I know they are both on par...they're bassicaly in this type of "war" and no one is giving up...no one is lowering prices to compete...so...they are really neck to neck. I know pretty much about Graphic Cards but compared to you people (this is aimed at PC pro's here on AD), I think I am an idiot...anyway, that's beside the point... I now have the ATI RADEON X600 Pro...which is a good graphics card...just cuz its not the top of the line of anything like that doesnt mean its bad cuz it CAN run todays games and it can run them very well! (apparently...lol) but what I am really hoping to get out of this thread is...how can I keep track with gfx cards? I mean like, they are always newer/better cards and...bassically I just want to know when it is the best time to buy a gfx card with spending the least amount of money to get the longest lasting gfx card...that way in the longrun, it is cheaper to own a PC than consoles...if possible sum1 plz give me the same tip for CPU's...and do AMD cpu's work on my mobo? (Asus P5GDC Deluxe) Thx, in advance...
your motherboard is an intel based motherboard (socket LGA 775) so an amd processor wont work in there
by "lasts" u mean that it wont be in its prime or games will be too powerful (in other words, games will need 512 MB gfx cards and up)? I highly doubt that 256 MB's are obsolete in 11 months-512 Mb... I guess I should rephrase my question: When will my gfx card be obsolete?
well you can always play most games at the minimum res for many years look at a 32mb card it still works with the majority of games
LMFAO!! 32mg.. pstt.. my brother has a 32mg in a p3 system.. and in black hawk down.. the people flote in the air.. /(no vehicles) it is quite funny,.
Quote: "look at a 32mb card it still works with the majority of games" ______ I don't think so...but 64 MB does indeed but that sounds like very good news to me, is it? Does it mean that my gfx card should last more than say the 360's life cycle?(obviously my gfx card will play those games of the future on "minimum quality" but at least it will play them!, right?)
i have a old p3 1.0ghz system with a ati rage card(AGP 4x) with 16mb's of ddr, and i can play halo with it, not the greatest performance mind you, but it can none the less, the point is ur card should suffise for at least another 11months to 2yrs, and going back to the thread topic go with a nvidia card if u can they almost always perform better than ati cards, thats my oppion and a proven fact. =) and i agree with jaysfan it will most likly outlive a 360, they havent been out that long and already so many issues.
yes your gpu should be fine for now,but not 2 years...wtf...all current gpu's will be useless once vista comes out..unless ofcourse you want the game to look crappy...cuz there gonna be dx10 made...so everybody here is gonna be looking at getting a geforce 8 series soon...or watever ati brings out,and this is why i prefer consoles...you can use them for 5 years without upgrading...
Going back to: ATI Vs Nvidia I have had nvidia and ATI and personally i prefer NVidia just because of its driver support. I mean any one with ATI cataylst will know how unstable it can be. But thats just my opinion.
Ahh wouldnt go that far. With nvidia you get better support. Id say ATI cards for the same price seem to have an edge. But the thing is there pretty much on par with eachother. There will [bold]never[/bold] be a winner.
I'll say ATI radeon series are the best cheaper then geforce series and do the same or een better thing
As a generalrule, ATi cards are about even with nVidia counterparts, maybe 2-3% slower overall, but rarely a noticeable difference. However, with two cards, Crossfire is a bit crap, whereas SLi is pretty good. Overall, though I side with ATi, because although they may appear marginally slower, image quality is far better, with less "shimmer" and blurring on certain applications. Couple that with ATi cards being able to do HDR and AA at the same time (nVidia can't) and ATi's all-in-wonder range and Avivo software, Team red give the overall better product imho, not faster, but better.
Quote: "As a generalrule, ATi cards are about even with nVidia counterparts, maybe 2-3% slower overall, but rarely a noticeable difference. However, with two cards, Crossfire is a bit crap, whereas SLi is pretty good. Overall, though I side with ATi, because although they may appear marginally slower, image quality is far better, with less "shimmer" and blurring on certain applications. Couple that with ATi cards being able to do HDR and AA at the same time (nVidia can't) and ATi's all-in-wonder range and Avivo software, Team red give the overall better product imho, not faster, but better." ________________ That's alot of backing for your information...it really does show that ur a AD addict! P.S. You actually taught me something!! Thanks!..I guess...
LOL you can't prance into a forum like this and say "ATi owns" without reasoning, so that was mine LOL. I am totally willing to acept that a 7900GTX or 7950GX2 may well get a few more frames per second, but it's so marginal that it rarely makes a difference, and besides, since nVidia cards give you a ower image quality, to match what your nvidia card gets, I just turn the settings down a bit on my ATi card, and oh look, I have even more frames per second than nVidia! To be fair, Dual graphics cards is an nVidia only domain, Crossfire can never keep up with SLi , but in all honesty, for simplicity, cooling and cost sake, I prefer my single expensive card. X1900XTs can be had for £240 now, that will beat two 7600GTs on a regular basis, because an X1900XT is pretty much on a par with a 7900GTX. Two 7600GTs cost about £250 as well.
even so if u over clocked a X1900XT u'd probably get the same performance as a 7900gtx, i'm more of a fan of nvidia but i'm really waiting to see what ati is gonna develop from its AMD/ATI merger. i agree they are very much even, ati eeks ahead of nvidia and vice -versa.
Yeah, well in some games you get better performance than a 7900GTX with an X1900GT let alone an XT, but in some games even an OC'ed X1900XT-X wouldn't outperform the 7900, that's just the way it goes, but overall, the superior image quality ATi offer is what wins it for me really.
I should have bought AMD CPU! I am PC Gamer first...and video editor gonna be second but Intel is still very good (better at video editing?)...and I prefer ATI because it's the brand I grew up with!! By grew up with, I mean my dad had this CD that said ATI so I was brainwashed to like ATI more than NVIDIA because I only realized who NVIDIA was when I started really learning about comps. Now, thats some good backing! (in terms of childhood) LOL! ___________________ Anyway, just to bring something else up. Does anyone know the gfx card company called Matrox?? Is matrox what follows after ATI and NVIDIA? (not that I care...that much) I am very basic in gfx cards (in other words stupid...compared to you afterdawnians) so all I look at is how much RAM there is on the gfx card as well as the price when I buy one...which I shouldn't...I wanna know more!! According to some comp pro in this store where I live that actually does explain stuff, there are other things to take into consideration (I thought so too but didn't know for sure) such as pipelines etc...can someone explain what these are to me as well as bringing up everything they know about gfx cards and explaining what they are? Thx, in advance...
