Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI vs Nvidia

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 17, 2010 5:22:19 PM

So I've been a long time Nvidia fanboy but now that ATI has come out with much cheaper cards I think I'll switch :p 

Essentially they both make awesome graphics cards, but where do they differ?

Nvidia:
-3d surround
-CUDA
-Physx?

ATI:
-?
(I know nothing of ATI)

So my question is what would I be missing out on if I went with ATI what would features etc. would I be missing from Nvidia?

And I heard a rumor that pairing an AMD CPU with a ATI gfx card yields better performance?

More about : ati nvidia

a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 17, 2010 5:35:29 PM

If you go with ATI you'll be missing out on PhysX, lots of heat, and lots of power consumption... lol.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 17, 2010 5:51:42 PM

ATI:
-Eyefinity
-3D soon as well

PhysX is useless so that really doesn't matter.

It really comes down to the card, and both of the companies have great products out. You just need to find the card that fits your needs the best.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 273 U Graphics card
a c 172 Î Nvidia
June 17, 2010 5:57:29 PM

AMW1011 said:
PhysX is useless so that really doesn't matter.

But people still want it and some will jump through all sorts of hoops to get it, so it seems that it matters to some.
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 7:38:47 PM

only a few games support physx though lol
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 17, 2010 7:53:16 PM

Mousemonkey said:
But people still want it and some will jump through all sorts of hoops to get it, so it seems that it matters to some.


Yeah, but it doesn't mean that there is any reason to. Hell people are paying $1000+ for the iPhone 4 even though it is bested by so many other phones and is already obsolete.
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a c 172 Î Nvidia
June 17, 2010 7:54:28 PM

Who said anything about reason? I just stated a simple and undeniable fact.
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 17, 2010 8:24:54 PM

I have a GT 240 just for PhysX. It's true that there's not a lot of games that support it. And I wouldn't recommend anyone going out of their way to buy a new GPU for it. However, in a few games it does really add to the experience.

PhysX comes in 2 flavours. The software version which is like any other physics engine ie: Havoc. And then there's GPU accelerated PhysX which adds the extras. A couple which are really great are advanced particles and realistic cloth. The particles can be used in many ways but one of the best is as smoke/fog/steam whatever, as it will actually flow and deform when solid bodies pass through it. It looks fantastic. Non accelerated smoke generally is pretty static or if it moves it can't be interacted with very well. The cloth is neat, it adds very realistic flow and also amazing tearing characteristics.
There's some other GPU accelerated eye candy too, for instance Cryostatis adds rain with it. Good examples of the smoke are BatmanAA and Dark Void - you can youtube vids to see what it adds. The cloth is also seen in Batman, and Mirror's Edge.

Again, IMO PhysX isn't really a deal breaker. It would be great if Nvidia could release the strangle hold so that more developers are open to using GPU accelerated PhysX. Bullet physics engine's newest release allows GPU acceration and it's more of an open source type thing so possibly in a couple years we'll start to see more titles using GPU accelerated physics (not just PhysX). That would be great.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 17, 2010 8:34:56 PM

You are describing what PhysX can do, not what it actually does in games. It does almost nothing in games, that is the problem.
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 17, 2010 8:40:11 PM

AMW1011 said:
You are describing what PhysX can do, not what it actually does in games. It does almost nothing in games, that is the problem.


Uh no I'm describing what it does do. Again, yes, it's limited to only a handful of games and no, I wouldn't recommend PhysX as a very important factor, but you can't outright dismiss it.

Dark Void:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GyKCM-Bpuw

Batman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGCZtXg5LyA

Mirror's Edge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xRJt8rcmY

Cryostasis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_11T0jficE

Metro 2033:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt8DEEEMTHw

Just to show off what PhysX actually does. I don't mean to get argumentative, but please, get your facts straight.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 17, 2010 8:53:00 PM

I know what it does, it gives cheap little effects that don't make a difference nor are noticeable when playing the actual game. Those videos are all disingenuous since they make a point out of those cheap effects, where when your playing you won't notice them.
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 8:59:52 PM

I do have a 9800gtx + laying around that I could set as physx in conjunction with a 5870?
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 17, 2010 9:02:09 PM

...I disagree. Because I notice. If you don't know there's a difference, you wouldn't notice due to ignorance. If you know there is, then you see them. Simple as that. Anyway, I'm done with this thread I've made my point. Anyone can browse those videos and make their own conclusions.
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 17, 2010 9:04:18 PM

razercultmember1 said:
I do have a 9800gtx + laying around that I could set as physx in conjunction with a 5870?


