Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why Nvidia, Why ATI, screw Best Buy XD

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 16, 2007 1:19:56 PM

I was a former employee @ Best Buy here in Salt Lake City and boy I tell ya, customers can get crazy at times :D  I have always been an ATI fan cus I love all of their features that they provide for gameplay. My new job is a PC Club and every one there beleives that Nvidia has the edge for graphics and gameplay. I would like to have some feed back on both the pros and cons from both companies. I know that ATI is more on Microsoft's gay DX technology and where Nvidia has the edge on Open GL.
To top it all everyine @ Pc Club has a C2D E6300-E6600, I know that these chips kick ass, but is there any correlations between ATi and AMD, technology wise that is?

Nvidia should team up with Intel, that would be true hell in the computer word if that were to happen. 4 major companies competing.
_____________________

DFI-LP SLI DR- Expert
Opty 170
2gb Corsair Expert
X-Fi Extreme gamer
Evga 7900gt
Antec Neo He 550
________________________

BTW, how many of you really like best buy?
I dont mind it, but I think that they treat their employees like sh!t :D 

More about : nvidia ati screw buy

February 16, 2007 1:30:34 PM

Yes, the gameplay on games run with an Nvidia card is just so much better than those on ATI ones. I mean the AI is better, tougher, the controls are more user-friendly - the difference is just vast....

Sorry - I couldn't resist. Obviously a good level of training at Best Buy... :p 

Why exactly do you think Direct X is "gay"?
February 16, 2007 1:42:47 PM

yea no kidding, I think that Best Buy is a joke when it compes to "computers" @ the computer department, they dont care how much you know about the product, all they care is If you can sell, like the Geek Squad servics and the additional protection plan.

My friend was telling me that DX is a propriotary in graphical interfaces.
Related resources
February 16, 2007 1:45:45 PM

um...was there a question or some sort of discussion point in there somewhere :?:
February 16, 2007 2:43:37 PM

Wtf? AI and controls "better" because of hardware? I hope you're joking.

If you have a problem with proprietary formats like DirectX, go play a game for Linux or Mac, oh wait...

There is absolutely no obvious performance difference between nVidia and ATI chipsets that we as consumers should be worried about. If you say you prefer one over the other, then you are a fanboy, and I mean that in the best way possible. Your PC Club members need a wake-up call.
February 16, 2007 2:54:55 PM

Like I said I just wanted your guys' feed back, but that does seem to be true. But it seems that every g pc game is built on DX technology, and who says Microsoft has the monopoly of dx technology? I would think that would be up to Nvidia or ATI, but Microsoft?
February 16, 2007 3:50:48 PM

Quote:
Like I said I just wanted your guys' feed back, but that does seem to be true. But it seems that every g pc game is built on DX technology, and who says Microsoft has the monopoly of dx technology? I would think that would be up to Nvidia or ATI, but Microsoft?


It's Microsoft because Direct X is technology that gets threaded into the operating system which microsoft owns.

Really, we can't say ones better than the other. It just matter which of thier cards your comparing. So Nvidia has the better card now, you know ATI's gonna come up with a product that'll beat Nvidia. Thier about even cause thier in a competitive market.

Personally i have a bias towards Nvidia. My first card was an ATI Radeon 9550, then i moved on to the Geforce 7600, ever since i stuck with Nvidia cards.
February 16, 2007 4:46:25 PM

I've never used nVidia, not because I don't like them or anything, it just seems that whenever I need to buy a new card, ATI has the best performance/price ratio at the time. I think in general, very very general, nVidia cards are viewed as providing faster framerates, while ATI is better at providing a higher image quality. The old stereotypes of ATI card's running hot and being unstable are still around too.
February 16, 2007 4:49:36 PM

Quote:
Wtf? AI and controls "better" because of hardware? I hope you're joking.


Wasn't it completely obvious?

I hope iyou were joking...
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 16, 2007 4:55:56 PM

Quote:
I would like to have some feed back on both the pros and cons from both companies.


Both companies have good and bad.

And realistically there is nothing better than nV's GF8800GTX at this very singular moment in time. It's not because it's nV or ATi, it's because it's the VERY best cad period (SLi in vista is a hole, but of next to no concern).

