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.
Page 7 of 19
  1. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    You also never know what the future holds. Nvidia made good use of the money they got from the X-Box and ATI is in a similar situation with the X-Box 2. It's not quite the same since the original was PC based so the technology transferred pretty directly to their cards, but it will be interesting as always.
     
    vurbal, Jun 24, 2004
    #121
  2. JSRife

    JSRife Guest

    It just amazes me the top of the line video cards now, starting with the X800 and 6800Ultra cost over $350 and then you have the 9800Pro In the $200 range. It's a known fact these 3 cards are top of the line and play games wonderfully. Then on the other hand you can go and buy a Playstation 2 or Xbox for only $149 and they probably play these newer games almost as good as these video cards costing way more. Does it cost alot to make a video card or something? for top of the line? Is it a marketing tactic, they know People will pay? Are these processors inside PS2 and Xbox cheaper to make? It's kinda sad though when they are doing the exact same thing as the video cards as far as gaming goes, and that's what video cards main purpose is, to play games and that's PS2 and Xbox main purpose, Graphic wise they are on the same level. What's inside those vide game consoles?
     
    JSRife, Jun 27, 2004
    #122
  3. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Like I said before about comparing between generations and such ... true the 98P was one of the top cards of its time its nowhere near the level of the X800 -- its a full generation behind the latest and greatest

    First you're comparing between generations now you're comparing between devices? Consoles dont come anywhere near PC game for two reasons (1) the dp/resolutions of a TV is nothing to worry about and (2) AA/Ansio for TV games is ... uh... easy.

    Reminds me of the the "every video card should polay any game" -- not the case... and you cant compare between devices!!!
     
    Praetor, Jun 27, 2004
    #123
  4. Nephilim

    Nephilim Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    13,161
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Compare Max Payne side by side with a PS2 on a television and a PC and the difference will become abundantly clear.

    You seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy theory to defraud people buying these latest gen video cards. Do you actually believe that the card makers are pulling the wool over millions of tech savvy people's eyes by charging $500 for a card that does nothing special?
     
    Nephilim, Jun 28, 2004
    #124
  5. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Even besides the technical requirements, there's a whole list of reasons why you can't compare a PC card to "equivalent" technology in a console. Costs for promotion, packaging, distribution, and the like aren't paid for by the video chip manufacturer. Sony and Micro$haft are responsible for that, and neither company expects to make much, if any, profit from selling hardware. The money is in licensing fees paid for by software companies and passed on to you in the price of the games. That doesn't even take into account the lifespan of a console graphics chip compared to that of a video card, which I won't get into since this is off topic already.
     
    vurbal, Jun 28, 2004
    #125
  6. otester

    otester Guest

    ATI get their money from the Nintendo Gamecube!!!!!1
     
    otester, Jun 28, 2004
    #126
  7. JSRife

    JSRife Guest

    I am just saying, I think it is funny the PS2 comes out when? 2001? 3-4 years later the machine is still playing awesome newest games with no problems at all. I realize the top Computer games for the PC are better, but not a whole lot better, they are comparable. I mean the PC version of a game on PS2 might have a few pretty colors the PS2 doesn't and the graphics may be a tad better, but overall they are about the same. You take a Video Card from 2001 and try to play new games, it will be total shit. It seems to me the Video game systems stay up to date longer than Video cards do. You take a new Video game system, lets say the PS3, it's not out yet, but I am just saying. The PS3 will be playing games with no problem for 4 years easy, even as the graphics get better along with the games getting better, how many generations of video cards will you go through in the life time of the PS3? As the games get better and better you will go through a few video cards while the game machine is still playing them with no problems.
     
    JSRife, Jul 3, 2004
    #127
  8. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Well I could say the same thing about a computer -- it doesnt take all that much processing power to play games with no AA, no ANSIO, 800x600 and prolly 24bit color so it's no doubt consoles can keep up.

    Uh....... dont see Doom3 coming out for PS2 anytime soon. For that matter, I dont see anything from PS2 (or any console) with anything more advanced that what would be considered DirectX7

    WHOA! Dang dude .... take GTA3 for instance -- if you can run the PS2 version at 1600x1200 lemme know ;P

    There's a reason it plays like crap -- those older procs dont have native dyanamic volumetric processing capability and have to brute force it -- which they done have the clock speed to do either.

