7900GT in my living room that's going in tonight ;) 

Nvidia hasn't had much success with relationships with other companies recently (RE: MS and Intel), it wasn't a "its too expensive" decision like they'd like us to think. However, you're talking about two companies that VERY much like to run the show, and I think nvidia has grown past being fully willing to do that.

I think that for future consoles, you will see an AMD/ATI solution. Why? Because they can get it from one company. Unless Intel tries to buy nvidia, to build a console in the future, its either source parts from intel and nvidia and try to integrate them, or get an integrated solution from AMD/ATI. When you're talking about two companies that already don't get along, and a single company (essentially) that can give you a damn good product, the choice is obvious. Either way, I hope the tug-of-war continues, because we benefit from it.
July 27, 2006 3:38:39 PM

Quote:
I think that for future consoles, you will see an AMD/ATI solution.


You know I didn't think of that. That actually is true. With the CPU and GPU being produced and designed by one company, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Who knows. In 2010-2012 we might see an AMD/ATI powered Xbox720 or PS4.
July 27, 2006 3:40:11 PM

Quote:
Well, thanks for sharing:) 

Care to give reasons?


They do suck, a whole load of air. ATI cards sound like jet engines.
ATI cards run hot, turning cases into easy-bake ovens.
ATI drivers are just plain horrible.
July 27, 2006 3:55:27 PM

I thnk that they all run on memories that are too old for them to actually remember themselves... I pointed out earlier that ati drivers used to suck way back before the radeon brand and the "catalyst" name. Most of these ppl just say that b/c they sucked 10 years ago they suck today. (extreme, but true)

Yes, linux support is lacking. It is getting better but still a far cry from Nv's linus drivers.

Windows drivers are another story, and are quite solid. They get more revs w/ many more incremental improvements then anything Nv actually releases. (read: not a beta driver) And I can about bank on the fact that at least once a month I will have a new driver. This means that improvements, game fixes and new ideas get to me much faster and in a finished form. I have yet to be dissapointed by them. :) 

Nv cannot say the same... most of the time I see the same driver on their site for months on end (sometimes more than 6 months) and to get any fixes you need to hunt down a beta driver from some 3rd party site. This of course does not mean the driver is crap, but it is still irritating. :x
July 27, 2006 4:15:14 PM

Quote:

They do suck, a whole load of air. ATI cards sound like jet engines.
ATI cards run hot, turning cases into easy-bake ovens.
ATI drivers are just plain horrible.


Lol. Look at the Nvidiots come out of the woodwork.

Well, I review both Ati and Nvidia cards for Tom's Hardware, and I can tell you that both Ati and Nvidia cards and drivers are excellent for Windows gaming.

They both have small irritations as far as the driver panel goes, but they are both stable and game fast, and that's what matters. Anybody who says differently is living in the past, or is a fanboy tool.
July 27, 2006 4:18:42 PM

Quote:
They do suck, a whole load of air. ATI cards sound like jet engines.
ATI cards run hot, turning cases into easy-bake ovens.
ATI drivers are just plain horrible.


Complaint 1: Apparently you weren't around for the release of the 5800 Ultra that sounded like a vacuum cleaner. Nvidia cards can be just as loud.

Complaint 2: Their cards currently run a little hotter since they haven't scaled down their process like Nvidia did. But the release the X1950 series will change that. And at ATIs heatsink blows the air out of the back of the case instead of inside like Nvidias. So your arguement is incorrect. If anyones cards heat up the inside of a case at the moment, its Nvidias.

Complaint 3: Funny. When I had a 9800 Pro 128MB it worked great and was way better than the 5900 I had. Have you ever even owned an ATI card? Besides, I've found problems with Nvidia drivers too. Their latest release was telling me about how I couldn't enable SLI on my 256MB AGP 6200. And then it blue screened my computer one time. Software will never be perfect for anyone.


Shut your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about.
July 27, 2006 4:28:24 PM

agreed.
July 27, 2006 4:28:47 PM

i am a long time user of both ATI and Nvidia Products. In my experince the biggest mistake ATI made was making the CCC program. they should have just left it alone. Secondly as far as FPS unless the cards of equal perfoamnce there is more than a 15-20fps difference then i consider both cards of equal performance. I have used both the 7900GXT and the X1900XT. I kept the X1900XT since at the time the 7900GTX was plagued with being a crappy board, it was DOA 5 days after i bought it and since i have no love for this kind of problem or RMA's i stuck with the X1900XT. Additionally don't waste money on an XTX model the amount you pay vs the perfomace game is not worth it.

