Changes within the ATI vs NVidia scene

Discussion in 'Hardware Discussion & Support' started by No_Style, May 12, 2003.

  1. Asuka

    Asuka BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally posted by WyreTheWolf
    I might be mistaken... but, from what I understand the drivers that are being used on the 9800 Pro are not optimised, and are not actually using the extra 128MB of onboard memory... So, these tests would be showing the Radeon 9800 128MB version... more or less.

    Guess what? You are mistaken. No driver in the world will be able to get a speed increase out of the additional 128MB. Today's common apps and games don't even make full use of 128MB, so most times you're still fine with 64MB - unless you want to use 4xAA in 1600x1200, but who does that anyway? So while there is a small use for 128MB for those quality features at very high resolutions, there's absolutely no use to even double the memory... what would you want to use it for? 16xAA at 3200x2400 or something? Only high-end applications like Autocad or 3D Studio max would be able to make use of the 256MB at all - and for these apps, you'd better get an appropriate card anyway (like the FireGL or a Quadro, or even a Wildcat card). For common apps, though, 256MB is nothing more than a marketing gag (just like DX9 currently is as well) and won't you get the tiniest bit in performance increase, no matter which drivers you'll use.

    I use my PC for more than just gaming... a lot more than gaming... and in 2D the 4200, 4400, and 4600 BLOWS CHUNKS. I was using a Radeon 7500 64DDR before I bought this 4200... The speed increase was nice... but the quality of the 2D is pitiful, and I miss the razor sharp image quality of the 7500.

    You're using a very crappy 4200 then. There are a great deal more manufacturers that produce 4200 cards than there are those which produce ATI cards, so of course there is a much broader range in quality. So you apparently got one from the lower end quality spectrum. I can report only the exact opposite. February last year, I got myself a Leadtek GF4 MX, which might have had poor performance, but very nice 2D quality... which I only noticed when the 2D quality was very lacking in comparison when I got a HIS Radeon 8500 last September - so apparently I got an ATI card from the lower end spectrum there. Now that I have a Gainward Ti4800SE, 2D quality is great again, absolutely crystal clear.
    I'd say on both sides, ATI and nVidia, are cards which have poor 2D quality and also cards which have good 2D quality. The only card manfacturer where you can generalize that it always has great 2D quality is Matrox.
     
  2. WyreTheWolf

    WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL, no... not a crappy low end 4200... actually quite a high end 4200... It just isnt as sharp, and the color saturation isnt as high.

    I have used more nvidia, and ati products than I care to mention... Overall, ATi has a higher quality 2D.

    Everything from nVidia TNT2 to the 4800, from the Rage (non pro 4MB) to the 9700 Pro.

    and just about every card in between. I agree that Matrox has an absolutely beautiful 2D! ATi is a close second followed by nVidia.
     
  3. Vampyromaniac

    Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis

    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Messages:
    5,974
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who does that? Hmmm, I dunno . . . how about owners of 9700/9800's and fx5900's? Or did ya forget those?
    Well how about UT2003?
     
  4. WyreTheWolf

    WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What it basically comes down to... what is the fastest card that is available from nVIDIA?

    The Triplex Millinium Silver Geforce4 Ti 4800 128MB card...

    While this is an absolutely beautiful, and amazingly fast DirectX8 card... (I mean ... it is actually micro coated with silver!)

    [​IMG]
    :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:

    It doesnt compete with the Radeon 9700 Pro on any level. But I would still love to have it. Unfortunatly ... it isnt available to the US.

    And yes, I agree with what you said. ;)
     
  5. Necrosis

    Necrosis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,794
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Re: Re: Changes within the ATI vs NVidia scene

    Why do you keep spouting this same jibberish as like it's your ownly means of defense? So what if they do because we all know why they do! However, if they pull the samething as they did with their last release they will lose hold on their market share.

    Um, no if anything is going to push Nvidia ahead it will be the release of their 5900. Yes, it does beat the 9800 in a few benchmarks we have seen. When will the cards be available, will we have to wait months to get them like before? Well...like now???

    Here we go again..... Don't you remember Nvidia being a little peon GPU producer say around 1998 - 1999? How does the size of a company have anything to do with their products? IBM was the top dog of PC's a long time ago...are they now? You know Neon if the Radeon 9800 or the 10000 or whatever will be called puts the smack down on Nvidia you will run away with you tail tucked between your legs.

    Um..have you ever seen any benchmarks for a 9700 vs a 4600? How about the 5800 Ultra Nvidia Abitboy Vaporware that the CEO (was it?) even said himself it was a POS.