    Again, like I said.... "getting better" needs to be taken with a grain of salt ... no AA, no ANSIO, low-resolution ... suddenly "getting better" doesnt seem all that great.

    I might consider eating my words if (a noncrippled version of) Doom3 comes out for a console.
     
    Praetor, Jul 3, 2004
    #128
  9. Nephilim

    Nephilim Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    13,161
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    116
    There's a very, very simple reason for this. The hardware for PS2 has remained the same for that 4 years. There's no variable. The games are all made to run on a standard hardware spec.

    The hardware advances for PC's take place at an incredibly fast pace. The game developers are constantly pushing to make the most of these advances in their new games so, as a consequence, the older generation of hardware gets left further and further behind.

    Comparing PS2 to PC is apples to oranges.
     
    Nephilim, Jul 3, 2004
    #129
  10. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Prolly closer to comparing apples with pictures of apples.
     
    Praetor, Jul 3, 2004
    #130
  11. otester

    otester Guest

    i like apples just as much as I like oranges thank you and that applies to pics of apples and apples thankyou very much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    otester, Jul 3, 2004
    #131
  12. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Lets not drift too much off topic ;-)
     
    Praetor, Jul 3, 2004
    #132
  13. otester

    otester Guest

    just wanted to prove my point, some people prefer apples to oranges and oranges to apples, just like ATI and NVIDIA.
     
    otester, Jul 4, 2004
    #133
  14. JSRife

    JSRife Guest

    The point I was trying to make is....If you are a big time gamer, the gaming systems don't get out dated as fast as a Video Card. Technologys are different yes, but who cares about technology when the games are looking nothing short of great. As far as the greatest video card having better graphics over the PS2 or Xbox or so on, I would agree totally. You compare a Video Game machine 4 years old to a brand new $400 Video card it better have better graphics, the sad thing is, the graphics aren't kicking it's ass, just a little better. When the PS3 does arrive on the shelves it will be matching the X800 or Nvidia 6800, that's the other sad thing about it all. And the PS3 will be playing up to date games for years easy and by this time you will have bought 2 generations of video card since the x800 and 6800...Funny stuff...As far as Video Resolution on the screen on a Video game machine, I got a 35 Inch flat screen tv, it will look good enough, I'm sure of it.
     
    JSRife, Jul 4, 2004
    #134
  15. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    You missed my comment about console games looking "great". No offense to console fans -- consoles fill a very important niche but there isnt a snowball's chance in hell that we'll be seeing a game like Doom3, Painkiller or FarCry out on consoles (not to mention damn near any RTS game) -- hell even an older game like UT99 -- if you can get it to run at 1280x1024 on a console lemme know ;-)

    I dunno what to say to you man. I really dont. This is so much like the "video cards are all the same" argument.... have you seen the shit comin' from ... hell, even then GeForce3? Dont get me wrong, for whatever consoles cost nowadays and the fact that they have a "standard" hardware platform, consoles fill a very important niche but ... damn -- how can you just sit (or stand hehe) there and say console graphics can even hold a candle of PC graphics? Hell, anything since GeForce4Ti (~Radeon9500+) will kick a console around left right and centre. I would strongly advise you spend a quick 5 minutes on google searching up shots of Doom3, UT2004, FarCry, Painkiller, Halflife2 or whatnot ... then factor in the fact they arent running on some puny 800x600 resolution -- now you can argue that you dont see a difference between those graphics and console graphics and I have no problem with that -- it's a matter of perception and "exposure" but at a technical level, console graphics are nothing to be impressed with next to a good tower. Hell, I'll even save you the trouble:

    FarCry
    http://www.levels4you.com/sections/farcry/pictures/ss_315.jpg
    http://www.levels4you.com/sections/farcry/pictures/ss_313.jpg
    http://www.levels4you.com/sections/farcry/pictures/ss_314.jpg

    UT2004
    http://www.planetunreal.com/ut2004/screenshots/02.jpg
    http://www.planetunreal.com/ut2004/screenshots/06.jpg
    http://www.planetunreal.com/ut2004/screenshots/15.jpg

    Doom3
    http://www.doomworld.com/shots/doom3_120603/01.jpg
    http://www.doomworld.com/shots/doom3_031904/revenant.jpg
    http://www.doomworld.com/shots/doom3_092203/revenant.jpg

    HalfLife2 (ugh! ;-P)
    http://www.halflife2.net/image_files/screenshots/06.jpg
    http://www.halflife2.net/image_files/screenshots/01.jpg
    http://www.halflife2.net/image_files/screenshots/22.jpg

