Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

ATI vs Nvidia

Last response: in Overclocking
Share

Which do you prefer Nvidia or ATI

Total: 124 votes (23 blank votes)

  • ATI
  • 68 %
  • Nvidia
  • 33 %
May 24, 2010 1:00:15 AM

ATI. I'm more of a budget person, so money and cost matter.
May 24, 2010 9:28:14 AM

Ati, it's less expansive than nvidia, less consumption, less noisy for the same performance
Related resources
a c 125 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a c 125 K Overclocking
May 24, 2010 11:52:29 AM

This should be in the graphics and displays section >.<

May 24, 2010 6:15:03 PM

/fail thread

a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b K Overclocking
May 24, 2010 6:37:43 PM

/newcomer
flame bait question
oh, its a old thread to boot, snip !
June 7, 2010 9:33:02 AM

ATi. Because its cool, cheap in price, efficiant and smoother than Nvidia.
June 7, 2010 1:40:14 PM

hahahaha at this thread. Although it could make sense. Because he could be implying which is better at overclocking, as in the ammont of performance increase you get out of the cards rather than overall performance left at the end; Nvidia or ATI? I'd like to know this as well. Lets say comparing an Nvidia GTS 250 to an ATI 4850, and a GTX 260 to an ATI 4870. I know that the GTS 250 is rubbish in terms of overclocking; i had one, but apart from that it has one pci power connector and is on it's full power requirement with that one pci connector anyway so you can't give it any more voltage with your overclock.
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2010 6:00:53 PM

ATI FTW.

If nvidia can beat my GPU setup for $400 or less I'll change my mind. :) 
June 7, 2010 8:28:43 PM

cowgod2007 said:
ATI. I'm more of a budget person, so money and cost matter.


Even if it wasn't about money ATI would be better because of more performance per watt; their architectural process is probably at the moment more advanced than Nvidia's is currently. Perhaps AMD buying ATI was a valuable investment that has really helped ATI to better it's technology I think. If they make a 5890 it would probably be better than a GTX 480. Does anyone think they might actually make an ATI 5890 lol, like they made a 4890 in the past? Quite surprised how they called the 5850 (x2) a 5970 rather than a 5850x2 like they called 4870x2 though. But Nvidia are a couple of months behind ATI because it took sometime for their Fermi cards to come out, surely by now ATI must be developing some new cards to wipe the floor with the GTX 480, i know the 5970 is already faster.
June 8, 2010 8:25:47 PM

I have only bought Nvidia products but the power consumption is terrible.My electric bill went up $22 dollars(not a huge chunk of change).Of the months cycle I only had this build up and running for 10 days.I could imagine a full 30(wow).On the other hand,I am very impressed with the ATI newer line(the 5870 Asus ROG Platinum).Buddy of mine has 2 and I am speechless.Also, the Sapphire 5970 4Gb Toxic is now available.The only way Nvidia can come back from this beat down is if they do something like a Gtx 470x2 or 480x2.I am sure Nvidia would rather keep things under wraps because people like me would hold out to buy a Gtx 480x2 if I knew there was an official release date.But in other words,yes I favor Nvidia but ATI is winning in terms of "budget","mid level",and top dog.I wonder If Lucid Hydra(MSI)will go X58??Now that would be cool.
June 8, 2010 8:29:31 PM

Nashsafc said:
Even if it wasn't about money ATI would be better because of more performance per watt; their architectural process is probably at the moment more advanced than Nvidia's is currently. Perhaps AMD buying ATI was a valuable investment that has really helped ATI to better it's technology I think. If they make a 5890 it would probably be better than a GTX 480. Does anyone think they might actually make an ATI 5890 lol, like they made a 4890 in the past? Quite surprised how they called the 5850 (x2) a 5970 rather than a 5850x2 like they called 4870x2 though. But Nvidia are a couple of months behind ATI because it took sometime for their Fermi cards to come out, surely by now ATI must be developing some new cards to wipe the floor with the GTX 480, i know the 5970 is already faster.

