ATI vs. NVIDIA

I buy what they sell me. They sold me nvidia. GO NVIDIA YEAAAAAAAH!!!!

hapless consumerism is on the rise. watch out, kids.

 

yay, nvidia is winning!!

in my experience, I have always felt that ATi cards are marginally faster and produce more stable framerates, but its just that the two ATi cards I bought broke down within a week. I think my computers are cursed by ATi. So now I'm nVidia for life.

 

haha, good one.

 

Nvidia GeForce Go 7900gs, happily overclocked at 480/1100.

3dmark05: 7648

Pushed to as far as I had the balls to go at 575/1150 v1.24

3dmark05: 8495

 

i use my 7900gtx @ stock now, i don't want to overclock it anymore. I can play all games well, so why would i?

 

:nvidia:
quadro t2500m w/512mb dedicated (7900gtx)

3dmark05=8420 stock

I have nothing but good things to say about this card, exept that i can't overclock it. But other then that its a really great card, even for gaming.

i buy whatever is the best in my price range, but becuase of this experence i may prefer nvidia.
:nvidia:

 

Guys remember, performance on gaming is the main subject here. Messing up on games and needing new drivers is taken into consideration.

Tangent, great score by the way. Final spirit thumbs up to you too.

 

The best manufacturer is the one that offers you the best performance in your price range. The gap is so small that it all comes down to the individual on whether or not ATI or Nvidia is better for them. Why does it bother you if (and this is not meant to be factual just an example) Nvidia cards in 17" notebooks outperform their ATI counterparts when you are looking to pick up a 14" notebook where ATI may performs better? Brand loyalty is for fools.

 

exactly....im getting and Asus A8Jm 14" with 512MB Geforce 7600 Go...I originally planned to get the W3J but it was more expensive and had an X1600...many people say that the 7600 and X1600 are neck and neck(only for Asus though...the regular 7600 Go seems to be worse). So in the end I ordered the A8Jm because it simply was a better deal.

For my desktop I've had a Radeon 32MB, Geforce2 MX400, Geforce3 Ti200, Radeon 8500, Radeon 9800 Pro 128, Radeon X800XT AIW, GF 7900GT and thats where I am now....I just get whatever is best at the time. Nvidiots and ATI fan boys are just juvenile.

 

Although I dont slightly prefer ATI after certain issues at work. Pretty much what this guy said stands for most of us. Its not like If my acer had a 7600 in it I wouldnt have bought it. I go for the best my wallet cn afford and thats that, If its nvidia or ati it doesn t really matter. Now if two identicle notebooks were offered with comparible cards for the exact same price Id go for the ATI, but when does that really ever happen.

 

I went for the HGL-30 precisely because it had the 7600 in it. Other laptops in the same price range and specs had the x1600, but I just didn't want it Just about decided a w3j when I found the HGL-30

 

I can't really say much along the lines of laptop graphics (laptop search in the works), but I've had experience with swapping graphics cards in my desktop. I've gone through 2 nVidia cards and 2 Ati Cards, and I've been happy with both. Ati's drivers sometimes got a little buggy though, seldom random error messages on boot-up. nVidia's drivers seemed solid, as I've never had any trouble with them.

I like ATI for its workhorse capabilites, delivering those high 3D marks gamers love. nVidia delivers excellent technologies for gaming effects, and robust drivers for smooth gaming support.

 

I stopped beleiving in 3dmark, it's gameplay that really matters.

 

I got this score by overclocking my x1600 too high. Basically I had thousands of black dots on my screen and black triangle things everywhere.

With a stable overclock I get around 4800.

I think ATI is the best.

Over the years, Nvidia has released GPU's that cannot handle themselves.
The GF 6 series has pixel shader 3.0, yet none of the GF 6 series cards can play games that use PS 3.0 very well.

All ATI cards have been able to perform quite well.

When directX 10 is finished, The Nvidia cards will fully support it but probebly not perform very well using it.

Ati however, will probebly perform better but not "fully" support all of directX 10's features.

 

Zigactly. Both nVidia and ATI have been caught "optimizing" their drivers to perform better under 3DMark, usually by lowering various quality settings. As such, in-game benchmarking is the only real measure.

 

Uh... Really? My 6800 handles it just fine. And I suppose an X1300 can handle PS3.0 much better?

That claim is BS. Both manufacturers make low-end cards that can't really utilize the specs they support. So what? It's still better than not supporting the features at all.
And both manufacturers have cards that are very powerful and perfectly capable of utilizing the same features.

But a little history lesson is probably in order. It goes all the way back to last year.
NVidia launched the Geforce 6 series. It supported SM3.0. It also supported 2.0 and all the varieties of 2.x
(And as I said above, it was even capable of performing well under the sm3.0 specs)

Months later, ATI launched the x800 series. That did not support SM3.0.

How exactly is that "better"? Is it better to support one feature well, than to support the same feature well, *and* add support for a newer one, even if that support is mediocre (which it really wasn't. It was pretty good)

More importantly, ATI still doesn't really follow the SM3.0 specs. They leave out vertex texture fetch claiming that "Oh, it's not important". Just like their excuse for implementing SM3.0 a year after NVidia. "Oh, it's not important".

How is that better again? How is their cards able to "support themselves", when developers need to add hacky workarounds to make their graphics engines work on ATI cards?