Finally i have found that the ATI is a better all round solution since it can do HDR+AA, my fps usually sit between 40-60FPS AVG and thats with everything cranked to the max at a res of 1680x1050 in games like FEAR and HL2 (that includes Lost Coast). The final thing that sold me was the X1000's support of H.264 Hardware Acceleration :D 

anyway thats my rant, you can call me an Ati fanboy if you want, i won't care.
July 27, 2006 4:31:31 PM

Quote:
And at ATIs heatsink blows the air out of the back of the case instead of inside like Nvidias.


Hmmm... That looks like it doesn't blow out the back. Also looks like it's an ATI-manufactured card. And it's an X1900 - that means they run a little on the warm side. I'm not saying you're wrong about that...the picture speaks for itself.

Yes, both manufacturers have their problems. Both manufacturers make cards that have single and dual slot solutions.

Both manufacturers release glitchy drivers at some point.

Both manufacturers have their crappy cards. It's the X1600XT for ATI, and the...well, I don't think nVidia has a crappy current-gen card out at the moment. Pretty much all of their cards cover their price/performance ratios pretty well.
July 27, 2006 4:33:56 PM

Quote:
The final thing that sold me was the X1000's support of H.264 Hardware Acceleration :D 


actually I think that Nv supports H.264 now as well, they just had to enable it in the drivers.

But you are right, they are about = and ati has that HDR+AA thing. ;) 
July 27, 2006 4:33:56 PM

My thought on the matter is...... its a matter of preference. The companies are too close to delcare a clear winner or outpreformer. I feel its more about options, EX. if you want to run dual cards, SLI is more effective than crossfire and is more widely accepted by mobo companies. But ATI does run well with all the settings maxed out. I have an Nvidia card now becuase of SLI capabilities, and at the time is was better than a ATI card of compariable price. Its too hard to tell.
July 27, 2006 4:36:04 PM

Quote:
Hmmm... That looks like it doesn't blow out the back. Also looks like it's an ATI-manufactured card. And it's an X1900 - that means they run a little on the warm side. I'm not saying you're wrong about that...the picture speaks for itself.


A better comparison would be to find an nVidia card that does blows air out of the case, instead of finding an ATI card that doesn't.
July 27, 2006 4:37:35 PM

I've owned several ATI cards over 5-6 years and haven't had any problems with their drivers. I actually perfer the monthly driver updates. I consider both Nvidia and ATI cards when looking to upgrade. I've just always gone with ATI. They both have their positives and negatives, but I wouldn't say one totally sucks and the other doesn't.
July 27, 2006 4:44:32 PM

well one things is you cant compare them because you have to think about the mid-range cards, and also really HIGH end cards and even the lower crap cards and then consider them all.. i personaly dont care if its ATI or NV, i have only had Nvidia cards beacuse thats how its had happend, and i have always been satisfied ( except the fx 5500.. WTF was WRONG WITH nvidea when they made the FX series?)
and dude you should have really never asked a Question like this because its going to be hundereds of FAN boys arguing.
July 27, 2006 4:55:22 PM

Quote:
well one things is you cant compare them because you have to think about the mid-range cards, and also really HIGH end cards and even the lower crap cards and then consider them all.. i personaly dont care if its ATI or NV, i have only had Nvidia cards beacuse thats how its had happend, and i have always been satisfied ( except the fx 5500.. WTF was WRONG WITH nvidea when they made the FX series?)
and dude you should have really never asked a Question like this because its going to be hundereds of FAN boys arguing.


I think the FX line was to pay off someones gambling debts, kinda like WINME :D  j/k

i like to go with ati when i can since i like to support canaidan companiers, but i guess thats changed now eh.
July 27, 2006 5:11:51 PM

Quote:
Complaint 3: Funny. When I had a 9800 Pro 128MB it worked great and was way better than the 5900 I had. Have you ever even owned an ATI card? Besides, I've found problems with Nvidia drivers too. Their latest release was telling me about how I couldn't enable SLI on my 256MB AGP 6200. And then it blue screened my computer one time. Software will never be perfect for anyone.


Why are you talking about 3 year old video cards? 5 series nVidia cards are the worst of nVidia. The ti 4 series performed better. I'm sorry you purchased a 5 series; but you are talking of nVidia from 2003-2004 during the plague of FX. This is 2006, nVidia has the best performance per dollar right now.