    Painkiller
    http://www.strategyinformer.com/shooters/pictures/screenshots/painkiller-9.jpg
    http://www.strategyinformer.com/shooters/pictures/screenshots/painkiller-12.jpg
    http://www.strategyinformer.com/shooters/pictures/screenshots/painkiller-4.jpg

    Ground Control 2
    http://www.games-fusion.net/images/groundcontrol2_1.jpg
    http://www.games-fusion.net/images/groundcontrol2_7.jpg
    http://www.games-fusion.net/images/groundcontrol2_9.jpg

    CnC Generals - Zero Hour
    http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/gallery/ss177.jpg
    http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/gallery/ss154.jpg
    http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/gallery/ss138.jpg

    Now that I've covered the practical, "real world" portion, let's look at theoretical and have a white-paper comparison; I dunno which you want to favor over the other and I'll be glad to decimate both but I would think the Xbox have a superior hardware platform so let's look at that. It's a fair statement to make that the XGPU powering the Xbox, while on paper is supposed to be a modified GF3Ti in reality is sits between the GF3Ti and GF4Ti. Let's pull up some specs:

    XGPU
    100-125 Million Triangles/sec
    3.7 Billion AA samples/sec
    5.3GB/sec memory bandwidth
    32MB video card

    GeForce4Ti4600
    136 Millio triangles/sec
    4.8 Billion AA samples/sec
    10.4GB/sec memory bandwidth
    128MB video card

    Now on paper even a 3 generation old video card will teach the Xbox a lesson in performance -- again the Xbox deserves credit for being able to pack quite a bit of performance into that little wee box etc but it doesnt hold a candle to even a 2 year old tower. And let's not forget that the GF4Ti was but a DirectX8.1 card only and has no direct support for DirectX9... let's have a look at that. From Microsoft.com

    From a coding perspective, DX9 makes all the fancy special effects that used to be a pain to implement in DX8 fairly simple (and better looking -- hence PC GameDev has an initial visual advantage) and from a playback perspective, DX9 can be summarized in two words: dynamic and volumetric -- everyone seems to like to tout the dynamic part of the spec' and yeah that's fine and dandy -- the big muscles come out with the volumetric shit though (if you've ever done 3D rendering in a volumetric world, you'll know what I mean).

    Perhaps... but get this: the X800 and 6800 are available now and I can play these damn fine games now. By the time the PS3 comes out (when is that for argument sake?), PC architecture will have evolved quite radically with DDR2 and PCIX -- now unless consoles will be shipping with either of those, it's no longer a contest like it is now.

    I suspected as much. "35 inch" doesnt mean shit -- honest! You can have a 10 billion inch TV and it will still run at 800x600 -- translation: a halfass resolution, certainly not worthy of the video chip in that box (seriously, when the GF3 came out, the favored resolution was 1024x768 -- the XGPU is technically superior to the GF3 but because of the limitations of TVs they can only push out 640x480 and 800x600). Also, dont forget I can set my tower to play on a 35 inch tv too -- of course i have to sacrifice the resolution to drop to that level but i guess it's doable. Now it's fine and dandy that you like your consoles :) So if you didnt get what I just said i'll simplify: the size of the screen doesnt make a difference -- I was talking about resolution which is screensize independent. Now if you have your console and you're happy with it, that's all that matters to you and that's kewl -- just dont start a PC vs Console rant without being prepared/open-minded (i.e., you started off this entire comparison by making a statement and end it by making an opinion)

    Cheers.
    _X_X_X_X_X_[small]ASUS A7N8X-X, XP2500+ OC'd to XP3200+
    Samsung 1024MB, PC2700 OC'd to PC3200
    480GB [3x160GB, 7200, 8MB]
    EVGA, GeForce4 Ti4600 128MB

    Rules and Policies: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487[/small]
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2004
    Praetor, Jul 4, 2004
    #135
  16. JSRife

    JSRife Guest

    Not meaning to argue with you Praetor, but Far Cry is out on PS2 Xbox, dunno about Gamecube. I heard they are making Doom 3 for Xbox, however PS2 and Gamecube can't handle it, but again these are 3-4 year old Systems should be expected. Now on the subject of the PS3, don't know the release date on it, guessing this Christmas or next for sure it should be out, and it will be handling any game with no problems guarenteed. It will be comparable even more to CPU Video cards than the current Game systems, which the current game systems are very impressive seeing how dated they are and still giving us present games, well almost all games that is.
     