There are some features that are ATi specific or nV specific, but rearely is it worth compromising the performance for them. I wouldn't recommend someone get an X1950Pro over GF8800GTS because of something like SmartShader effects, which is neat but not a game breaker IMO.
February 16, 2007 5:12:43 PM

go nvidia!
w00t
February 16, 2007 5:25:44 PM

I have one machine using ATI X1600 PRO and another using EVGA 7950 GT KO SC. The only difference is some companies prefer or build their applications geared towards one side.

For example, NWN (across all OS platforms) and NWN2 (even though its DirectX based) are definitely Nvidia-favored. HL2 source engine favors ATI and Doom 3 engine (Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey) favors Nvidia.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 16, 2007 6:30:52 PM

Yea but being a TWIMTBP or GITG title doesn't guarante good performance.

Even he ones you listed aren't all that easy, Prey seems pretty even;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x...

And looking at HL2, turning on AA switches sports for the X1650XT and GF7600GT;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x...

So it's not the engines are as clear cut, anymore, just like the old OGL vs DX rule is slipping away.
February 16, 2007 6:43:19 PM

me personally I stick with Nvidia (as I'm typing that I am on my laptop which has an ATI video card). There are 2 reasons why I stay with Nvidia
1. Way back when Nvidia first showed their face and even before in the time of 3dfx ATi would constantly release benchmarks that would show how their card could beat the current top of the line card and a couple of months later when the people would actually get their hands on the cards they would release benchmarks that showed a very different story as in ATi was obviously slower than the current top cards. the difference in the benchmarks would regularly be 20 or more FPS.

2. ATi's driver problems. everyone knows that ATi has had driver problems for a long time. People will probably argue that the problems have been fixed but I have had many problems with the drivers on my laptop and currently have to run 3rd party drivers because ATi will not release Radeon mobility drivers on their web site and because the 3rd party drivers that I am using seem to work with everything while the ATi drivers that I had would not.
February 16, 2007 6:54:47 PM

they're comparing 7900 and 7600 GS? Where's the 7900 GT or the X1600 PRO? Those should be used.
February 16, 2007 7:30:38 PM

They both have advantages and disadvantages at different price points.

Right now, nothing can challenge the 8800GTX in the "ultra high end" sector.

The 8800GTS beats the x1950XTX and is about the same price.

nVidia previously had a poor AF implimentation, but with Geforce 8 series, nVidia's Image Quality is the same or better than ATis.

x1900/50 chips generally perform better and have better image quality than Geforce 7900/7950 chips, the 7950GX2 is a good performer but is stupidly overpriced, I can get an 8800GTX for the same price.

x1900/50s have a large, hot die. Not as bad as G80, but then the performance is not in the same league either.

ATi's drivers still have a bad reputation, but this is not really justified these days, in fact imho nVidia's 8800 driver fiasco has put me off their driver team.

In real terms, the top end of the market is tiny. ATi and nVidia each rule over their respective market sections.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2007 7:55:28 PM

Quote:
Quote:


There are some features that are ATi specific or nV specific, but rearely is it worth compromising the performance for them. I wouldn't recommend someone get an X1950Pro over GF8800GTS because of something like SmartShader effects, which is neat but not a game breaker IMO.


Well... Technically there's the issue of ATI having the best AGP card out there period :) 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 16, 2007 7:58:54 PM

Quote:
they're comparing 7900 and 7600 GS? Where's the 7900 GT or the X1600 PRO? Those should be used.


Should be used for what?

Those are the classes as they appear in the review and in the wild.

Comparing a GF7950GT to an X1600P doesn't show the difference in ATi vs nV in games, anymore than pitting an X1950XTX against a GF7300GS would.

The card in that review are in the same class and in general the GF7600GT vs X1650 XT and GF7600GS versus X1600XT (which is almost as fast as the current 1650Pro) and the GF7900GS versus X1950P. They are all well balanced cards in similar targets, and they are better examples of shifting benifits and dissadvantages, if you look at the good and bad of those cards, it seems pretty obvious of the ebb and flow of both ATi and nV in games. The X1600Pro isn't needed anymore than a GF7900GT, they wouldn't prove anything more/less because they are outside the range ofthe other cards, so not relevant to the HL2, Prey comparison.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 16, 2007 8:12:10 PM

Quote:

Well... Technically there's the issue of ATI having the best AGP card out there period :) 


True, but that's once again a case of availability more than the companies. If the GF8800GTS-320 came to AGP tomorrow at a reasonable price (relative to perfomanc) then it'd be the same as the PCIe realm, where nV leads.