    ATI put Nvidia's ______ in the dirt and then Nvidia got back up and fell down again. Now their finally doing something positive. Good job Nvidia we all need a kick in the pants once in awhile. However, it's not over yet.
     
  6. WyreTheWolf

    WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well it appears that the Geforce FX 8900 Ultra got such great test results by cutting some MAJOR corners in the rendering. You can read the article outlining the problems found here.
     
  7. EvilTypeGuy

    EvilTypeGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Firstly, it was very subjective to say who's was better. For example, NVidia's algorithm has always worked better at angles that are multiples of 22.5 or other oddities, whereas ATi's *still* only works good at angles that are a multiple of 45. But, regardless of the past, the latest driver release from NVidia has pretty much silenced all the pundits. The latest 3.4's which of course are now out, are doing as much as anticipated.

    If you're a Linux user, ATi's cards are just about worthless. If you're a professional OpenGL user, ATi's cards are just about worthless. Why? Certainly not their hardware, their hardware is awesome! Well except for their pathetic decision to not support full 128-bit precision on the 9700/9800 ;) Their DVD Playback is great, etc. But their OpenGL drivers. Gah. Don't get me started.

    I'd own a 9800 Pro in a heartbeat if ATi had Linux drivers and Windows driver that worked equally well and especially OpenGL support that was better. They are so darn close to being good enough. But for me, I spend 90% of my time in Linux. Using professional grade OpenGL applications and writing things, NVidia wins hands down in that area. Maybe someday ATi will be there and when they are they will be a serious choice for me, but until then I'll have to stay with NVidia.
     
  8. Mac Daddy

    Mac Daddy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only that the PRICE TAG BRO:wtf:
    HERE DOH !!

    I have not only lost my support of Creative.....
    But shall INFER NVIDIA may soon follow ...

    Seems to me as an aspect of a "Mr. Burns" attitude.
    Although even he supported his product up to 95 until a short while ago ...
    Pretty good for an OS which I'm sure was an embarassment for him !!!
    So WASSUP CREATIVE ????????
    NVIDIA ?????????????????????


     
  9. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The Suspect Behavior

    3DMark's four game tests are deterministic, meaning they do the exact same thing every time so as to have comparable, defensible results.

    ha ha ha ha :D thats a joke the scores are all over the place it uses diffrent schders on diffrent cards etc...


    It's a synthetic benchmark that measures performance, designed to indicate how well a 3D GPU can render DX8/DX9 game code. In a game where you have six degrees of free movement, with a user controlled (vs. fixed) camera path, static clip planes would not work at all.


    more like dx9 code and ..3dmark2003 is still joke everyone still uses the 3dmark2001se that was released 1 year ago .. it a zillion times more relable

    __READ IT ____

    3D Mark 2003: The Gamers' Benchmark (?)
    http://www4.tomshardware.com/column/20030213/index.html
     
  10. blah

    blah New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hmm

    Using the red color for replies was the absolutly worst thing I have ever seen.

    I disagree with the views of some especialy crappy Tom's Hardware Benchmark quotes. I know and every one I know Tom's Hardware = BIASED CRAP..

    It shows a 9500pro geting 11k marks.. For some strange reason I hit about 15.2k marks. and 4.2k in 2k3

    Here are my benchmarks. Let me remind you some of these are older
    http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/hardware1/

    any who I seen the new line up of nVidia especialy the 5200 and its pathetic performance in games and benchmarks a like. I still rather buy the cheaper 9100 or 9000, they might not have dx9 but hey there is no dx9 games yet (not any that I play). Any who lots of people keep on braging the Ti4200 its still a DX8 card and still people buy it because its a good performer still it has no DX9. Any way I am no fan of either but when people say that nVidia has the same 2D image quality as ATI I know they are full of sh*t. No nVidia card ever had the 2D image quality as a ATI card and prolly wont have it for a long time.

    I run 2X IBM P275 Monitors and no nVidia card especially my old TI4200 ever had good color on those monitors but my 9500pro seems to do very well.
    1600X1200 Res on both and its perfect color, heck even my Matrox G450 couldn't display right (plus I didn't feel like blowing up a $800 (1200 cdn) monitor with the G450 bug). Kings of 2D are still ATI and Matrox. Oh don't tell mye that I had a Bad TI4200 because I had a Abit GF4 8X OTES (275/500). Unfortunatly this cards Noise/Performance ratio forced me to sell it.
    Funny thing is that the 9500 pro was cheaper then the TI4200, 9500 pro was 272 and TI was 285.
     

Share This Page

visited