Yes please just search Tom's for dedicated PhysX forums there's lots of info
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a c 172 Î Nvidia
June 17, 2010 9:06:15 PM

razercultmember1 said:
I do have a 9800gtx + laying around that I could set as physx in conjunction with a 5870?

Yes you can do that, grab the 257.15 beta driver to be able to do it the simple way.
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 9:34:08 PM

so i just checked the physx games and lol none of the games i own are on there so i think ill go with ATI
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 9:36:52 PM

ATI is fine hardware but their drivers and control panel leave much to be desired.
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 9:43:43 PM

Just because nvidia has physx, doesnt mean ati cards dnt have physx in games there just some games that need the nvidia cards and i doubt there will be anymore made since it was crap anyways.
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 9:47:48 PM

well more and more software based physics is cropping up am i right?
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 9:50:14 PM

Yes but it doesnt need phyxs anymore.
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 9:52:00 PM

oh yea what i meant was physx will die out while software based physics such as Havok and the frostbite for bc2 even Cryengine 3 (/salivate) dominate
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 9:54:57 PM

Yeh so it boils down to the fastest card in the end, and ATI are on top atm, not just by performance but by temps too, they run much cooler and were first with DX11.

I have a GTX 285, its massive runs at 47C-77C i bet the ATI 5850 runs -10C or more and probly more fps ingames.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 17, 2010 9:56:06 PM

warezme said:
ATI is fine hardware but their drivers and control panel leave much to be desired.


No... ATI drivers are fine.

razercultmember1 said:
well more and more software based physics is cropping up am i right?


GPU accelerate physics is important, but we need a standard. PhysX only works on nVidia cards and nVidia won't allow ATI to utilize it. This means that game developers can't do much more than the cheap effects posted above in games, otherwise they could lose potential customers.

DX11 has a thing called compute shaders, which allows any DX11 GPU to do the work of the CPU, like physics and AI. There is also OpenCL, which is an option.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 17, 2010 9:57:52 PM

weehamish said:
Yeh so it boils down to the fastest card in the end, and ATI are on top atm, not just by performance but by temps too, they run much cooler and were first with DX11.

I have a GTX 285, its massive runs at 47C-77C i bet the ATI 5850 runs -10C or more and probly more fps ingames.


I would say that ATI is definitely doing better this round, but that is mostly thanks to the 5770 and ATI's complete market from $50 to $700. nVidia is still real competitive with the GTX 470 and GTX 480 though.
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 9:59:40 PM

There too big, hot and still ati beats them on price.
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 10:08:31 PM

im going to have to agree :p 

kinda unrelated but any models of the 5870 that are real cheap but good?
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 10:13:34 PM

Tbh if you agree and wanna save money too get a good 5850 runs all games i know on max and is cheaper again :) 
m
0
l
June 17, 2010 10:24:22 PM

Sure probly full on most games, i always use 2x because you cant really tell at that resolution on most games anyways :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 17, 2010 11:12:18 PM

weehamish said:
There too big, hot and still ati beats them on price.


A 20-25% performance increase in todays game, with another 15-20% advantage with heavy tessellation in future titles and a good 10-20% more performance scaling with a dual card configuration is nothing to scoff at. Yeah they run a bit hotter than the 5xxx series, but not by much and a decent case with custom fan speeds keep them very cool. nVidia charges 25% more for the GTX 480 than the 5870 which performs 25% better right now and has some added benefits. The only bad thing about the GTX 480 is that it consumes a good deal of power, but that isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be. Then you have the GTX 470 which performs within 10% of a 5870 now and better with heavy tessellation all for $50 cheaper. I'm not seeing how ATI wins on prices here, each card is priced relative to it's performance. There really aren't any great deals to be had, every card is priced where it should be.
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a c 172 Î Nvidia
June 18, 2010 12:23:11 AM

razercultmember1 said:
cant the 5000 series tesselate aswell?