Of course for now ATi is the King of AGP (for luddites :twisted: ) ..... AND MATROX IS THE KING OF ISA and PCI-X! ...(and ATi is king of PCI and nV Kin of PCIe)
February 16, 2007 8:17:43 PM

Quote:
I would like to have some feed back on both the pros and cons from both companies.


Both companies have good and bad.

And realistically there is nothing better than nV's GF8800GTX at this very singular moment in time. It's not because it's nV or ATi, it's because it's the VERY best cad period (SLi in vista is a hole, but of next to no concern).

There are some features that are ATi specific or nV specific, but rearely is it worth compromising the performance for them. I wouldn't recommend someone get an X1950Pro over GF8800GTS because of something like SmartShader effects, which is neat but not a game breaker IMO.

When you say that "SLI in Vista is a hole..." what do you mean by that?
February 16, 2007 8:23:28 PM

Woohoo ISA Slot video cards FTW!
February 16, 2007 8:26:31 PM

Quote:
When you say that "SLI in Vista is a hole..." what do you mean by that?
SLI is currently only supported by the Geforce 8 series in Vista when running under Direct X9 or OpenGL. There is currently no SLI support for Direct X10, although this doesn't matter as there is only one Direct X10 application out at the moment, and it's one of Nvidia's tech demos.
February 16, 2007 8:31:56 PM

Ohhhhhh ok that makes sense...I was thinking that he meant SLI could not run on Vista... :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 16, 2007 8:50:10 PM

Yeah since we're talking about compatability, features, etc. it's just a mention of the the minor and like I said inconsequential holes (no WHQL, no DX10) of SLi Vista, which really don't undo the statements about the GF8800 being the best 'period'.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 16, 2007 8:51:27 PM

Quote:
Woohoo ISA Slot video cards FTW!


That's right, pay some respekt, kickin' it old skool with Ultima on the ISA. :mrgreen:
February 16, 2007 8:55:49 PM

Currently Nvidia has the edge with its 8800 series in performance and DX10, unless you don't want to spend £200 or more - then it's more complicated.

Before that, the X1XXXs were probably the better cards out there. They had similar if not superior performance, but also could do HDR + AA

Before that, the Nvidia 6800s were probably better than the X8XXX as they had HDR.

Before that, you had the ATI 9700 pro - one of the outstanding cards in recent times.

Further back you have the original Geforce / Geforce 2's - in those days Nvidia ruled.

Maybe ATI will respond to the 8800 with a superior card - who knows.

The thing is to evaluate all alternatives when you buy and get the best features + performance for your budget at that time.
February 16, 2007 10:07:15 PM

Quote:

Well... Technically there's the issue of ATI having the best AGP card out there period :) 


True, but that's once again a case of availability more than the companies. If the GF8800GTS-320 came to AGP tomorrow at a reasonable price (relative to perfomanc) then it'd be the same as the PCIe realm, where nV leads.

Of course for now ATi is the King of AGP (for luddites :twisted: ) ..... AND MATROX IS THE KING OF ISA and PCI-X! ...(and ATi is king of PCI and nV Kin of PCIe)

Gosh darn it all, you had me looking for an ISA slot on my motherboard. Then I looked at a really old mobo that I had in the back room and found one. Even still had a Matrox card in it.

As to Nvidia vs ATI, I've switched back and forth several times through the years. Can remember when I thought ATI was a bad joke. Then I bought a 9800 Pro and thought it was the best thing ever. After that came a EVGA 7800 GTX which was good for a few months, then a X1900 XTX Toxic, which is doing a RMA thing and regulating me back to my old computer running that old 9800 Pro. Thank God for having a spare computer that runs when the gaming one is down. I've seen the companies trade positions a lot of times and expect that to keep happening.

For the moment, I think Nvidia's 8800 is the best DX9 card that can be bought. The jury's still out from what I've seen when it comes to getting the thing to work with DX10. Will have to wait a few weeks to know if ATI's R600 will compete, win, or fail in the benches.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 16, 2007 10:13:36 PM

Quote:

Gosh darn it all, you had me looking for an ISA slot on my motherboard. Then I looked at a really old mobo that I had in the back room and found one. Even still had a Matrox card in it.


