Nvidia vs ATI

No problem mate keep up the good work just smart yourself up a bit as i have no time for slackers.

Obvoius;y i use to be in the army and no matter how good as you are nothing is enough for the best master
Qick March

John179

 

I am aiming for a top-spec board and so a midspec one will not suit, but i don't mean about the cost of the extra electricity, I mean the huge waste of energy resources, when there is supposed to be an upcoming energy crisis.

 

sammorris run for govermant or let them do the worring you get wat is best for you

John179

 

i dont go by reviews because its another persons opinion which might not be the same as yours, a lot of people said Silent Hunter 2 was shit but i think its wicked and some people dis half-life but thats another brilliant game.

 

Good on you mate

John179

 

That signature animation is scaring me..... THERE'S SO MANY OF THEM!! AH-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

 

He scares me

 

So.... that's why he's there???

Good god, this is so off-topic ;-)

 

No problem mate we all go off the topic from time to time specially if a good looking bear comes you way.

John179

 

No problem Praetor you know i was just joking as you know i hold the deepest respect for yourself.You have helped me many times and for that and the work you do on this site i really appreciate that.I was just having a few seconds of what i call humour.I know strange man but you are right i will keep to the safety valve.
My apologies

John179

 

DOOM3 doesn't run better on nVidia because their GL Driver is any better - although ATI's GL driver is 12 months old. It's because nVidia and ID worked hand in hand on the engine. DOOM3 supports functions that are specific to the nVidia GPU.

ATI have released their 4.9 drives 4 weeks in advance - they aren't official - have no support - no WHQL - but they have improved GL drivers - they are supposed to run a lot better in DOOM3 - personally - on my 9800Pro I didn't see much difference - but they seem bug free and don't run any worse.

Also don't forget that DOOM3 is capped at 60 Fps - regardless - and the latest ATI's should hit that.

Once Half-Life 2 appears this will all happen again as ATI will have better performance.....blah blah blah...it's all about bragging rights.

 

To steer on topic again, through fear of being decapitated by Praetor, I have a friend who plays UT04 (sorry its the only high-system-requirement game i own myself and have first hand experiences with, and who i have friends who have to compare with...)
with a GeForce FX 5200 128MB. I have a Radeon 9200 256MB. Yes it has extra memory, but i'm told that doesn't make a vast difference. My GPU absolutely trashes his. Er, the game is a "how it's mena to be played" game, so is doom 3.

I can further back this up, with results on a technical forum (i think the UT04 official forum)
Where they tested various GPUs. If I remember rightly, the results were:

9200-FX5200: Radeon wins
9600-FX5600: Radeon winds
9700-FX5900: GeForce wins
9800XT-FX5950 Ultra: Radeon wins
and even possibly
X800Pro-6800ultra: Radeon wins (just)

I leave you to meditate.

 

9200-FX5200: Radeon wins - FX5200 is a joke of a card - should never have been called a DX9 card.

9600-FX5600: Radeon wins - FX5600 again is a crap card - even the Ultra version is slow - the ATI 9600 is decent as far as budget cards go.

9700-FX5900: GeForce wins - at the moment if you want the best bang for your money the FX5900 is the way to go - have seen ASUS ones going cheaper than the slower FX5900XT. You can pick them up for £120 - that's going to be like $160 or so - BARGAIN.

9800XT-FX5950 Ultra: Radeon wins - 9800XT is a very fast card - so that isn't suprising.

X800Pro-6800ultra: Radeon wins - X800's are the fastest card I have seen so far - they have a small fan in comparison to 6800 and it very quiet. 3DMark2003 scores are huge on them.

UT2004 runs on almost anything fast - even onboard Gfx will run it smooth - must be very scalable.

The picture will be clearer when the Catalyst 4.9 drivers are official with the better Open GL driver, along with how Half-Life2 runs on the new Geforce Cards - my bet is there will be very little difference between the two.

Personally I would rather have nVidia - just a personal preference - but I got my 9800Pro for £95 - too big of a bargain to pass up.

 

That rather contradicts your signature, finding a bargain as good as that!!

Well i did mean X800 pro, the XT's "little" brother.

UT04 does run at low res fine on stuff like onboard 32MB AGP 4x, but i like to play hectic games at very high resolutions because of my particular screen D) and so 33 characters at High detail at 1920x1200 does require some graphical punch.

 

I'm happy with my GeForce FX5600ultra.

 

Jesus Christ Lads Take It Easy - Never seen a Forum go off one quicker than this place.

At anyone calling me a Fanboy - bollox - owned nVidia cards since I had a Voodoo2 - only got an ATI because it was a 9800Pro for £95 - thats about 4 months ago! All I had was a GF4Ti4200 at the time. Before that a GF3Ti500. Before that GF2-MX.

NEPHILIM

I agree they aren't like for like comparisons - but then I didn't make them - he said "I leave you to meditate" I just commented on what he put. And unless they make strides on the 4.9 Drivers I don't think it will make much difference.

PRAETOR

God Almighty boss take a chill pill.

4.7 Drivers are WHQL - 4.8 might be, not sure, but not officially released yet - try Guru3D. 4.9 are out now, but in Sept officially with WHQL, but they are on ATI's website as a Doom3 stopgap.

"At a recent NVIDIA Editors' Day, id Software CEO Todd Hollenshed announced that DOOM 3 will be capped to 60 frames per second in the rendering engine.

John Carmack - "The game tic simulation, including player movement, runs at 60hz, so if it rendered any faster, it would just be rendering identical frames. A fixed tic rate removes issues like Quake 3 had, where some jumps could only be made at certain framerates. In Doom, the same player inputs will produce the same motions, no matter what the framerate is."

Maybe it can be switched off for benching? Or maybe they changed their minds.

"9200-FX5200: Radeon wins - FX5200 is a joke of a card - should never have been called a DX9 card."

Look - don't call me a child - before the FX5200 was even on the shelf we had a guy from a card manufacturer in showing us the range they had - shouldn't be called a DX9 card was his honest oppinion - if you disagree fine - don't stoop to insults though please.

5600 and 5600 Ultra are also pants - 5900XT was the best budget card nVidia came up with and was almost in my machine till I got my ATI for £50 less - my heart said nVidia my head said £50 saving.

Once again I didn't make the comparisons - just commented on the ones in the other post.

Don't really see how saying the X800 is the fastest card I have seen is raising the level of fanboyism - it is the fastest card I have seen - in general it has a way smaller fan and runs almost silent - that's just a statement of fact. We benched them both on the fastest current Intel and AMDFX CPU's - ATI was the fastest - that's all I am saying.

Sorry I missed one -

No I don't know HL2 will run better - I made an assumption based around HL2 being a partner game with ATI - the same as Doom3 with nVidia.

I can't be bothered with the last comment.

Sorry I missed another one...

The bragging rights was aimed at nVidia and ATI not at anyone on this forum.

ALso to remove the fanboy accusation - read what I put at the end of that post - Personally I prefer nVidia.
_
_X_X_X_X_X_[small]I don't know what I am doing.[/small]