It can, just not as well as the Nvidia cards it would seem.
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 12:40:40 AM

I've had the best luck with nvidia but I'm not impressed with their fermi cards. ATI I always have problems with; however, that was years ago. maybe ATI changed.

Flip a coin I guess.
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 2:25:37 AM

Let me elaborate in my most fine English writing. If one was to choose a fairly high end video card for their computer, within a 500 dollar budget, what would that person choose?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 18, 2010 3:16:15 AM

razercultmember1 said:
5870 or 5850 vs gtx 480 or 470 or 465?

Maybe you could vocalize a question.
What are you asking their prices ? lol
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 18, 2010 12:19:19 PM

razercultmember1 said:
cant the 5000 series tesselate aswell?


It can, Tesselation is a required function of graphics cards wishing to claim DX 11 status. ATI's 5 series has a tesselation engine bolted onto existing and refined GPU architecture designs that were a leap from the 4 series.

NV's Fermi was built from the ground up with tesselation in its very DNA, not a simple addition as part of architectural refinements.

I'm not knocking either NV or ATI but there is the difference between the two.

As soon as tesselation becomes a bigger part of games (which will essentially go hand in hand with more and more devs using DX 11) Fermi will begin to claw back public favour as they realise that the GTX 400 series takes smaller performance hits in tesselation heavy games compared to ATI's range.

Still, we may see ATI come out with something lovely in the 6 series, who knows.
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 7:34:41 PM

Let me elaborate in my most fine English writing. If one was to choose a fairly high end video card for their computer, within a 500 dollar budget, what would that person choose?[/quotemsg]


I would go with the GTX 480 - Its simply the best single card solution and most future proof purchase for future games including directx 11 games; it runs directx 11 way better then the ATI 5000 series cards.

The 5970 was my first option but I was able to get 2 GTX 480s for the same price as the 5970, no micro stutter in sli what so ever even in older games.

I also notice faster driver support from nvidia then ati for games.

My cards do not hit above 79 degrees but depending on your current setup will determine if the GTX 480 is right for you...

x3 sli motherboard for spacing the cards, strong cpu and psu.

Also, check out the cuda effects on the water in Just Cause 2; huge difference in overall water effects!

2160471,35,537549 said:


I like graphics so anyone saying you would not like having the extra subtle touches is full of ***; I almost bought a dedicated physx card for my 4870x2 just for physx on batman plus mafia 2 is utilizing physx

m
0
l
June 18, 2010 7:49:01 PM

yea i think im going with the 480 aswell but if i SLI how much power would i need?

more than 1000w i would guess
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 8:43:30 PM

Tbh why bother sliing? Is there any game that needs 2x 480s? No.

1 is overkill for the games these days, even a 5770 can rape most games on decent settings and a 285,5850,470 do the job at max settings at 1920x1200, so why bother spending more for nothing?

Get a midranger and wait untill some company makes a game that needs it.
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 9:32:51 PM

well for future proofing to the max lol

im not going to sli any time soon unless the 480 halves its price but right now im stuck between at 950 watt or a 1000 watt combo deal on new egg
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 18, 2010 10:07:44 PM

wolfram23 said:
Uh no I'm describing what it does do. Again, yes, it's limited to only a handful of games and no, I wouldn't recommend PhysX as a very important factor, but you can't outright dismiss it.

Dark Void:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GyKCM-Bpuw

Batman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGCZtXg5LyA

Mirror's Edge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xRJt8rcmY

Cryostasis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_11T0jficE

Metro 2033:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt8DEEEMTHw

Just to show off what PhysX actually does. I don't mean to get argumentative, but please, get your facts straight.


I'll break it down for you:

You: Dark Void
Me: What gameplay?
You: Dark Void!
Me: What plot?

Batman is decent, I'm not a fan personally.

Mirror's edge, it's a fun game, I don't care or want shattering glass and flags.

Cryostasis, I loved the game, but it only uses 1 core and even people with E8400's at 4GHz + GTX 295's barely get 40 FPS at 1650x1080

Metro 2033: Don't play at high resolutions and details.