They already have.Sapphire-4Gb toxic 5970+++also a Saphire 4 Gb 5970.A little pricey at $1,239. and $1300+.But I would rather have the performance.But imagine these two together on a Lucid Hydra board.Even though its 1156,it still rocks.
June 8, 2010 11:02:06 PM

no i'm saying i wonder if they will make an ATI 5890 lol. I'm also laughing myself at the thought that the 5870 hasn't even got anywhere near the power consumption of the GTX 470 and is still beating it senseless performance-wise. If they made a 5890 i'd guess it would be around 200 watts or even less, and the GTX 470 is at 218 lol or is it 215? It's not just about brute performance, perhaps ATI is better than Nvidia at giving out that performance but it prefers to stick at giving a balanced setup with cards. Either way those new games of today will not play with a good 75 FPS+ at top settings with aa and af with either Nvidia or ATi, i think this has always been the case with the two brands that Nvidia just give unnecessary loose performance for nothing. I mean comparing a 4870x2 with a GTX295 - what's the point when the 4870 x2 is giving you 200 FPS in games anyway, what does 230 FPS from the GTX 295 make any difference?
June 11, 2010 11:38:07 AM

and for me running my computer on 24/7 (i7 860 @ 3.6ghz 8gb ram 5.5tb hdd 2x gtx 260 oc in sli) it costs about $35 down here at 19.646c/kwh. which isnt much TBH
June 11, 2010 11:38:59 AM

Nvidia have the more powerful cards, cost more, uses more energy, tho when u think about it 300watt is nothing with a 19.646c per kWh down in tas. australia. but yes ati is cheaper and more value for money. but if u want the best performance without worrying too much about the minimal price increase (50 bucks for a card, small raises on monthly electricity bills) go Nvidia, and i doubt overclockers would care about power consumption anyway.

and also the cards will change with time so this answer would be different.
June 11, 2010 1:20:44 PM

ok you made your own point :)  nice to see rational answers to support Nvidia
June 12, 2010 7:11:10 PM

ATI and AMD, better performance and easier overclocking
June 12, 2010 11:35:10 PM

but nvidia only gives a small amount of performance increase with their top cards over ATI's. It's not at all like comparing Intel core i7 to AMD Phenom ii x4 for doing multi-threaded applications, since Intel do extremely well in performance (but with games Phenom ii does nicely too). You know what i mean? With some games where you get a high framerate anyway with Nvidia and ATI it doesn't make sense to go with Nvidia at all, such as comparing ATI's 150 FPS to Nvidia's 175 FPS with a high anti-aliasing and aniso-tropic filtering setting. With the new games (Bad Company 2 & MW2) eitherway you will get poor framerates with both ATI and Nvidia single high end cards (with 4aa & 8af, lowest resolution 1240 x 1024, highest settings even), in that case Nvidia just doesn't make sense at all. Sensible option would be to play on latest games console until graphics cards manage to master the newer games, in terms of getting a good 80+ average FPS for those 75 hertz refresh rate monitors and ATI is best for that because they give you smaller cards, less power consumption but only slightly slower performance, but more for the money than Nvidia does.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b K Overclocking
June 13, 2010 12:54:42 AM

Nashsafc said:
no i'm saying i wonder if they will make an ATI 5890 lol. I'm also laughing myself at the thought that the 5870 hasn't even got anywhere near the power consumption of the GTX 470 and is still beating it senseless performance-wise. If they made a 5890 i'd guess it would be around 200 watts or even less, and the GTX 470 is at 218 lol or is it 215? It's not just about brute performance, perhaps ATI is better than Nvidia at giving out that performance but it prefers to stick at giving a balanced setup with cards. Either way those new games of today will not play with a good 75 FPS+ at top settings with aa and af with either Nvidia or ATi, i think this has always been the case with the two brands that Nvidia just give unnecessary loose performance for nothing. I mean comparing a 4870x2 with a GTX295 - what's the point when the 4870 x2 is giving you 200 FPS in games anyway, what does 230 FPS from the GTX 295 make any difference?


