1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Nvidia vs ATI

Discussion in 'PC hardware help' started by otester, Jun 6, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Interesting thing is that OpenGL used to be an ATi dominated area
     
  2. sammorris

    sammorris Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    33,336
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Were they the days before nvidia? lol
    To call one of the best fps games Shit is not an opinion i share. I understand that nVidia and their drivers/openGl will mean that they will give better performance on games like that, but ATi do overall have problems with their drivers: resolution support and of course memory management etc.

    I'm still sticking with ATi for the time being, partly because, though they may not be quite as fast, they achieve speed subtly. Nvidia have never done that. I would rather not have my ears notice that i have a powerful GPU, when i'm typing out a spreadsheet, say.

    Oh yeah, and just one extra thing, i use my pc an awful lot, in fact, probably (in a working week) about 54 hours a week.
    If i kept a 6800 ultra extreme for five years, that would be an extra 130W for 14,300 hours
    In short, it would cost an extra £200 on the electricity bill. That's quite substantial.
    Point concluded.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2004
  3. JSRife

    JSRife Guest

    I think a New Video card company needs to come out and destroy ATI and NVidia both and just call it a day. Maybe Microsoft or Intel or AMD could fit the bill.
     
  4. Xian

    Xian Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18134

    An article showing a list of 12 games will support Shader Model 3.0 (which only Nvidia has), as well as announced support by the Unreal Engine 3. This goes against one of ATI's main claims, that not many games support the newer Shader Model 3.0.

    What strikes me as interesting is the engine support. Next to iD's engines I would think that the Unreal engine is probably the second most licensed one in use and what many future games will be built on.
     
  5. otester

    otester Guest

    1. I think Matorx might be able to beat them both by waiting ages then releasing a next generation graphics card(s).

    2. Microsoft owns Intel, Intel and AMD, i think, should stay in the processor making thing.
     
  6. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Hell yeah! Dont forget that Matrox can destroy ATi and nVidia handsdown in the 2D market (maybe not so easily ATi as they were a business outfit to start) as they've simply have invested so damn much into the 2D arena (and before people make "silly" comments about 2D ... dont forget that with CAD/CAM stuff ..... speed is important sure but much more important is pixel precision... something Matrox is just plain silly good at)

    Perhaps but i'd say the 5800 was a fluke (a required one however). I'v had the opportunity to play with the ASUS V9999 (that's the ultra) and the ATi X800XT and to be honest they're both quiet cards.

    That's 1.26E-6 cents/sec difference.

    Point taken but UT's got a hell of a lot of a headstart (as well as their very impressive looking U3 engine).

    Matrox has shifted over to catering to the midrange workstation/business arena now. Their specialty was 2D and always will be.

    Do you know ANYTHING about computers or is this some strange "confuse the heck out of people"-spell??!
     
  7. buxton

    buxton Regular member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    If only Matrox could afford to get back into the 3D Arena! Bringing that 2D quality to a 3D image - now that would be something to behold. I was cleaning and throwing old crap just yesterday and stumbled across my old Matrox Mystique 2Mb card - those were the days - Matrox accelerated Tomb Raider :) Brings a tear to the eye. Can't see it happening though - fingers crossed though.

    It is a shame there isn't more competition - once 3DFX went it was all over really.
     
  8. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Aye I had me the 4MB Mystic and I think an 8MB <something else> (millenium maybe?) ... those WERE the days.

    Nah the Parheliea was their last half-attempt (the card is still better as a semi-workstation card tho).

    Nah there's enough competition as it is, ATi and nVidia make for a good matchup :)
     
  9. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I'd have to add that when 3DFX was around, they were Nvidia's only real competition. ATI made 3d cards, but not the kind of high-end stuff they do now. At that time ATI was the 800lb gorilla of the workstation market.
     
  10. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    They still are a player in that market although not of the same calibre as before (even to the pount where the Quadro is solid competition for the FireGLs) but back in the day, I'm no so sure i'd even say ATi was "better" than Matrox in the light-medium workstation arena .... ATi was a lot smaller and Matrox a lot bigger back then too
     
  11. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    While on the topic, can someone clarify as to which is the superior card, the 9700Pro or the 9600Pro, both 128MB models only. From what i understand the 9600Pro is a more advanced card but the 9700Pro is actually a better performer (otherwise, wtf is with the mobile versions?)
     
  12. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    That's true, and if I remember correctly, Matrox was the leader in video capture cards, which was a lot more expensive at that time.
     
  13. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Your memory serves you well :)
     
  14. sammorris

    sammorris Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    33,336
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Yeah, my first GPu was an onboard 8MB ATi Rage Pro. Oh how that will differ from my X800 XT!!
     
  15. buxton

    buxton Regular member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Radeon 9700 Pro R300 DX 9 325 620 256-bit 8x1
    Radeon 9700 R300 DX 9 275 540 256-bit 8x1
    Radeon 9600 XT RV360 DX 9 500 600 128-bit 4x1
    Radeon 9600 Pro RV350 DX 9 400 600 128-bit 4x1
    Radeon 9600 RV350 DX 9 325 400 128-bit 4x1
    Radeon 9600 SE RV350 DX 9 325 365 64-bit 4x1

    I assume the R300 is a DX9.0 card and R360/350 is a DX9.0b - PS2.0 and PS2.0b - just guessing on that - 9700 are faster than 9600XT. 9700Pro is similar to a 5900.
     
  16. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Ok so it does kinda look like ATi had a 256bit -->128bit trade there (kinda like the 9800 vs 5800). Now the wierd thing is, how come the 9700 was paired up against the Ti4600 (both in terms of price and chronologically) ... or was the 9700 and the 9700Pro two completely different things? I ask because the original 9700 was a DX8.1 card.
     
  17. ggamer

    ggamer Guest

    Though this is really late i think that Nvidia is better... drivers for linux come out about the same time as for windows.
     
  18. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Indeed there seems to be a lot more Linux-friendly infrastucture as far as nVidia drivers go ... maybe ATi is waiting for "more user demand" before devoting resources to Linux DDK? Dunno..
     
  19. buxton

    buxton Regular member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Apparently there is a petition on the net calling for ATI to get some Linux ATI drivers sorted. nVidia simply wastes ATI in Linux and I don't think there is much of an argument on that one.

    Also read today that ATI will have PS3.0 cards out before the end of the year!! Clearly they have realised the potential issues facing them on the horizon and are doing something about it.

    Me thinks if you are planning to upgrade - WAIT - there is going to be a tremendous choice of cards available. And prices are going to fall.

    Not sure what will happen to the newer ATI cards if PS3.0 ones do appear! They are going to be an older generation within 3 months. So it may well be nothing more than a rumour?
     
  20. otester

    otester Guest

    what the fusk is PS3.0
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page