What does nVidia have that ATi doesn't?

[Ellessar_89]

Hi!
I need to define an nVidia graphics card without usage of words like "nVidia, ATi, CUDA, etc.". So I need to find something in nVidia cards what ATi doesn't have. I also can't use 96 stream processors, core frequency 800MHz, DDR5 RAM, 512MB RAM and similar.

I can use DirectX, GPGPU, PCI Express, power consumption, hardware acceleration and other general words.

I will give you an example.
Let's say nVidia supports GPGPU and ATi doesn't. The definition would be: A graphics card that supports GPGPU.
Let's say nVidia supports DirectX 10 and ATi doesn't. The definition would be: A graphics card with support of DirectX 10.

I'm talking about GeForce 200 series and any ATi series.

Thank you for your time and thoughts.

 

[resinmage]

Id say first off probly better drivers, less problems with driver issues etc?

 

[mactronix]

A graphics card that eats power and produces lots of heat

Mactronix

 

[AMW1011]

The drivers are about the same, give or take, between the two.

The biggest difference is their approaches to creating GPUs. ATI makes smaller die GPUs that scale well and lets their dual GPU solution do the heavy hitting in the high end department. This allows ATI to have cards that run cooler and use less power than the competition. ATI usually focuses on delivering excellent performance for the price.

nVidia, though, tends to focus more on the "monolithic" or large die sizes that do not scale well and are not efficient, but bring a lot of power to the table. For their main stream and lower end, nVidia tends to tweak older architecture or produce different architectures. They tend to not provide as good of a price/performance ratio as ATI, but are usually competitive and they usually own the absolute high end.

These are two very different approaches, but both are excellent and end up creating great products for us, the consumers.

In short:
nVidia creates larger GPUs since they focus mostly on the high end.

 

[Emperus]

One thing that Nvidia has but Ati doesn't is probably a large mouth.. Now speaking on the card terms, ati cards have a better display quality compared to nvidia cards.. But nv cards have a wider platform support wherein they include drivers for even solaris operating system.. Nv cards do have a better driver stability.. Also, their SLI scale's better than the crossfire by Ati when comparing cards from the similar genre.. Nv also has the backing (or whatever you may want to call it) of most games and software firms and thus its majority titles run better with an nv card compared to an ati card (strictly personal info).. CUDA is more established as compared to the Ati stream and when GPGPU becomes more relevant a term, i guess Nvidia will initially have an upper hand..

 

[jyjjy]

CUDA, Physx, better support for 3D gaming and better drivers for non-Windows OSes.
ATI is supposedly working on the 3D thing so that probably wont matter for too long. GPU accelerated Physx being proprietary has relegated it to mostly a rarely used gimmick. ATI have Stream but CUDA support is more widespread. I believe in general the architecture of Nvidia cards is also more suited to GPGPU tasks. Both Stream and CUDA should be replaced with OpenCL eventually.
Basically if you are running Linux or into 3D gaming or intend to use GPGPU functions a lot Nvidia is the way to go. If not then ATI will consistently give you better value for the money in terms of gaming performance, pretty much across the board right now. When comparing the HD5xxx series to Nvidia's cards outside of the GTX 470/80 ATI also has DX11 while Nvidia does not, eyefinity for those who want to use 3 monitors and more recent video/audio playback features for HTPC usage. The HD5xxx is also very power efficient/low heat.

 

[AMW1011]

One thing that Nvidia has but Ati doesn't is probably a large mouth.. Now speaking on the card terms, ati cards have a better display quality compared to nvidia cards.. But nv cards have a wider platform support wherein they include drivers for even solaris operating system.. Nv cards do have a better driver stability.. Also, their SLI scale's better than the crossfire by Ati when comparing cards from the similar genre.. Nv also has the backing (or whatever you may want to call it) of most games and software firms and thus its majority titles run better with an nv card compared to an ati card (strictly personal info).. CUDA is more established as compared to the Ati stream and when GPGPU becomes more relevant a term, i guess Nvidia will initially have an upper hand..

There is no difference with display quality between the companies, except in a select few games which go either way. Both have similar stability, or lack there of. nVidia's dual card SLI scales better than dual crossfire, but tri crossfire scales better than tr SLI. These are also game dependent differences and are likely to change. There is no such thing as "The majority of titles run better on X", it is strictly a game to game thing that tends to change over time. In the 8xxx and 9xxx series, this was true because of nVidia's dominance, but now it isn't. CUDA is nice, but the future is likely in a similar open-party API, like OpenCL or compute shaders in DX11.