    JSRife, Jul 4, 2004
    #136
  17. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    By all means, argue! It keeps us all sharp!

    I know about Xbox's Doom3 -- which is why I said above (or at least I think I said), "a noncrippled version" -- perhaps at a resolution of 800x600 (normal TV's maximum), they may be the same (and at that I seriously doubt but I'll explain that in a second) -- the difference really kicks in when you kick up the resolution ... the Xbox simply will not be able to keep up with the raw pixel (and more importantly, texel) count. There's simply no way; above I outlined the GeForce4Ti as well as the XGPU -- on paper the GF4Ti royally gives the XGPU an asskickin (and I'm pretty sure you would agree in practise it also does) -- and Doom3 runs like CRAP (and I mean utter CRAP -- even on 800x600) on a GeForce4Ti4600 (i.e., negative framerates) -- so it is a fair assumption to make that, if Doom3 ships for Xbox, there isnt a snowball's chance in hell it will be the same version (and I dont mean levels and stuff -- I mean graphical depth and quality) as the PC version. In all honesty anything short of a 9800XT/5950U will choke out on Doom3.

    As for FarCry -- I didnt know they had a PS2 version (see? it pays to argue hehe) -- but again, even if they were identical in graphical intensity (which I doubt but am unable to prove because I dont have the specs on the PS2 graphcial processor) -- the PC version pulls ahead if only for the fact that one can play at a much more "enjoyable" 1280x1024 rather than a limited 800x600.

    Very true however keep in mind that (a) TVs are, by far and large, limited to 800x600 resolution and (b) it's not like PC Architecture and gaming will just "pause" while the PS3 has its moment in the sun -- people will still be expanding on different advancements and stuff.

    About your argument about the "35 inch tv" -- you do have a valid point and I would suspect that many "casual gamers" would agree with you in that "bigger screen makes up for smaller resolution" -- to a degree this is personal taste and such however purely from a technical perspective (without getting into the architectures of TVs and such), consoles, although limited to this crummy resolution -- do do an excellent job of crunching out very nice graphics and since i dont spend much time with consoles i wont knock it too much -- purely from a technical point however, if we define "better" roughly as "better visuals" -- the "limitations" of a TV turn out to be the saving grace for consoles -- by using a lower resolution, consoles can get away with showing less details and special effects per frame than on most computers which in turn translate (roughly) to smoother gameplay and (perceptually) better/equal graphics -- of course if you compare them both on equal footing (i.e., PC playing via TV-out at 800x600), again there's not a snowball's chance the Xbox can keep up :)
     
    Praetor, Jul 4, 2004
    #137
  18. otester

    otester Guest

    Gamecube has graphics nearly the same (or the same) as the XBOX i have played on it, on various games, the qualitys very good. PS2, the games will run on the PS2 because the game will be made to play on it to satisfaction, but the graphics wont be amazing compared to the Gamecube and XBOX.
     
    otester, Jul 4, 2004
    #138
  19. Praetor

    Praetor Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    118
    That is, however a subjective statement .... do you happen to know the hardware powering the Gamecube? I dont which is why i refrained from commenting about it which is why i made generic console statements :)
     
    Praetor, Jul 4, 2004
    #139
  20. JSRife

    JSRife Guest

    I know the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube are pretty much putting out the same quality graphics overall. I never cared for the Gamecube, I use to have one and the Controller on that sucks the big one. From what I take in, the Xbox is pure power, it has a Hard-drive built in and the most memory, the Gamecube is bassically the same thing just stripped down alot with no DVD play back option, because it has those tiny little wanna be disc, and the PS2 is just getting old it's the oldest current system out, but the Controllers on PS1 and PS2 are world class. I will say this much though, I had Soul Calibur 2 for the Gamecube and I played Soul Calibur 2 for the PS2 and the Gamecubes version was a tiny bit better graphic wise, I don't know if it was the difference in tv quality, but yeah the Gamecube was a little more colorful. I think the PS3 and Xbox 2 are going to shock the world when they come out, they will be world class for sure. I don't know if Nintendo is making a Gamecube 2 or what? haven't heard anything, I guess right now it's hard to tell who will have the better system when the new ones arrive.
     
    JSRife, Jul 4, 2004
    #140
Page 7 of 19
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page