Yeah man, ISA and PCI-X, MATROX... KING OF THE BIG SLOTS !! (hey that rhymes) 8)
February 16, 2007 10:27:41 PM

We can talk about this all day, but I think to sum this all up, there's no point comparing the two companies as wholes. When you're in the market for a graphics card, post your budget and you'll get a slew of answers. The good thing about video cards is that (currently) all the newest ones use the same slot, PCI-Express. This isn't true with CPUs, so slot is always a factor with those. When you go with a good company, it's hard to make a really bad decision with video cards.

Abyss, sarcasm is never obvious on the internet. Your post was quite confusing.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2007 10:48:44 PM

Quote:

Gosh darn it all, you had me looking for an ISA slot on my motherboard. Then I looked at a really old mobo that I had in the back room and found one. Even still had a Matrox card in it.


Yeah man, ISA and PCI-X, MATROX... KING OF THE BIG SLOTS !! (hey that rhymes) 8)

ha ha :lol:  your a poet and didnt know it.
but your ski,s are longfellows :lol: 
February 16, 2007 11:08:40 PM

I like ATI cards for only 1 (petty) reason. I can get a red card from ati. I was all over the 8800gtx black cards, till they switched to green. I know its small. But dang nabit I want a pimp looking card!
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 16, 2007 11:18:16 PM

Quote:

ha ha :lol:  your a poet and didnt know it.
but your ski,s are longfellows :lol: 


LOL!
February 17, 2007 12:20:10 AM

Quote:
Before that, the X1XXXs were probably the better cards out there. They had similar if not superior performance, but also could do HDR + AA


Thats not strictly true, the x1000s were not fully capeable of HDR+AA either, ATi eventually came up with a driver hack to get it working in Oblivion, but to my knowedge it never worked in any other game.

I still remember my first ever Gfx card.... It was a Diamond Viper, VESA Local Bus, (now THATS a big card) and the idiot at the store put too much RAM in it so it had 2mb rather than the 512k it was suppoed to have.

I was so proud, although I always wished I could use like 1mb of that as system RAM so that I wouldnt have to have a "clean" boot disk for every time I wanted to run Doom (1)...
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2007 3:06:48 AM

Quote:
Thats not strictly true, the x1000s were not fully capeable of HDR+AA either, ATi eventually came up with a driver hack to get it working in Oblivion, but to my knowedge it never worked in any other game.

FSAA+HDR works in farcry also, although from my own experience only 2XAA worked so I am still baffled when review sites use 4xaa+HDR in farcry. When I try that, FSAA gets disabled and the jaggies remain.

But don't blame ATI for the fact that the game companies don't build the support into their games. ATI's hardware could do it just fine had the option to enable both been built into the game. And the hack you speek of was just the chuck patch which is currently implemented into the driver. I've been running HDR+AA in Oblivion ever since upgrading to a X1800XT and using the initial version of the chuck patch. Simply a much better way of playing Oblivion IMO as choosing either or was a lose/lose situation to my eyes.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 17, 2007 5:16:37 AM

Quote:

Thats not strictly true, the x1000s were not fully capeable of HDR+AA either, ATi eventually came up with a driver hack to get it working in Oblivion, but to my knowedge it never worked in any other game.


Well like Paul said, you're wrong, it is strictly true. But there's also more to it, it's not just HDR+AA, which the GF7 can do as can the GF6, X8, and R9700 series cards. But the thing to know is what is the limiting factor, like the GF6 being able to do a particular kind of HDR, FP16HDR (aka OpenEXR HDR) which can't be done in conjunction with hardware MSAA on the GF6 & 7 and remain FP16 throughout unlike the X1K which can.
ATi does not have the same ROP limitation in the X1K as is found in the GF7. And BTW, it's not HDR+AA, which can be implemented in many ways, but FP16HDR+FPMSAA, or even efficient FP16HDR+AA. Also not all GF6 can do FP16HDR, it's not an SM3.0 feature, the GF6100,6200,6300 series (all but the crippled rebranded GF6600s) are SM3.0 compliant but can't do the FP16 blending in the ROPs needed for FP16HDR.

And Serious Sam2 is another titles that can do FP16HDR+MSAA on the X1K;
http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/15/IMG0...

The reason a 'hack' was required for Oblivion is because Bethesda removed the option on PC (it was launched with the X360) because of 'performance issues' despite the fact that the X1800XT performs HDR+AA+HQAF faster than the X360, perhaps it was due to there only being one sided 'performance issues' and it just so happened to be on the side that was TWIMTBP, another example of sponsored titles not always being the best choice (and that plays both ways). Stuff like that hurts the consumer, not help.
!