Quote:
Complaint 2: Their cards currently run a little hotter since they haven't scaled down their process like Nvidia did. But the release the X1950 series will change that. And at ATIs heatsink blows the air out of the back of the case instead of inside like Nvidias. So your arguement is incorrect. If anyones cards heat up the inside of a case at the moment, its Nvidias.

Clearly ATI cards are already at 90nm like nVidia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics...
They run so hot because they are clocked to high in an attempt to keep up with nVidia. :) 

The GTX's fan out the back; however, GT's don't need to use up dual slots to keep cool because they are basically GTX's with less memory and a lower clock. They run quite cool too, something you can not say for any single slot ATI high performance card.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 27, 2006 5:18:16 PM

Quote:
Monday's edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail contained a review of AMD's acquisition of ATI. Journalist Shawn McCarthy quoted Rob Enderle of Enderle Group as saying that ATI graphics are inferior to NVidia. Enderle still thinks the acquisition a positive move overall [since AMD ends up with better graphics than Intel can provide with the Centrino platform].


Yeah I read that it was so obviously written by someone who knows very little about the industry other than the quarterly reports, and probably what his gaming buddy told him, and his buddy just happens to own/like nVidia gear or play an nV friendly title. Most of these guys could turn on AA in a game/driver, so they're not in a position to commment on quality.

Quote:
I'm not entirely convinced that the characterization of NVidia as a perennial frontrunner is accurate; rather, I think a tug-of-war not unlike that between AMD and Intel for superiority, more closely describes the current state of graphics prowess.


Of course it's a tug of war, the only reason this author writes this is to him the graphics industry is 2-3 years old, he obviously missed the FX years, and then the GF4 years before it, etc. And if all he did was read press releases from both then you might come to that conclusion too, based on whether you like Green or Red. :roll:

Quote:
ATI replacing NVidia as chipmaker for the Xbox last year [yes, I realize NVidia didn't have the best relationship with Microsoft],


Well and that's the thing I think ATi winning had alot to do with 2 things, for Xbox, nV and M$ were still arguing at the time of the decision and ATi and M$ had a better relationship.

But if you rememeber originally after Sony decided to not do all CPU graphics, they had considered ATi as their front runner, and that would've made it M$, Nintendo and Sony all using ATi for the consoles. But that doesn't speak to current quality so much as their R9700 success and their greater involvement in media and dedicated TV solutions, where yes ATi dominates over nV there; but it has little/nothing to do with the graphics segment, except for the niche All-in-Wonder and Cinema series cards, where really there's only been one winner between the two and ATi's competition come from Hauppauge, where you have a similar situation to graphics where each of those two do things better and differently than the other.

Quote:
and the pronouncement by Microsoft at this year's WinHEC, that ATI shows off Vista best.

I wouldn't really worry about M$' statements, they're really only related to the early driver support, it's all still so beta, that it shouldn't really hold too much weight for this generation, they are closer than they are dissimilar. No clear winner, but since the balance sheet currently favours nV (didn't always) they are seen as the darling by people in the financial sector who don't knwo anything about the companies themselves or their products.
July 27, 2006 5:22:22 PM

Quote:
A better comparison would be to find an nVidia card that does blows air out of the case, instead of finding an ATI card that doesn't.


Kay.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 27, 2006 5:25:24 PM

STFU n00b Fanboi! :evil: 

Quote:

They do suck, a whole load of air. ATI cards sound like jet engines.


Yet the GF7900GT is the loudest card currently.

Quote:
ATI cards run hot,


But the GF7900s ran cooler, yet failed more do to overheating. Guess the ATis can handle the heat.

Also, The GF7900GX2 runs hotter than the X1900XTX, and more importantly...

Quote:
turning cases into easy-bake ovens.


Except for the fact that all the waste hot air from the better ATi cards doesn't go into the case it goes outside, thus helping COOL your case, none of the nV cards eject all their wate air, the only one close is the GF7900GTX which does 50/50 sending 50% of it waste hot air back into the Case to warm your CPU/Memory and HDD, the hottest card the GX2 puts most of it's waste heat back into the PC. So who's turning the cases into easy bake ovens? Think you should learn the difference between methods of transmission of heat. Because unless it's radiation or a case of conduction along the PCB the ATi's aren't heating up the case as much as the nVs.

