Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI vs Nvidia

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 16, 2009 9:39:54 PM

Hasn't really been posted yet, it would be great to hear peoples opinions and what brand they think is better.


My brand would have to be ATI - Reason - I think they are more reliable :) , Thats my opinion though, you pick yours :) 

More about : ati nvidia

April 16, 2009 9:54:33 PM

I'm partial to Matrox myself. 8MB Millennium anyone?
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
April 16, 2009 9:58:13 PM

Parhelia Parhelia
April 16, 2009 10:00:56 PM

tony543 said:
Hasn't really been posted yet, it would be great to hear peoples opinions and what brand they think is better.


My brand would have to be ATI - Reason - I think they are more reliable :) , Thats my opinion though, you pick yours :) 


hmm people obviously think some are better than nvidia and ati haha, This post is now classed as best brand and card haha ;) 
April 16, 2009 10:02:08 PM

tony543 said:
Hasn't really been posted yet, it would be great to hear peoples opinions and what brand they think is better.


My brand would have to be ATI - Reason - I think they are more reliable :) , Thats my opinion though, you pick yours :) 



Tony, this is the voice of reason.... all you can do with your question is start a fight or get clowned as above. Its like asking what is better....Honda or Toyota. FYI, nVidia is not more faster than ATI and ATI is not better more reliable than nVidia...no matter what you've read. Blows for ho's son, blows for ho's.
April 16, 2009 10:04:00 PM

Ok but halcyon, that's my opinion iv'e used both, i just think ATI is more reliable, im not looking to start an arguement, its just interesting to see what people use and prefer.
a b U Graphics card
April 16, 2009 10:05:20 PM

Every once in awhile, 1 wins a battle here n there, but the wars still far from over, in other words. Theyve been swapping whos best for awhile now
April 16, 2009 10:07:48 PM

Jaydee that's my point ;) , Im just seeing what people prefer to use and others opinions, As you say they have been trading blows with each other, i.e prices of cards, the performance, the matches between an 2 different brand having a similar card, i was just wondering what peoples thoughts were :) 
a b U Graphics card
April 16, 2009 10:08:47 PM

Some say drivers, some say features, some say pure fps, some say reliability, some cards run hot, some make noise, some are great deals, some get renamed, some come with games, some use lots of power, etc etc.
I prefer the RED team, for their innovations, but Ive enjoyed my nVidia cards as well
April 16, 2009 10:10:19 PM

tony543 said:
Ok but halcyon, that's my opinion iv'e used both, i just think ATI is more reliable, im not looking to start an arguement, its just interesting to see what people use and prefer.


Okay. Up until a week ago I would have told you that nVidia was the only way. Then I auditioned a HD4890. Whoa. Nice card there. Period. Went back to a GTX295...but from where I stand the two trade blows...flavor of the semi-annual type-of-thing. That 4890 really is a nice card...might have to put one in one of my other rigs so I can F.E.A.R. 2 on it.

Anyways. You're gonna see those that are faithful to their camps and you'll see those that realize that during any given year one has the better product. Some swear by ATI's drivers, some can't stand them...same with nVidia.

I'm currently running all nVidia cards in my rigs but I recognize that that HD4890 left me very impressed.
April 16, 2009 10:11:36 PM

Yes staight to the point, i admit im using a 2900xt, Theres pros and cons as i say - I really do like my card, im happy with it, powerful, quick, but there are cons such as the sound of it, it sounds like a helicopters just took off a launching pad in my garden when i have the fan at 100% haha, ;) 
April 16, 2009 10:15:47 PM

halcyon said:
Okay. Up until a week ago I would have told you that nVidia was the only way. Then I auditioned a HD4890. Whoa. Nice card there. Period. Went back to a GTX295...but from where I stand the two trade blows...flavor of the semi-annual type-of-thing. That 4890 really is a nice card...might have to put one in one of my other rigs so I can F.E.A.R. 2 on it.

Anyways. You're gonna see those that are faithful to their camps and you'll see those that realize that during any given year one has the better product. Some swear by ATI's drivers, some can't stand them...same with nVidia.

I'm currently running all nVidia cards in my rigs but I recognize that that HD4890 left me very impressed.


