Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why ATI will die (hey, that rhymes! :-D)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 24, 2002 8:43:16 PM

Basic fact (ok, basic opinion), the only that is/was keeping ATI alive is the fact that they make video capture and multimedia cards.

Some GeForce 3's came with RCA (A/V) and SVideo out.

I heard that some premium brands of the GeForce 4's (if they haven't already been released), like by LeadTek, will have extra features, including RCA, SVideo, and Coex (RFU) in.

If the GeForce line of cards can achieve video capture, ATI will be finished shortly after.

Everyone knows that the GF's offer superior performance, for slighly more money (in some cases). ATI has been renowned for making "not so good" drivers (until very recently).

Has anyone checked reports on sales recently to see how ATI is fairing out against Nvidia? I think their only consumers left are loyal fans.

Also, they recently (well, somewhat recently) went into business with Guillemot (who formerly vendored the Kyro chipsets).

Not that I have anything against ATI, this is just what I predict happening if Nvidia can produce GF's with video capture capabilities.

That pretty much leaves no one left in the market except for workstation cards (3DLabs....)

That's my assessment of the situation anyway.

More about : ati die hey rhymes

May 24, 2002 8:50:51 PM

Quote:

Basic fact (ok, basic opinion), the only that is/was keeping ATI alive is the fact that they make video capture and multimedia cards.

Is that why ATI has greater market share than nVidia? ATI is the market leader with OEMs. If anyone's going to die, nVidia would probably first. Of course, neither is very likely.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 24, 2002 9:17:08 PM

nVidia makes more money though, since they sell a lot more to the end user (well, indirectly, but not to OEMs at least).

Still, I doubt either will die. It's nice seeing Matrox back in the 3D fight, too.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
Related resources
May 24, 2002 10:40:42 PM

You state "ATI will die" but then you offer no real evidence. Your post simply screams "I'm an Nvidiot".

Quote:
Basic fact (ok, basic opinion), the only that is/was keeping ATI alive is the fact that they make video capture and multimedia cards.

Basic *uninformed* opinion, just to clarify. ATi has always had the best video capture, dvd playback etc. They are also the first to be on top of the newer technology (pixel shader 1.4 etc). Claiming that the only reason they're still around is because of video capture though, is moronic.

Quote:

I heard that some premium brands of the GeForce 4's (if they haven't already been released), like by LeadTek, will have extra features, including RCA, SVideo, and Coex (RFU) in.

If the GeForce line of cards can achieve video capture, ATI will be finished shortly after.

Let me guess, you buy Nvidia products because "ROFL geforce4 ownz j00 its s0 fast d00d!"? Nvidia has done nothing for the video card industry lately, and if you can't see that the geforce4 is nothing more than a souped up geforce3 (which was a souped up geforce2) then I'm most likely just wasting my time replying

Quote:
Has anyone checked reports on sales recently to see how ATI is fairing out against Nvidia? I think their only consumers left are loyal fans.

Yes, and AOL is the most used ISP, and computer OEMS like DELL and compac are selling the most systems! Quantity surely equals quality doesn't it? No wait, you're a fool. Sales don't tell the tale of who has the better card, or the better company. This "loyal fan" doesn't purchase components out of some twisted sense of product patriotism. I make all my purchases based on independant research... Try it sometime, instead of just looking at the pretty picture on the box.


Quote:
Not that I have anything against ATI, this is just what I predict happening if Nvidia can produce GF's with video capture capabilities.

How you can even being to actually belive that is beyond me, do you know anything about video cards beyond "they makes the purdy pictars on mah screen". There is FAR more to video cards than simply video capturing and game playing (and no, I'm not talking about graphics workstations... That's another topic)

Quote:
That's my assessment of the situation anyway.

You're better off making assessments about which pokemon owns which. Stay away from technological debates, when your entire knowledge base comes from other peoples work (benchmarks and reviews, if you even read them) and your own deluded little opinions based upon that work(again, if you've even read some non biased articles)

After previewing my post, it's pretty much a flame and I apologize. I intended to offer you a logical rebuttle, but up rereading your post when I went to quote you, there was nothing to refute... You offered no real fact or evidence, so I was forced to simply "argue" rather than debate. I apologize if you take offense.
May 25, 2002 12:01:27 AM

Bad trolls Bad trolls... Whacha gonna do... Whacha gonna do when they post here too...