Nashsafc said:
but nvidia only gives a small amount of performance increase with their top cards over ATI's. It's not at all like comparing Intel core i7 to AMD Phenom ii x4 for doing multi-threaded applications, since Intel do extremely well in performance (but with games Phenom ii does nicely too). You know what i mean? With some games where you get a high framerate anyway with Nvidia and ATI it doesn't make sense to go with Nvidia at all, such as comparing ATI's 150 FPS to Nvidia's 175 FPS with a high anti-aliasing and aniso-tropic filtering setting. With the new games (Bad Company 2 & MW2) eitherway you will get poor framerates with both ATI and Nvidia single high end cards (with 4aa & 8af, lowest resolution 1240 x 1024, highest settings even), in that case Nvidia just doesn't make sense at all. Sensible option would be to play on latest games console until graphics cards manage to master the newer games, in terms of getting a good 80+ average FPS for those 75 hertz refresh rate monitors and ATI is best for that because they give you smaller cards, less power consumption but only slightly slower performance, but more for the money than Nvidia does.

Two walls of text, fail. Power consumption is a specification. Its not the only or even important measuring stick for some people. When you do a search for a new color tv, is the first and only specification you look at is its power usage ? These powerful cards are for turning up the AA and Resolution to extreme levels. In part for 30 inch monitors or multi monitor gaming. Also 3D. There are some gamers that buy Infinity 6 5870's with the goal of driving 6 monitors. Thats going to be about 500 watts of power for just your monitors, its the cost of the hobby. You can babble all you want that there is no reason to buy Nvidia, but thats only whats good for you. Your conclusion about gaming consoles also show your missing entirely the point of PC gaming.
June 13, 2010 2:59:50 AM

This is a broad question that has no answer and is pure speculation with no point.
But to let you know I prefer ATI, between it and AMD they are the Ultimate combo.
Intel had it's run, and is only good for people who have thousands upon thousands to blow.
($1000 chip and 400$ mobo) (AMD Chip $300 and $240. Mobo) Take your pick.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
June 13, 2010 5:36:06 AM

Salt-City_Slasher said:
This is a broad question that has no answer and is pure speculation with no point.
But to let you know I prefer ATI, between it and AMD they are the Ultimate combo.
Intel had it's run, and is only good for people who have thousands upon thousands to blow.
($1000 chip and 400$ mobo) (AMD Chip $300 and $240. Mobo) Take your pick.


Salt, I like your first sentence.

The rest is foolish.. the 980x and other EE's aren't intel's only chips are they? I bought my i7 930 RETAIL for $199 thank you very much.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b K Overclocking
June 13, 2010 2:19:16 PM

Salt-City_Slasher said:
This is a broad question that has no answer and is pure speculation with no point.
But to let you know I prefer ATI, between it and AMD they are the Ultimate combo.
Intel had it's run, and is only good for people who have thousands upon thousands to blow.
($1000 chip and 400$ mobo) (AMD Chip $300 and $240. Mobo) Take your pick.

If your feeling guilty about blowing that much on a cpu/mobo, deal with it. lol
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b K Overclocking
June 13, 2010 4:15:19 PM

Another wall of text, facepalm. Ok you have mentioned this point a couple times, 'smaller' cards. ATI cards are not smaller. They are about 1/2 inch bigger ,5870-480 same with 5850-470. Your point about psu's is also at best , ignorant. You buy a high performance graphic card, you check the recommended requirements and they are about the same for the top cards from each maker. The 2gb 5870 tdp went up from 181 to 227, either case, either manufacturer you need to buy a hp psu.
From AMD's web site http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-rad...
# 600 Watt or greater power supply is recommended with one 75W 6-pin and one 150W 8-pin PCI Express® power connector required (900 Watt and 2 6-pin and 2 8-pin connectors for ATI CrossFireX™ technology in dual mode)
# Certified power supplies are recommended. Refer to http://ati.amd.com/certifiedPSU for a list of Certified products
Did you notice they even have a list of preferred psu's ?
Here you see the Radeon HD 5870 graphics card from AMD resting on top of the GTX 480 - a place it will not find itself often.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=888&type=expert
June 13, 2010 9:02:20 PM