Yeah i completley understand what you are saying :) , I was planning on custom building a pc myself, call it a project, Could you give me some info on the 4890 i was planning on purchasing one,
April 16, 2009 10:17:18 PM

I will say that as impressed as I was by the HD4890's power and quality (once I got past my noobish error in driver installation) the thing had the potential to get very loud. I thought something was wrong at first...but realized every child different, they're not all the soft spoken type. ATI could do something about the noise I'm sure but that's part of who they are, why change their character?
April 16, 2009 10:19:25 PM

Haha i completley understand, my 2900xt is amazingly loud i thought something was wrong at first, looked it up and found out it was safe, and that was when the fan speed was at 70 haha xD
April 16, 2009 10:19:35 PM

I stick with the green team myself just because im prefer nvidia control panel but i'm not against shoving ati cards in builds i do for other people as long as it gets the job they desire done.

Using a 2900xt did they ever fix the issue running 256 color games where it wouldn't run i remeber a huge uproar over the sc community when people bought a 2000's series then wanted to play some sc but gitting shoved a face full of errors.
April 16, 2009 10:21:11 PM

Wow thats a new one.. I never even heard of that, i have not recieved any errors yet so im hoping its been fixed haha ;p
April 16, 2009 10:21:47 PM

And is it me, or is the ATI tool freeware completley fuzzed up?
April 16, 2009 10:26:58 PM

ATI has freeware? :o 


j/k
April 16, 2009 10:28:30 PM

HAHA, im not sure if THEY produced it, but it's ment to be used with ATI cards only problem is .. it does not work lol.
April 16, 2009 10:40:32 PM

There have been a few threads on this, and despite the occasional fanboyism (or accusations there of) I find them kind of enjoyable. I guess that's because I'm still using my x1800xt and I've been holding off on making a commitment to either manufacturer. But I have to decide some time soon.

Are you considering running 2 graphics cards? Then crossfire is probably your best choice which puts you in the ATi camp. From what I've heard, SLI is only worth considering if you're building an i7/x58 rig.

Another option is a dual GPU card. The most affordable one is the ATi "X2" type. Last I checked, a 2Gig 4850X2 was a pretty good deal. The "best of the best of the best" is the nVidia GTX 295 (it also costs the most of the most of the most).

SLI/crossfire and dual GPU cards are not without their problems (not all games support SLI/crossfire and the drivers may have some issues). You generally only have to resort to these types of solutions if you're monitor is high resolution (say over 1680x1050), but in some cases you might see a gain at lower resolutions.

That brings us to the single card/single GPU category. In terms of absolute performance, the GTX 285 rules the roost at $310. But, it is only perhaps 5% (at most) better than the HD-4890 at $220 (you can get an MSI one for just under $200). The GTX 275 is about the same as a 4890 (better on some games, worse on others), and it costs about $250. In one benchmark, the 4890 was generally better than the GTX 275 at resolutions 1680x1250 or less.

So right now it's hard to argue against the 4890 in terms of absolute price and performance. The other distinguishing characteristics between the current nVidia and ATi cards seem to be a draw (for example nVidia has PhysX while ATi has dx10.1). If you care about the performance of particular game then you should be a bit more careful and check the benchmarks. Some games are effected more by your ram/cpu than by the graphics card!

So that raises the question, why would you pick an nVidia card? Well, if you have an extra $100 burning a hole in your pocket and you want the absolute best single GPU card, then the GTX 285 might make sense. The GTX 285 has also been out for a good long while, so the drivers are a bit more stable (the GTX 275 and HD 4890 are pretty new). I'm not sure about sound levels, but I thought the GTX 285 might be quieter. I'm really not sure about that.

EDIT I should also add: aren't we lucky to have ATi and nVidia? They both try to distinguish themselves with different and compelling technologies, and they also have to keep the main stream happy. Unless a game manufacturer is getting subsidized by ATi or nVidia, they will try to make their game work well on both. Capitalism meets the two party system. :) 
April 16, 2009 10:43:31 PM

Oh thankyou very much for that, there sure is alotta info which has definatly give me 2nd thoughts, thankyou very much again :) 
April 16, 2009 11:07:08 PM

I still don't see this 5% difference though (this "at most"), the 285 GTx is 14% stronger than the 4890 at stock. with 1000 mhz OC the 4890 manages to exchange blows with the 285 GTX.

The 1000 mhz increase (shader and memory accordingly) yields 17% increase over stock, which means on avg 3% faster than the 285 GTX stock.

p/p yes I'd agree the 4890 is ALOT better choice, but lets not throw words out.