My frog asked me for a cigarette...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
May 25, 2002 12:01:35 AM

I had always read/thought that the RADEON 8500 (not the DV) was better then the Geforce 3 Hard ware wise it just has those terrible drivers that is what is hurting them if there is anything...

Just my opinion

AMD XP 1900+
A7V-333
Geforce 3 TI 200
PC2100 512MB
May 25, 2002 12:04:59 AM

Good Lord man, settle down! I would probably agree that he deserved to be chewed out if he had been a member of this community for more than just a day. He's not even been registered for more than 24 hours, at least according to his posts. Give him a frickn' break here - he didn't really know better. It was very unnecessary to be that harsh on a newbie, in my opinion.
May 25, 2002 12:33:53 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/vgachar...

Gee, I don't know. If you look at that webpage, right on Tom's Hardware, you'll see that in a benchmark test, the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 had on average 82.9 FPS; the ATI Radeon 8500 BBA 64MB scored 49.1 FPS, and ATI's LE 128MB 47.2

This was running Aquanox in 1024x768, 32-bit true color, 85Hz refresh rate. In the following pages, you'll see that the GeForce 4's ALWAYS scored a superior frame rate.

If you're not a believer in this, perhaps you'd care to explain why you are posting on Tom's Hardware's OWN forums.

Screw off you damnable impudent simian scum. I didn't come to tech message boards to get flamed by an ATI PR idiot like you.
May 25, 2002 12:57:35 AM

Look at the price difference though:

GF4 Ti4600: On average $350USD
R8500: On average $150USD

Is the Ti4600 2 1/3 times faster than the R8500? I don't think so. Besides, just because nVidia has the lead for now, doesn't mean they're gone. More people are buying a "top-of-the-line" ATI product than ever. The R8500 is an absolute success as far as ATI is concerned. It's a highly acclaimed card at its price range.

As far as I know, ATI isn't concerned with matching the GF4 series. They plan to skip that semi-generation and jump right over to the R300.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 25, 2002 1:03:27 AM

You still have not told us why ati (with concrete reasoning) will die thats your post right. I am starting to think you are less than 18 years old and/or is deprieved of attention therefore the reason for the post.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by nexus_alpha on 05/24/02 09:06 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 25, 2002 2:16:03 AM

That's ATI's only strong standing point, their price (aside from their loyal customers as I stated).

I'm saying this because, anybody who uses their computer for games probably realizes you're going to need the best to play games that are coming out currently, and in the future.

I have a LeadTek 128MB GF 3 Ti 200, and Morrowind will barely decently in 800x600 (I have high performance mipmapping level, V-sync off, 2x anti-aliasing, and in game pixel shading, among pretty much the defaults for Morrowind such as view distance). And I can accredit that to my video card for sure (it's not my processor or any other part of my computer).

My normal framerate may be around 25, under stressful conditions and in big areas with lots of activity it can drop to below 10. At best it's around 50.

I don't understand? Are you trying to start trouble? What does my age have to do with anything?
May 25, 2002 2:24:30 AM

Quote:

That's ATI's only strong standing point, their price (aside from their loyal customers as I stated).

What about PS1.4, completely programmable SmoothVision AA, Truform, highly efficent Anisotropic filtering?

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 25, 2002 2:31:03 AM

Because your arugements need a bit of refinement
May 25, 2002 3:20:49 AM

Wait, so ur saying that the GF3 is essentially a "faster clocked" GF2? Oh my, I really must have wated my money on buying it, but, oh no, it has features the GF2 doesn't, and is much different, which is why it runs aquanox, etc. so better! You need not point out I'm an [-peep-] to people such as yourself.

Sig of the week.
May 25, 2002 3:50:08 AM

acually, i believe they first released the 8500 back with the GeForce TI500/200. And if i remember right they ATI card outran the GeForce Card. I wouldn't worry about ATI in the buisness. They've been around for a while, and I would think they will last longer than Nvidia. Mainly because they tend to come out with quality products. Always have, probably always will. (at least we can hope)
May 25, 2002 3:52:50 AM

The GF 4's have gotten new pixel and vertex shaders (compared to the GF 3's). I don't know about ATI's version "1.4"

Everyone has their own version of anti-aliasing. Are you sure SmoothVision is any better? What do you mean it is completely programmable?

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) the same Anisotropic filtering is universally built into all versions of OpenGL 1.2 and beyond. I don't think there is any difference between any of them.

What is Truform?

Is your argument that image quality is better with ATI?

