(ati vs nvidia) is alot like (intel vs amd)

NVidia is in a worried state? ROFLMAO

They have and will have the best GPU the world has ever known (GeForce series and the upcoming NV20).

But I agree that we should thank ATI, they did make the prices drop on the GeForce.  

ATI does do things a little differently in thier 3d. Nvidia rules for speed, but I have heard good things about ATI's quality. Still if ATI had helped the prices, and NVIDIA is worried why are the prices so high on the Ultra cards?

Learning has begun.

i think the ultra's high prices can be attributed to 2 factors: first, it it relatively new so prices haven't had much of a chance to drop yet, and second, there's no legitimate competition in the ultra's performance class. basically, ati has cards that compete on the level of the geforce2 mx and somewhat with the geforce2 gts. the performance of the ultra is currently untouchable.

well you see if it wasnt for ati the gts would be still be around $300 and the MX could been $200. So all you nvidia nuts better thank ati for the low gts and mx prices.

Nvidia is going to turn into another Intel type company... They're already getting into the sound chip and controller chip market. They're becoming the graphics chipzilla... ahhhh!! Nvidia is a good company though. They are a true rags to riches model... from the old ass crappy RIVA 128 to the GF2 Ultra... 3Dfx is the disappointment.

-MP Jesse

The GF2 Ultra is priced high because of the 4ns memory.

ati radeon = awsome picture quality and excellent speed
geforce2 gts = average picture quality and awsome speed

thats what it boils down to!

Did you know ATI has more market share then nvidia? It's true!

Actually it's like this:

GeForce 2 GTS: Awsome Picture Quality, Supersonic speed

Radeon: Better than GeForce 2 GTS Picture Quality, Subsonic Speed

I'm not dissing the Radeon, just trying to make it a little more truthful.

lol! well then! That would make the radeon a better card?
Geforce is just pure speed. thats all! no picture quality? right? i had a TNT card, and the picture quality is no where near as good as the radeon!

Comparing a TNT and a Radeon has nothing to do with GeForce and Radeon, sorry

LOL

ok, u must be a moron.

who says i was compareing the two? i had a tnt card, i now have a radeon card. the radeon card has better picture quality then the tnt card. Dude, stop snorting that crack! it's killing your brain cells!

Hmmm... I see a "geforce2 gts" in there.... Whats this about TNT?

Jeez! You're so high you don't even know what you said! (or what you read)

Do you know why ATI has more market share?? It's because they had the lesser gfx cards/chipsets that came in business pc's. I bet if you looked at gamers and those type's of people nVidia's share would be much larger in the demographic.

-S

it's called 2 jobs and full time schooling! maybe you should get a life and stop bitching!

What you said is this: ATI had less gfx cards that came into bussiness pc's, now if i look at nvidia's share it would be much larger? Explain! I don't think i get what your talking about.

Like I said. <i>Read</i>.....

i really don't care! lol! seriously! The radeon card is awsome! i Have the ATI AIW Radeon card! do you see a nvidia card that can do superb video? no!

Now stop being so biased with nvidia, what have they done for you? nothing but steal your money! Try the radeon, you'll be impressed with the image quality.

I've never been biased towards NVidia. Show me a post where I have been.

And I wouldn't trade my awsome speed and excellent image quality for way less speed and 1/10th better image quality.

what card do u have?

Heh i thought FSB was the key to overclocking?
but thats not this forum i guess.

Bored,Certified Tech

Well of course I have a GF2 GTS.... just defending my card  

But let's stop with this 3 year old kid crap (both of us)

well it wasnt for ati we would only talk about nvidia cause voodoo5 sucks. and it would be stupid and dumb to talk graphics if it wasnt for ati you would all get bored about graphics cards and ati is the only thing from keeping nvidia becoming graphics chipzilla and a market w/ $300 GTS cards. so w/o ati radeon there would be no gf2 mx, cause nvidia would have no need too they can overcharge like intel and microsoft, who like close ties w/ nvidia. where ati only allies are oem pc makers and somewhat amd cause there pushing ddr-sdram. and also lets see its unfair 5 nvidia chips vs. 1 radeon. its like how amd k6-2 vs. pentium 2. amd k6-2 is a good chip (i have a k6-2 system my self) but MIRCO$SOFT design windows for optionmized for intel not amd. amd is the fastest now (not as fast as alpha 700mhz)and windows is still design for intel. so nvidia is friend w/ intel and microsoft so, windows will run geforce and P4 faster then an radeon and an athlon.

note dont invest in the x-box (powered by the evil trio)
the game cube looks better and has MARIO!!!!

Well guess what! Some 64MB GeForce 2 GTS cards <b><i>ARE</i></b> $300+!

Good point about the market share though. Ati has a higher share because nearly every compaq (the worlds largest pc maker) IBM, and dell computer comes with an intigrated ATI rage chip on board. If you actually looked at graphics cards that people went out to buy though, not just one's they had no choice but to get, you would find nvidia's market share vastly surpassing ATI's. That's not my oppinion, since nvidia has such a large chunk of the market and almost no intigrated graphics, it is a fact.

"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"

don't forget all the crappy mac's that have ati chips in them.

<font color=red>booyah, grandma, booyah..</font color=red>

And don't forget about the mobile market.

Shouldn't it be (ati vs nvideo) = (AMD vs intel)?
I have an ATI card, i had an nvidia card. havn't had a problem with either of them. i will say though that the picture quality is awsome compared to the nvidia card. I'm talking quality, not speed now.

Also, have you ever given the thought that the ATI's full potential isn't even being used? think about it! Games today don't use 3 texels per cycle, but only 2. Games today don't use the directx 8 capabilities yet. I also believe that the ATI card has something that nvidia cards do not! A voxel engine. To smooth out those textures i believe. The whole reason the picture quality is abover average maybe? I'm not sure about that, can someone fill me in about it?Also the ATI's drivers are premature (because the chip is completly different then the previous chip designs unlike nvidia chips that are based on the original design, just upgraded from it, hence the reason for matured drivers from nvidia) nooo shut up with the ati verse nvidia [-peep-]. they are both good company's. Those are opinions based on what i've read from tomshardware and anandtech.

what do u think?
-Jeff

Yeah, the ATI card you have is a Radeon, and the NVidia card you had was a TNT2 card. Bad comparison.......

But still, the Radeon <i>does</i> have maybe 5% better image quality (probably less) than the GF2 cards. The graphics absolutely KICK ASS on my system.

Hey, does anybody remember when this thread used to be about what that guy originally posted? hehe. Not actually complaining, most of this has been more interesting, or at least amusing, anyway. There is one thing though that's been bugging me about what that guy keeps saying. That without the radeon there would be no mx. I admit that I'm chronologically challenged, but didn't the mx come out first?


Tom Mc

Even a fool, when he remains silent, appears wise.

I will never buy another ATI product. ATI sucks. The new ATI Radeons suck. ATI will be the next company Nvidie buys out and farts on. The drivers don’t work for [-peep-] on win2k. Driver updates are non existent as in the past. They have no toll free tech support. Their new Radeon cards ship with win2k drivers which don’t work properly. If you want to feel [-peep-] on buy Radeon.