It is what is.
April 17, 2009 12:18:42 AM

Yes, well, I should have said that if I look at the performance charts on Anandtech and Tom's Hardware for the 4890 and GTX 285 @ 1680x1050, you see about a 5% relative improvement (average on Tom's, max on Anandtech's). Granted at higher resolutions the gap gets wider (I've been obsessing about 1680x1050).
April 17, 2009 12:25:04 AM

well at the 1920x1200, which is the resolution that the 4890 should actually be coming into discussion...1600x1050, we're talking about 9800 GT and 4850s and 9800 GTX+, not higher end cards like the 4890, which is stronger than both the 260 GTX and the 4870 which were targeting the 1920x1200.

The 4890 and 285 GTX are more of the 2560x1600 cards of the single GPU era though.

even so:



And at 1920x1200



I don't trust THG for beans anymore, anandtech I do on the other hand, but techpowerUp's comparison charts are very handy!

April 17, 2009 12:32:12 AM

I think where the clocks and RAM are the same the 4870 and 4890 are copulating. ...they're that close.
April 17, 2009 1:10:43 AM

L1qu1d said:
well at the 1920x1200, which is the resolution that the 4890 should actually be coming into discussion...1600x1050, we're talking about 9800 GT and 4850s and 9800 GTX+, not higher end cards like the 4890, which is stronger than both the 260 GTX and the 4870 which were targeting the 1920x1200.
.
.
.
I don't trust THG for beans anymore, anandtech I do on the other hand, but techpowerUp's comparison charts are very handy!


Well, looking at techpowerup's charts @1680x1050 for Far Cry 2, I wouldn't want to use less than GTX 260 core 216 (that's at about 50 fps). The GTX 285 is at about 60 fps. Crysis seems to beat all these cards to death, only the dual cards get well over 30fps. I realize that this is cranking up some settings, but isn't this what we all want to do? :) 

So, if you're goal in life is to play Crysis with all the settings cranked @1680x1050, then you're destined (or doomed) to own a dual card/gpu solution. I'm not saying it's a worthy goal...

techpowerup's benchmarks include a lot of old games. This is kind of neat to track where things are going and where they've come from, but it makes the overall average ranking less meaningful. Most games saturate at some point in the 100's of fps. I personally don't care if a game is getting 200 fps versus 100 fps. I think anything over 60 is gravy.
a b U Graphics card
April 17, 2009 1:23:44 AM

Its funny, by going with those charts, the 275 is 7-8% faster than the 4890, and thats not whats been shown everywhere else. But again, neither is the 14% difference between the 4890 and the 285. Maybe Anand got it wrong?
April 17, 2009 1:31:05 AM

whether they are old or not, some of them still put a punch, such as Doom 3 engine, which uses a very sophisticated engine, (mapping something) which stress yoru GPU. I had problems running Quade 4 with 8 AA at 1280x1024 for example with my 9800 GX2

even with old games, then it shouldn't work as a disadvantage, but as an advantage for the cards. Fear 1 uses the same engine as fear 2, cod 4 uses the same engine as cod 5,splinter cell 3, uses UT 2.5 engine, Quake wars again the demanding doom 3 engine.

Its not like they use only old ones, they use alot of new ones:) 

The older should put any card at an advantage.

@jaydee, well i trust techpowerup more than anand haha, since they make our GPu z:p 
a b U Graphics card
April 17, 2009 1:35:55 AM

Hey, gotta hand it to W1zzard for the Gpu-Z , but its not the norm, these findings. The 285 was a 10% bump over the 280. The 4890 was a 13% bump over the 4870, so, in essence, the 280 must have been 17% better than the 4870. Doesnt add up
April 17, 2009 1:39:13 AM

well remember I always found that the 280 GTX was 20% faster and the 285 GTX was 30% faster than the 4870, all these sites change things, they use different games and such which can affect.

meh I dunno what to say, all this headache made me switch to console games, and honestly, as picky as I am with graphics I can't tell the difference when i'm playing...:p 
April 17, 2009 2:03:07 AM

L1qu1d said:
whether they are old or not, some of them still put a punch, such as Doom 3 engine, which uses a very sophisticated engine, (mapping something) which stress yoru GPU. I had problems running Quade 4 with 8 AA at 1280x1024 for example with my 9800 GX2
.
.
.


That's interesting that the techpowerup guys didn't sweep the settings for AF and AA. They show the 9800 GX2 performing at 180 FPS @1680x1050 on Quake 4 (noAA, 16xAF).
April 17, 2009 2:57:10 AM

L1qu1d said:
meh I dunno what to say, all this headache made me switch to console games, and honestly, as picky as I am with graphics I can't tell the difference when i'm playing...:p 

I have to agree, tracking these cards is both thrilling and nauseating at the same time. :pt1cable: 
!