If so, that's fine, but a game is not enjoyable (or - playable) if it is running too slow, no matter how marvelous it looks.

I'm not saying having Nvidia defeat ATI is a good thing (or only having one company manufacture cards for the standard consumer either). It saying it seems to be going that way. And I strongly suspect it will if video capture is implemented.
May 25, 2002 4:11:27 AM

Well well, it looks like you did take offense, and not only that you seemed to place yourself in a position of superiority. You are apparently suffering from some pretty severe delusions of grandure, and this time I'm not going to apologize for pointing them out for you.

Quote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/vgachar...

Gee, I don't know. If you look at that webpage, right on Tom's Hardware, you'll see that in a benchmark test, the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 had on average 82.9 FPS; the ATI Radeon 8500 BBA 64MB scored 49.1 FPS, and ATI's LE 128MB 47.2

Lets see here, you picked the one benchmark that really stood out. Now, if you weren't such an uninformed idiot you would of known long ago that aquanox is a highly nvidia OPTIMIZED program, of course ati cards are going to score lower. Tom is biased. Period. But aside from that, these benchmarks dont go beyond simple FPS. They simply show stock settings, where is the AA (which the geforce4's are superior in) or the anisotropic filtering (do you even know what either of these are?).


Quote:
If you're not a believer in this, perhaps you'd care to explain why you are posting on Tom's Hardware's OWN forums.

I post here because the majority of the community is helpful, respectful, and informed. You do not conform to this standard. IMO of course.


Quote:
Screw off you damnable impudent simian scum. I didn't come to tech message boards to get flamed by an ATI PR idiot like you.

Yes, I surely am the fool who simply buys into the media and what's been spoonfed to me by certain websites.

Like I said earlier, do your OWN research instead of listening to everyone else. The radeon8500 was never meant to contend with the geforce line, it was made to compete with the geforce3.

Going back to your outright flame against me, allow me to point you, and others to this *http://bradswebsite.topcities.com/*. Your website gives alot of insight into your small, pathetic world. I feel sorry for you brad. You obviously have lofty goals, and a yearning desire to be accepted by your peers. I found your "Why I hate the bible" post on your website to be especially laughable. You're attempting to "be a rebel" by going against a popular belief... and by doing so are conforming nicely to another sect. You are a joke and a sheep Brad. I pity you.

You want a simian Brad? Look no further than the closest mirror. Both in appearance, character, and demeanor.
May 25, 2002 4:19:01 AM

Quote:
The GF 4's have gotten new pixel and vertex shaders (compared to the GF 3's). I don't know about ATI's version "1.4"

Again Brad, showing why you shouldn't bother debating something you have no idea about. One of the primary benefits of pixel shader 1.4 (when it is supported) allows a scene to be rendered in a single pass.

Quote:
Everyone has their own version of anti-aliasing. Are you sure SmoothVision is any better? What do you mean it is completely programmable?

Since your comprehension level isn't very high, I'll keep my responses simple for you. ATi and Nvidia use different methods for sampling when using AA. I'd go into more detail, but it would be pointless.

Quote:
As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) the same Anisotropic filtering is universally built into all versions of OpenGL 1.2 and beyond. I don't think there is any difference between any of them.

Sigh, I'm not even going to bother.

Quote:
What is Truform?

*sigh*

Quote:
Is your argument that image quality is better with ATI?

If so, that's fine, but a game is not enjoyable (or - playable) if it is running too slow, no matter how marvelous it looks.

I play all my games at a minimum of 1024x786x32 with 16x anisotropicfiltering. They all run silky smooth.

Quote:
I'm not saying having Nvidia defeat ATI is a good thing (or only having one company manufacture cards for the standard consumer either). It saying it seems to be going that way. And I strongly suspect it will if video capture is implemented.

No, what you're saying is "Look at me, I'm a retard that likes to comment on topics I have no clue about! I also enjoy forming strong opinions on said lack of knowledge!"

This will be my last response to you as I belive in the theory of intellectual osmosis.
May 25, 2002 4:20:52 AM

U still haven't answered by question. Should I return my Quadro DCC and get an R8500 b/c it's not much better than GF2, nor improved upon according to some flaming idiot?

Sig of the week.
May 25, 2002 4:49:29 AM

Look at you, you pathetic piece of shît. I spit on your grave.

It's beyond me why someone would come to tech related forums to boast like you do. But I suppose your type fall under many different areas.