The only thing I agree with is that nVidia does have a far superior handle on non-windows operating systems.

 

[AMW1011]

Yet they recently dropped all open-source drivers and Noveau sucks as of now.
ATI linux drivers are pretty decent, given you're running R600 of later.

I'll take your word for it, I know nothing of it in reality.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

CUDA, Physx, better support for 3D gaming and better drivers for non-Windows OSes.
ATI is supposedly working on the 3D thing so that probably wont matter for too long. GPU accelerated Physx being proprietary has relegated it to mostly a rarely used gimmick. ATI have Stream but CUDA support is more widespread. I believe in general the architecture of Nvidia cards is also more suited to GPGPU tasks. Both Stream and CUDA should be replaced with OpenCL eventually.
Basically if you are running Linux or into 3D gaming or intend to use GPGPU functions a lot Nvidia is the way to go. If not then ATI will consistently give you better value for the money in terms of gaming performance, pretty much across the board right now. When comparing the HD5xxx series to Nvidia's cards outside of the GTX 470/80 ATI also has DX11 while Nvidia does not, eyefinity for those who want to use 3 monitors and more recent video/audio playback features for HTPC usage. The HD5xxx is also very power efficient/low heat.

+1

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Why are you talking about nVidia 200 series when the 400 series is the current generation ?

ATI Advantages:

Eyefinity
More power efficient
Give off less heat
Has dual GPU Card
Better DX10 performance with current drivers
Better price / performance ratio in DX10 with current drivers

nVidia Advantages:

3DVision
PhysX
CUDA / GPGPU Computing
Better 2D Graphics
Big Advantage for AutoDesk and Adobe Users
Better DX11 Performance
480 and 470 have better price / performance ratio in DX11 gaming

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

This is a fanboi thread wanting to implode, and the people who truly know the difference are unlikely to participate.

 

[HKH]

The only advantages over ATI is
Better tesselation performance (480/470 don't have as big of a penality as 5xxx series)
PhysX
3D

Since not many games support PhysX and 3D just ruins the fps in games
I'd say it only has better tessleation performance (which only a few games support heavily)

But they are hammered by a few flaws, the infamous heat, power consumtion and price

But I'm gonna go water my 480, so heat won't be a problem
Power, meh, I have a big enough PSU and I don't pay for my electric bill
Price, I can live up with paying 150 bucks over a 5870

So yea, I'd go with 480 over ATi's 5xxx series since it's more future proof
I mean if you don't mind turning off tesselation, 5xxx series is definatly a better buy

But I like turning on all my eye candys when I game, so 480 for me
And I'll probably buy another one for Sli if I have the cash

Or just wait for ATi to come out with better cards that doesn't nuke itself when DX.11 is turned on

I am not a fan boy of whatever brand, I just want the performance for gaming
If Ati has better cards, I'd buy ati, if Nvidia had better, I'd buy Nvidia

Currently both companies have their own strengths and weaknesses, I don't think which one is better, they both have flaws, I just wish they would merge up to make a decent card

480s performance + 5xxx series heat and power + 5xxx series price range
Wouldn't that just be perfect

 

[spentshells]

The only advantages over ATI is
Better tesselation performance (480/470 don't have as big of a penality as 5xxx series)
PhysX
3D

Since not many games support PhysX and 3D just ruins the fps in games
I'd say it only has better tessleation performance (which only a few games support heavily)

But they are hammered by a few flaws, the infamous heat, power consumtion and price

But I'm gonna go water my 480, so heat won't be a problem
Power, meh, I have a big enough PSU and I don't pay for my electric bill
Price, I can live up with paying 150 bucks over a 5870

So yea, I'd go with 480 over ATi's 5xxx series since it's more future proof
I mean if you don't mind turning off tesselation, 5xxx series is definatly a better buy

But I like turning on all my eye candys when I game, so 480 for me
And I'll probably buy another one for Sli if I have the cash

Or just wait for ATi to come out with better cards that doesn't nuke itself when DX.11 is turned on

I am not a fan boy of whatever brand, I just want the performance for gaming
If Ati has better cards, I'd buy ati, if Nvidia had better, I'd buy Nvidia

Currently both companies have their own strengths and weaknesses, I don't think which one is better, they both have flaws, I just wish they would merge up to make a decent card

480s performance + 5xxx series heat and power + 5xxx series price range
Wouldn't that just be perfect

makes me wanna grab my junk







well just the last part