don't you facepalm me lmao, i haven't failed at anything, nor do you have the right in telling me that i have. I'm just saying my experience with Nvidia is not soo great, as i got a GTS 250, i could have got an ATI 4870 for the same price and got more performance - 20 FPS more that is which is quite a bit in games, i have one now. But my point is proven just by saying that - price for performance and specs. The only thing that is attractive about the GTX 400 series is that they are small, to compete with ATI, but it is futile since the heat emissions are higher than ATI's bunch of cards. Also taking into account that these new Nvidia cards are about 4 months later or so, from ATI's 5800 series release. Put it this way, a good quality 500 watt psu could run an ATi 5850 easily, but the GTX 470 will be pushing it with it's 215 watt TDP compared to 151watts from the ATI card. 64 Watts is a big difference it could definitely mean an upgrade requirement for psu is needed, especially if your running a 125 watt cpu and other high power drawing components, that GTX 470 could well mean an upgrade to a 600 watt power supply from an existing 500 watt that you already have. Eventhough a 600 watt power supply isn't that expensive, it may be it may not be, but the point is that the GTX 470 may require more money to be spent if people already have lower wattage rated power supplies.
June 13, 2010 9:11:06 PM

ok i will make my leave on this topic, as no one has actually given me an answer on my question in response to the Op's question. The question about which is actually better for overclocking - being ATI or Nvidia in terms of performance gained out of the overclock rather than performance left at the end. Trying to help OP's question to go further by developing his question.
June 21, 2010 9:38:01 AM

ATI FOREVER
June 21, 2010 11:15:35 AM

lmao
June 21, 2010 12:45:53 PM

Nashsafc said:
ok i will make my leave on this topic, as no one has actually given me an answer on my question in response to the Op's question. The question about which is actually better for overclocking - being ATI or Nvidia in terms of performance gained out of the overclock rather than performance left at the end. Trying to help OP's question to go further by developing his question.


Actually the OP's question is which card manufacturer do you prefer, but the topic is in the wrong section.
June 21, 2010 4:00:32 PM

lol everyone replied with ATI or Nvidia, so i took that to be the case. All i saw from op's question was which do you prefer regarding ATi or Nvidia.
June 28, 2010 8:40:50 PM

Voodoo anyone?
June 30, 2010 8:09:40 PM

Salt-City_Slasher said:
This is a broad question that has no answer and is pure speculation with no point.
But to let you know I prefer ATI, between it and AMD they are the Ultimate combo.
Intel had it's run, and is only good for people who have thousands upon thousands to blow.
($1000 chip and 400$ mobo) (AMD Chip $300 and $240. Mobo) Take your pick.

I prefer the $1,000 dollar chip & the $700 dollar mobo which equals an un matchable performance. I didnt have the money at the time but good credit and Bill me Later can go a long way.
June 30, 2010 8:17:56 PM

Definately Nvidia with better support for 3d games.But the real beatdown is about to come this fall also Zotac unleashed their #480 version. Nvidia has barely scratched the surface,holiday season will be awesome. I might add this is great that these two competitors have ramped things up this far.Last year ATI was master and earned it but we shall see.I think Nvidia will sort it out.
Anonymous
July 1, 2010 9:17:03 AM

ATI have got all my personal purchases since the 1950pro!

Not saying that I wouldnt love a GTX480, what a monster in every way, but to be fair, if i was to spent that kind of money right now on a GPU it would be a bit more and a 5970!

Bot are good in all honesty! its just a flavour really

And so what If OP chose wrong section, it happens!
July 16, 2010 5:54:25 PM

Got NVIDIA cards for years, but for my new pc I got a ATI 5970 OC.
It's great, though I do see the added value of Physx and 3D that NVDIA offers.
July 17, 2010 11:08:09 AM

I've always loved AMD for cpus, but Nvidia for cards... Nvidia usually has top quality with extra features (before it was physx now it's tessalation), but ATI is really stepping up their game now with AMD... It will be interesting to see what the future holds for both companies.
a b K Overclocking
July 17, 2010 10:05:02 PM

RobBosman said:
Got NVIDIA cards for years, but for my new pc I got a ATI 5970 OC.
It's great, though I do see the added value of Physx and 3D that NVDIA offers.