If I didn't feel comfortable with what I have on my website, I wouldn't have it posted up. So I guess I am making a fool of myself in my own confidence. Oh please, put me to shame, oh great one.

As far as an actual argument, you intentionally decided not to respond where I mentioned the GF 4's outscore all ATi cards in each benchmark run, not just for Aquanox.

Now you're calling Tom biased. Perhaps you'll be banned from these forums before I have to take any further action.
May 25, 2002 12:17:03 PM

flamethrower, I suggest you get out of this conversation immediately, both sides are spewing flames at each other like mad. At the moment, you're making matters worse.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 25, 2002 12:21:04 PM

You ever said the gf3 is a faster clocked gf2 sure doesn't know what he is talking about. You bring shame to ATI loyalists.
May 25, 2002 12:37:51 PM

Here's a run down of your arguments in hopefully, an unbiased fashion:

Quote:

The GF 4's have gotten new pixel and vertex shaders (compared to the GF 3's). I don't know about ATI's version "1.4"

The GF4 emulates PS1.3 in software. The R8500 fully supports PS1.4 in hardware. The average user won't notice the difference, but to a programmer, PS1.4 is far more flexible. Carmack said that himself.

Quote:

Everyone has their own version of anti-aliasing. Are you sure SmoothVision is any better? What do you mean it is completely programmable?

In conventional AA, nVidia's FSAA algorithms are better. In games specifically optimized for Smoothvision, you won't have to apply the AA filter to all the frame but only specific sections of the scene that the programmer has specificed. Think of it as a proprietary edge AA technique. On an optimized game, there will be minimal loss of performance with AA on.

Quote:

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) the same Anisotropic filtering is universally built into all versions of OpenGL 1.2 and beyond. I don't think there is any difference between any of them.

You're wrong but that's ok. You see, ATI implements a very conservative Anistropic filtering technique to significantly improve performance at the sacrifice for a little bit of quality at certain angles. You see, rather than applying the filter to the entire scene, ATI's own algorithm searches for angles that are clearly visible and applies the filter to those. This allows for maximum Anisotropic filtering at any resolution with barely a 5% hit on performance rather than the GF4's 50% hit with max. aniso. The sacrifice is that at some angles, ATI's Aniso may not apply the filter. However, with most of today's games, most of these angles are in obscure locations at the edge of your monitor, so you probably won't notice the difference.

Quote:

What is Truform?

Truform is ATI's version of a higher order surface technique. This technique converts triangles into curved surfaces. Of course, there are varying intensities of this. When not used properly, everything looks like a balloon. When used properly like with the recent patch for RTCW, you get amazingly round, true-to-life, objects.

Quote:

Is your argument that image quality is better with ATI?

That's very subjective, but ATI still has one IQ feature that the GF4 hasn't even come close to matching. This is, of course, adaptive de-interlacing and temporal filtering.

Adaptive de-interlacing replaces, Bob and weave and provides a crisper image while watching DVDs. Temporal filtering improves DVD IQ further by aligning the DVD FPS with the refresh rate of the monitor so that you don't get tearing with moving text or fast motion in a DVD.
Quote:


If so, that's fine, but a game is not enjoyable (or - playable) if it is running too slow, no matter how marvelous it looks.

Name one game that an R8500 can't run? Carmack even said that an R8500 can potentially outperform the GF4 with more efficient drivers. Even as I post this, ATI is constantly working on new drivers with improved performance.

Quote:


I'm not saying having Nvidia defeat ATI is a good thing (or only having one company manufacture cards for the standard consumer either). It saying it seems to be going that way. And I strongly suspect it will if video capture is implemented.

If that's the case then why did Carmack publically state that the R300, which should come out in a couple of months, outperform everything currently out there in Doom3?


:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 25, 2002 12:43:17 PM

I'd also like to add is a little look at history:

3dfx went under due to lack of innovation. 3dfx was always concerned about performance over innovation. At the moment, that's what the GF4 does. It introduces nothing new, but merely refined technologies. ATI is still the leader of innovation, until Matrox takes that from ATI in July. In August or September, ATI will take that title back with the RV250 for the low-end and the R300 for the high-end.


EDIT: Now, I'm not saying that nVidia is going to go under, but that ATI has very high demand on the R8500 and has innovative technologies. They're still the market leader and they have nothing to worry about.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 25, 2002 12:57:49 PM

A couple of things. How does intel do against ATI in the oem department? 3DFX didn't go under due to the lack of innovation, but because they let their success get to their heads and decided to exclusively make cards based on their chips. Thats where the TNT and TNT2 chips flooded the market.