CPU Physics Argument
Look at gameplay of Red Faction: Guerrilla, you can completely destory EVERY building, it runs great on CPU's.
Same thing with Bad Company 2
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a c 172 Î Nvidia
June 18, 2010 10:12:08 PM

sabot00 said:
CPU Physics Argument
Look at gameplay of Red Faction: Guerrilla, you can completely destory EVERY building, it runs great on CPU's.
Same thing with Bad Company 2

I found the destructible buildings in Red Faction very unrealistic and the slow downs caused by destroying a building made the game unplayable, so I gave it away.
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 10:13:16 PM

You cant future proof with PCs and if youve been in the game atleast 3 years you will know this. Top end PCs last 3 years if your a pro and want the very best of gear going £3000+

If you always wanna be on top you need to upgrade once a year and then when you play the same games because theres none out there to play that need a beast pc you feel dissapointed.
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 10:45:47 PM

weehamish said:
Tbh why bother sliing? Is there any game that needs 2x 480s? No.

1 is overkill for the games these days, even a 5770 can rape most games on decent settings and a 285,5850,470 do the job at max settings at 1920x1200, so why bother spending more for nothing?

Get a midranger and wait untill some company makes a game that needs it.



Thats BS man; I bought 2 5770's and OC'd the vcore all the way to 1030 w/ the memory @ 1300...

I was getting 18 fps with all settings set to max, my friends 5870 was getting even lower fps in Metro. I like to run my games @ 1920 x 1200 with everything maxed out and still avg 60 plus fps. I am getting a avg 75 - 100 fps in BFBC 2 with a min drop of 45; i was dropping down to the 20's with the 5770's

Also hitting around 65 fps in Just Cause 2 with everything maxed out and between 45 - 70 fps in crysis maxed @ 4x AA so no, 2 GTX 480's are not overkill, it just makes for a great experience period!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 18, 2010 11:00:51 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I found the destructible buildings in Red Faction very unrealistic and the slow downs caused by destroying a building made the game unplayable, so I gave it away.


Then drop the old E8400 and get a quadcore and maybe it would run fine! :kaola: 

But seriously, I had no problems running it with my E6750 at 3.2 GHz, not sure what was going on.
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 11:57:14 PM

solidnickel said:
Thats BS man; I bought 2 5770's and OC'd the vcore all the way to 1030 w/ the memory @ 1300...

I was getting 18 fps with all settings set to max, my friends 5870 was getting even lower fps in Metro. I like to run my games @ 1920 x 1200 with everything maxed out and still avg 60 plus fps. I am getting a avg 75 - 100 fps in BFBC 2 with a min drop of 45; i was dropping down to the 20's with the 5770's

Also hitting around 65 fps in Just Cause 2 with everything maxed out and between 45 - 70 fps in crysis maxed @ 4x AA so no, 2 GTX 480's are not overkill, it just makes for a great experience period!



Thats coz 2x 5770s are worse then a GTX 285 :\ and yes metro its crap.

I mean mainstream games not leaches like crysis or metro, things like bad company 2 dnt need a powerful graphics card and 100 fps is over kill 60 is cap and you should know that, if you wanna pay £200 more to overcap go ahead.

Who wants to play crysis this day and age tell me? It looked fine on my 9800gx2 at high settings.
m
0
l
June 18, 2010 11:59:52 PM

I'll play crysis when the gtx 595's are mainstream 100 dollar cards eta hmm 5 years :p 

by then cryengine 4 will be better optimized and what not
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a c 172 Î Nvidia
June 19, 2010 12:04:52 AM

AMW1011 said:
Then drop the old E8400 and get a quadcore and maybe it would run fine! :kaola: 

But seriously, I had no problems running it with my E6750 at 3.2 GHz, not sure what was going on.

What, like the Q9550 I've had for the last two years? :p 
m
0
l
June 19, 2010 12:29:44 AM

if you pair an AMD cpu with an ATI vid card is it better performance than an Intel cpu and a ATI vid card? random question
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 19, 2010 12:37:42 AM

Mousemonkey said:
What, like the Q9550 I've had for the last two years? :p 


Oh well if your using that computer it might be the 9500 GT that's making you lag... :D 
m
0
l
!