Tuff decision!! :pt1cable:  I like both :bounce:  v

July 18, 2010 4:38:59 AM

My impression has always been that ATI is the more efficient GPU maker where NV is the brawny GPU maker so which one is better is in the eyes of the beholder.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b K Overclocking
July 18, 2010 5:08:21 AM

^ ATi's had its bad days, take the HD 2900 XT. Needed more power than an 8800 Ultra but performed like an 8800 GTS.

Don't care in all honesty. With graphics, I mainly want price/performance, and last year/this year it was ATi who held that title. NVidia makes good products too, just not happy how they rebrand some cards and made PhysX work with nVidia cards only. The GF104 is a major improvement over GF100, good to see that they're back in the game. Driver-wise, I've had issues with both Catalyst and ForceWare.

In terms of features, both ATi and nVidia are pretty good, nVidia with more features though. ATi Eyefinity is nice, but apparently you'll need to buy a DisplayPort adapter which is unreasonably priced. nVidia has 3D/2D Surround, but requires two cards in SLI at least. PhysX is a good idea in theory, but the fact I can't use an ATi card as a main GPU kinda sucks, and they recommend a GTS 250 in Batman: AA, not really worth it.
a b K Overclocking
July 18, 2010 5:58:14 AM

@Lmeow, you can run an ATI card as a primary and still enable PhysX , but for me it was a real pain in the arse to set up. And it's limited use in games is probably not worth the extra $$

none PhyX



PhyX enabled

a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b K Overclocking
July 18, 2010 6:45:23 AM

^ I suppose. PhysX looks nice, but not worth the $ until more games support it.
a b K Overclocking
July 18, 2010 7:16:13 AM

Ya, I jumped ship and went ATI to feed my addiction (OC'ing LOL), already had the 260 and stumble across a hack to run both together, but I wouldn't recommend spending any $ on it. It's more like a novelty then a useful "see big improvement" type thing.
July 19, 2010 4:24:28 AM

I've been ATI since the 4xx series, but I might consider switching back to the Big Green if they cut the price on their 460, so I can go SLI. :) 

Right now, I have a 5770 vaporX (OC to 930/1350), and it's going to get a buddy to work with most likely in the coming month. I'm pondering the idea of selling this poor guy and getting 2 460s instead... :\
July 19, 2010 4:28:14 AM

Not this again dude....come on its all about personal taste...This type of thread starts flame wars....
July 20, 2010 1:45:39 PM

arent you surprise that this thread has been going on for so long?
July 20, 2010 2:34:18 PM

I am surprised this thread has not yet devolved into a major holy war.
July 21, 2010 3:28:13 AM

NirvashType0Spec3 said:
Which do you prefer?



Well ATI snuck in a left jab with Direct X11 to the mark like 1 year ahead of its time! I'm waiting to see what revision and die shrink they have at .40nm or .28nm. AMD and ATI together fused seems really exciting due to AMD/ATI being ahead of schedule on the market. Nvidia tesla looks interesting too on the Market with its high performance! It al depends on what games you like and what software engine, compiler Direct X11 or Open CL 1.0 I would check out what games you want toplay and check out engine support and benchmarks or buy a lucid hydra chipset and put ati and nvidia on one board! Multiple solution in IT :bounce: 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b K Overclocking
July 21, 2010 7:37:44 AM

It hasn't erupted into a total flame war because most people are actually contributing non-biased and balanced opinions which isn't full of 'ATi kicks nVidia's ass' and 'nVidia kicks ATi's ass' statements with no real reasoning. I'm actually quite happy this thread is still up without people flaming each other. Hope it stays this way. :) 
July 21, 2010 8:04:04 AM

Yeah, I think the civility is actually pretty cool.

Not to mention incredibly rare.
!