Also, I think nVidia and Matrox are more innovative. nVidia brought us Hardware T&L and then the programmable shaders. Matrox brought us Hardware Bump Mapping and now Displacement Mapping. Even Imagination tech tried it bringing us Tile based rendering but they made the mistake of designing the card around that feature instead of having it as just a feature. May be ATI has done something, I can't think of it from the top of my head though.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 25, 2002 1:15:33 PM

I just mentioned what ATI has brought. Way back ATI was the first to make playing DVD feasible on a PC without a hardware DVD decoder card. ATI brought bandwidth saving technology to the desktop market with HyperZ. ATI also introduced programmable AA to the desktop PC. They introduced an innovative Anisotropic filtering technique that only filters what's clearly visible. They introduced the first "adaptive" de-interlacing technique that analyzes the pixels in a DVD and applies a filter to each seperately so that the entire frame is crisp and clear.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 25, 2002 3:22:56 PM

Yes but these are not directly to what the world most demands. However isn't HyperZ another way of making the Xbar Mem Controller feature?

--
I can't beleive Dungeon Siege has a pitchfork weapon called "Hoe"! :lol: 
May 25, 2002 4:31:05 PM

Yes, but HyperZ was around in the original Radeon before the GF3 introduced LMA.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 25, 2002 6:25:58 PM

AMD_Man, you keep on saying ATi is the market leader and that is a flawed statement. During the most recent reading, Nvidia had slightly over 60% market share and ATi had ~40% market share. (This is in desktop) I have to say, it is extremely unlikely that either ATi or Nvidia will go under. It'd be more likely that AMD go under than ATi. First of all Nvidia doesn't have the supply like Intel and they also don't have that much of an advantage. Intel is the behomoth, but Nvidia is only like a bigger brother, that bullys a bit.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek: 
May 25, 2002 9:31:07 PM

Quote:
Bad trolls Bad trolls... Whacha gonna do... Whacha gonna do when they post here too

id like to second that statement...

<b><font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s drivers are like a broken faucet, they both keep on leaking...</b> :cool:
May 26, 2002 12:09:05 AM

Quote:
Let me guess, you buy Nvidia products because "ROFL geforce4 ownz j00 its s0 fast d00d!"? Nvidia has done nothing for the video card industry lately, and if you can't see that the geforce4 is nothing more than a souped up geforce3 (which was a souped up geforce2) then I'm most likely just wasting my time replying


Usually I dont post in the videocard forums, too much flaming, but I noticed this young scramp ati trying to make a name for himself.

This quote above.....I will say but one thing about it.



If you think the gf3 is just a souped up gf2, you are an idiot.


That is all.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 26, 2002 12:18:49 AM

pay attention to ...

or my flame-thrower mouse might come here to flame evrywhere everyone.     :smile:


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
May 26, 2002 12:26:12 AM

est-ce que ca va, bana?


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
May 26, 2002 1:10:10 AM

Well, i got my point across that GF3 isn't a GF2, so my work is done. Um, how do I bring shame to Ati loyalists.....I'm anything but.

Sig of the week.
a b U Graphics card
May 26, 2002 2:54:01 AM

You are truely stupid, comparing a recently released 4600 to a year old 8500. ATI simply hasn't released their latest product yet. And the 8500 was made to compete with the original GeForce 3.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
May 26, 2002 12:13:43 PM

HyperZ is nice, but it isn't "revolutionary", if there is such a thing. This isn't just my opinion, but the feature was crept in by ATI. There weren't too many bangs and whistles in its arrival. The rest are just DVD features, which I don't put too much emphasis on. Perhaps some people do, but I haven't put a PC in my living room and I don't watch DVD's in my PC in the bedroom. I like watching them on a big telly.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 26, 2002 12:26:41 PM

I like watching DVDs and TV in a smaller window on my 19" monitor as I do homework. :smile:

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 26, 2002 1:13:12 PM

I wasn't talking about you just who ever said it first, you are anything but an ATI loyalist.
May 26, 2002 5:35:38 PM

Phew :smile: .

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
May 26, 2002 10:31:25 PM

yes, but i make no effort to, it is a sort of faculty
like faces or numbers recalls...     :smile:

funny things, memories...