Quote:
ATI drivers are just plain horrible.


Yet, nV has as many or more bugs;
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0606/itogi...

(unless you have a more current more complete list to prove otherwise, and no PR links please, credible review sites only).

Fact of the matter CCC still kinda sucks, but so does nV's attempt at .net drivers. Both have the options to use the non .net drivers, although nV still links directly too them. M$ prefers ATi's drivers, although IMO they aren't an objective party to ask.

Your statements reek of uninformed PR prattle. I suggest you find somewhere else to peddle your crap.
July 27, 2006 5:27:33 PM

*directed to everyone complaing about hot air in there case.

you guys are missing the point that ATI and Nvidia have several different card manufacturers make there cards, this means that some cards in the same family will blow air out the back and some wont.

for instance heres a 7800GTX 256MB card that blows air out the back,

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sho...

and heres one that doesnt,

http://www.bjorn3d.com/photo/data/500/7800GTX-5.jpg


ATI HAD driver problems, they have now been fixed. It was actually the driver problems from ati that pushed me over to NVidia. the new drivers from nvidia are now getting on my nerves, they remind me that i dont have SLI everytime i start up my PC.

no one company is above the other they are both about equal.
July 27, 2006 5:30:11 PM

that one you say does, only does half of it... that is reference gtx.
July 27, 2006 5:34:12 PM

so it does :oops: 
July 27, 2006 5:39:26 PM

Quote:
Complaint 2: Their cards currently run a little hotter since they haven't scaled down their process like Nvidia did. But the release the X1950 series will change that.
Actually ATI does not have a die shrink planned for the X1950XTX; we won't se 80nm until the R600 refresh.

As to ATI being inferior to Nvidia, the only way I can see that is in the company itself compared to Nvidia; ATI is not worth as much as Nvidia and has a smaller yearly revenue. If anything ATI’s cards are superior to Nvidia’s, and I own Nvidia cards!
July 27, 2006 5:46:25 PM

Quote:
none of the nV cards eject all their wate air, the only one close is the GF7900GTX which does 50/50 sending 50% of it waste hot air back into the Case to warm your CPU/Memory and HDD, the hottest card the GX2 puts most of it's waste heat back into the PC. So who's turning the cases into easy bake ovens?


Uhh, here's a GF7600GT that exhausts its air. Not that it runs that hot to begin with...
July 27, 2006 5:51:46 PM

(General reply, not directed at TGGA. Too lazy to find the original poster)

Quote:
ATI drivers are just plain horrible.


Oh boy, going back to the day when ATi drivers were nothing but hell... my last memory of having to deal with thta mess of badly coded pap was back in 99, when I used to work as a repair tech in Software Warehouse (Brits of 25 years or older might remember that).

Nowadays, I guess they've sorted it all out more, and havent got as many issues. But back then, it DID affect my choice of card, and I went the Geforce route. Up until now, I've never touched an ATi card, and I dont know if I will in the future. SLI is nice, and the nForce4 boards are pretty sweet.

I would have preffered it if AMD had bought nVidia, but hey, like anything we do on these forums actually does anything useful in the wide world of CPU's and GPU's. :D 

Going back to the heat issue. If your case is adequatly ventilated, it should make much of a difference, as the airflow will be enough to disperse the heat produced by the GFX card/s anyway. If not, consider an intake on the side panel.

And as for noise? If you think its too loud, change the HSF, or use watercooling. Noise and Heat are lame arguments these days, when there are so many better aftermarket addons you can use to cancel out these disadvantages.

No doubt I'm going to get a few posts along the lines of "WTF?!?!?!!!" or "STFU noob/fanboi/lamer/whatever". Just try and be original if you have to flame, and dont make one-line posts proclaiming something, without actually explaining WHY you think that.

Right, burbling over. Back to the regularly scheduled crap as follows...
July 27, 2006 5:55:53 PM

AMEN.

Quote:
And as for noise? If you think its too loud, change the HSF, or use watercooling. Noise and Heat are lame arguments these days, when there are so many better aftermarket addons you can use to cancel out these disadvantages.


Damn right, especially since manufacturers like eVGA let you swap the stock HSF for an aftermarket (and overclock it) without voiding your warranty.
July 27, 2006 5:56:30 PM

Quote:
Both manufacturers have their crappy cards. It's the X1600XT for ATI, and the...well, I don't think nVidia has a crappy current-gen card out at the moment.