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 27, 2002 2:03:37 AM

The really sad part about all this flaming, is none of it matters, and no one should really care. You got ATI and Nvidia both making cards for different people. ATI is more like AMD because they are cheaper and fast. Nvidia is like Intel, more expensive but clearly the winner in the end result. On this site no AMD can top the 2.4 gig P4, and that's a fact, but I'm not saying I care, it's just a fact.
Certainly ATI is not going under anytime soon, I had their graphics card in my computer in 1988 and they are still around. I think ATI has some great features in their 8500 but in RAW speed, I still saw benchmarks in real gaming situations where it lost the fps battle. If it was the true GF3 ti500 killer, it sure didn't impress me enough in benchmarks for me to go out and buy one because the GF4 was already out. ATI might be great, but they are too slow in developing their products. Nvidia is just too fast. They already have a newer card coming out around August I hear. With this news, ATI is going to probably release a so called GF4 killer, but Nvidia will already be releasing a GF5 or whatever, that's not my opinion, just seems like fact. Similar to AMD releasing their XP2100+ chip as Intel reaches the 2.4 gig Northwood core blowing the pants off of the AMD. Although the XP might handle things more efficiently, speed is what we all want and care about. When AMD matches Intel clock to clock, then we will see the true victor. Computer [-peep-] comes out so fast anymore, why bother bickering about what's better or what's faster right at this second. Clearly the GF4 4600 is the fastest 3D card right now. Someone said it's certainly not 2 1/2 times better than the ATI but clearly it kinda is. It gets about 50% more fps in many different games. I think that any game is playable at 30fps if it's a solid 30fps so, if the ATI 8500 is getting 49.XX fps compared to the GF4 95.xx or whatever, price may come into play, but it simply shows that the GF4 will have a far longer shelf life IN your computer than the ATI, and that's obvious. My GF2 Pro 64 meg card plays RTCW fine, but try playing Dungeon Siege on it...LOL I get around 12 fps solid....and it's obvious that the card is heading out the door very soon. Same with ATI 8500......if it's getting 49.xx fps now, it's not going to get that in Unreal 2 unless certain features are turned off. Hopefully it will look like the Gamecube x2 graphic wise. Not much else to say I guess.
May 27, 2002 5:33:45 AM

Quote:
ATI might be great, but they are too slow in developing their products.


Why this summer ATi will have a Mobile Radeon 8500 with Vertex and Pixel shaders before nvidia ?

You GeForce Ti4xxx is faster then my R8500 but my R8500 is the king of Aniso baby :cool:
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 27, 2002 5:49:14 AM

Well, I could care less about mobile computers.....most people do not play 3d games on mobile computers. For those that do, good for you. I just know not many do.
May 27, 2002 11:33:50 AM

ATI has no plans on releasing a GF4 killer. They're skipping that semi-generation and releasing a product that will compete with nVidia NV30. In essence, a "GF5" killer.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 27, 2002 3:31:04 PM

Pfff, Mobile. I have never ever bought a mobile, nor will. Such big bs- even when I goto college I won't buy one.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by flamethrower205 on 05/27/02 11:31 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 27, 2002 5:09:41 PM

Quote:
Basic fact (ok, basic opinion), the only that is/was keeping ATI alive is the fact that they make video capture and multimedia cards.

ATI has deep penetration in the OEM and integrated fields, as well as have intrests in the consol market. They have DVD decoding better than some decoder cards, and a broad range of products for most price ranges.

Quote:
Everyone knows that the GF's offer superior performance, for slighly more money (in some cases).

There were several periods of time where AMD had superior performance and cost less, but Intel didn't go out of business.

Quote:
ATI has been renowned for making "not so good" drivers (until very recently).

Ok, so now they're making great drivers... and this is a problem because...?

Quote:
this is just what I predict happening if Nvidia can produce GF's with video capture capabilities.

Interesting theory, but it takes a lot more than simply not being the best performing product on the market to wipe out the competition. Price is an issue, as is other aspects of the market as well, such as budget, integrated, and mobile systems, as well as consols.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader
May 27, 2002 7:23:13 PM

Ok, assume hypothetically this: Intel comes out w/ P4 at 3Ghz, X86-64, better FPU, and it costs less than the competing sledgehammer, and beats it. Then AMD is in deap trouble. If NV came out w/ all those funky vid supports, and made their cards cheaper and better at that price than the Ati's, the ati will be in trouble. However, merely putting on extra video options won't do much.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
May 27, 2002 10:19:18 PM

Wicce or Wicca?        :smile:


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
!