The X1600 XT performs a bit better than the 7600 GS for the same price, so it's actually a decent buy now.

Bad cards for the money... I'd put the X1900 GT, and 7800 GS on that list though.
July 27, 2006 6:08:49 PM

Right, I had forgotten about nVidia's GF7 AGP cards, I thought this was only for PCIe. Yeah, the 7600GS isn't really worth it, not when you can get a PCIe motherboard and a somewhat decent video card for just a little more.

I found a benchmark test where the 7300GT actually managed to best the X1600XT in a few tests, such as UT2004, Doom 3, and they tied in FEAR. The Radeon did have the upper hand in FarCry, however. If I find it, I'll post back.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 27, 2006 6:09:17 PM

Quote:
A better comparison would be to find an nVidia card that does blows air out of the case, instead of finding an ATI card that doesn't.


Kay.

He said find one that blows air out of the case, not one that looks like an HIS solution but has plastic in front of the grills. Look at the fan placement, the air blows from the connector side INTO the case, not out of it. :roll:

It's a redundant argument if you're not looking at reference designs though since both have solutions better than reference, and both can add Arctic Cooling solutions which are better still.

Quote:
Uhh, here's a GF7600GT that exhausts its air. Not that it runs that hot to begin with...


Look harder homer. :tongue:
July 27, 2006 6:21:00 PM

Quote:
And at ATIs heatsink blows the air out of the back of the case instead of inside like Nvidias.


Hmmm... That looks like it doesn't blow out the back. Also looks like it's an ATI-manufactured card.

Thats an AIW card. Not really meant for gaming. Its clock speeds are even lower than those of the X1900GT. Don't compare gaming cards to media center cards.


To Heyyo27: You're right they didn't scale it down. But I believe they changed it so that it runs cooler and uses less power.

And Rickler: That was my point. That even 3 years ago their drivers were fine. And their cards were better than Nvidias then. Yes Nvidia responded and released something better, but then ATI bested them again. And Nvidia's cards are clocked just as high. The 7900GTX runs at the same clock rate and a slightly faster memory rate than the X1900XTX. Yes though, was wrong on the process of the X1900 series. Thought they were still on a higher one. As far as the 7900GT, while a good card, it doesn't run at the same level as either the X1900XT or the X1900XTX.
July 27, 2006 6:26:53 PM

Quote:

I found a benchmark test where the 7300GT actually managed to best the X1600XT in a few tests, such as UT2004, Doom 3, and they tied in FEAR. The Radeon did have the upper hand in FarCry, however. If I find it, I'll post back.


Yeah 7300 GTs can be amazing little cards. The only problem is that there seems to be no standard clockspeeds... some vendors are clocking the snot out of them, others are coming in so low they're running like 6200s... but if you know what you're getting and do a little research, they can be good buys.

Although X800 GTO's can be gotten for under $100 in PCIe, which is also a geat cheapo solution.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 27, 2006 6:31:32 PM

Quote:


for instance heres a 7800GTX 256MB card that blows air out the back,


Actually that one only blows 50% of it's air out the back, like I mentioned alread, it uses a central fan to force air along the fins in both directions 50% out 50% in.

The other is 100% inside.

Quote:
no one company is above the other they are both about equal.


Exactly, and like I said if you don't like the cooling, you can always get something better from a 3rd party. Overal each had it's good and bad, and none are alone at the top, or the bottom (although VIA might now be alone at the bottom since XGI got killed and eaten :twisted: ).
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 27, 2006 6:48:19 PM

Quote:
Yeah 7300 GTs can be amazing little cards. The only problem is that there seems to be no standard clockspeeds... some vendors are clocking the snot out of them, others are coming in so low they're running like 6200s... but if you know what you're getting and do a little research, they can be good buys.



The thing is to know what you're getting. There were no GTs at launch, they were all plain GF7300s and GF7300GS, and they sucked, even when overclocked. They were better and worse than the X1300 dpending on the speed of the participants tough.
However NOW we have the GF7300GT which is not a GF7300 core, but a crippled GF7600, which was brought in to help bolster their presence in the segment. The GF7300 is now a good choice, like the GF7600GT is, but that's because it is the same great chip. 8)

Considering that the X1600 predates them all, it's not really fair to compare them as if the X1600 were a response to the others. The thing is though ATi's been siting on their duff the whole time, when from day one people were a little dissapointed with the X1600 series, and the price reflected that.
!