Yes, especially the old ones that claimed to support Direct3d, but didn't.
Oh, the memories... Please, let's try to stick to reality, shall we? Then I'll be nice and ignore the old ATI cards which were a disgrace to their species...

Oh, and the low end cards like X1300 also performs "quite well", when compared to NVidia's similar cards...
Rubbish. That's a fanboy argument if I ever heard one.

The keyword here is probably.

Again, "probably.
Also, one little piece of news for ya.
There is no such thing as partial support for DX10. Microsoft has said that long ago. They've had it with those shaky half-way implementations and with SM2.0a and 2.0b and 2.0b++ and all the other little "We still can't be arsed to properly support the *new* specs, but we can sure build on the old ones.

So starting with DX10, there's Microsoft's specs, or nothing. If you don't support *all* DX10 features, your card can't run DX10 apps. On the other hand, if your card supports features beyond DX10, tough luck, those extra features will have to go unused.

But that aside, if it was true that ATI didn't fully support all of DX10's features, that would be the best objective, indisputable proof that ATI makes inferior cards. Nothing is worse for developers, and so indirectly for consumers as well, than hardware that requires unique special workarounds. You end up having to make a codepath for "good cards that follow the standard", and then a separate one for "hacked-together cards that suck"

If ATI did that (which I don't believe they will), your argument would collapse entirely, and the world would have bulletproof evidence that the only thing ATI is better at, is infuriating developers.

But as I said, I doubt that'll happen. In the real world, the one outside narrow fanboy scopes, both companies make excellent products, and products that are quite capable of "handling themselves"

 

Hell yeah I have a shirt that says Nvidia Geforce 2 Ultra "The Worlds Fastest GPU" So I got you all beat, unfortunately the Ultra Died and now my desktop pc has a used 35 dollar MSI Geforce 4 Ti4200 and it rocks!

 

Intel, AMD, ATi, Nvidia.... I love them all!

 

Quadro FX 1500M
3Dmark05: 6413
3Dmark06: 3926

Personally, I prefer nVidia. One reason is the Linux factor. nVidia releases their binary drivers and I can compile them myself in Linux to get 3D acceleration. The other reason is that ATi doesn't make any true high-end cards like the 7900GTX or the 2500M for laptops. Plus, I've never really been a big fan of AMD, so that's not helping me much either. But the new x1950 with GDDR4 is quite beastly... but that's the desktop realm.

 

I got a Radeon 9600 in my desktop and a X1600 in my laptop so ATi all the way with me.
I don't really prefer one over the other except for the fact that when hl2 was coming out they were working more with ATi so thats what made me get Ati cards.

 

I've owned practically every generation of ATI and NVIDIA graphics card since the GeForce. The vast majority of that time has been spent in the NVIDIA camp. There was some time where I was with ATI for a good, long while (loved my old 9800 Pro). That was when ATI had its stuff together with regard to drivers. Now they've fallen back into their old ways with continued inferior OpenGL support and that bloated crapware they call the Catalyst Control Center.

Now don't get me wrong, NVIDIA has been far from perfect lately as well. But whenever I have one of their cards, I will always have at least one or two driver sets that I can fall back on in case an updated one breaks something. That isn't something I could ever claim for any ATI card I owned since the 9800 (X800, X1800, X1900XTX).

Bascially that's a long-winded way of saying NVIDIA rocks.

 

I once worked with one of these companies, and I know people that currently work at ATI and others that work at Nvidia...and I usually go with Nvidia, because I like their drivers better...but I'm sure that ATI is every bit as good, depending on the particular product in question etc....

 

ATI have better deskop cards right now, but in notebooks Geforce top of the line cards are better. So right now its a draw you can say

 

Well that's only if we're talking about 17" DTRs. In all the other categories its either a tie or ATI are slightly ahead.

 

I'm going back to the nVidia camp... I wish the macbook pro had an nVidia option as well.
I've had a x800 xt in my desktop that is about ready to crap out and my 9600 pro in my sager die. Neither of my GeForce cards have ever had a single problem.
Plus having to install .net architecture to install the drivers is a big mark against ati.
So back to nVidia I will go.

 

i have an ati x1400 its pretty good good card for a good price im 13 so i didnt have enough money for anything better but it is great ........also how do u find out how many 3d mark05 it has is it in catalist

 

You get 3D Mark and PC Mark from www.futuremark.com

The X1400 isn't a bad card by any means. I'm just a snob and a hardcore Linux geek and coder, so I prefer NVIDIA

 

nVidia 6600GT, amd athlon64 3500+, 1gb corsair ddr400-75 fps in Americas Army (full gfx, 1280x1024), 125-150 fps in ut2004 (full gfx, 1280x1024). nVidia+amd pwnz =D

 

Im a bit of a graphic card whore, i have no preference over nvidia or ati as it just depends on the package as a whole. Ie quality, ram, processer, hd, screen, price etc. Though i do think ati have an advantage in mid range mobile cards as nvidia have never really had the distribution after the catastrophic fx series. Though nvidia have an advantage in the high performance segment but thats never really been my seen. I prefer mid range and save some money at the same time.

 

I have only used integrated parts from both companies - the ATI Radeon Xpress 200M and nVidia GeForce Go 6100. The 6100's performance, in my opinion, was much better for light gaming than the X200M.
Also, it feel nice to have a nVidia; most games sport the label "plays best on nVidia". Most games seem to be made using nVidia - therefore these games advertize for them; the Battle for Middle-Earth II Collector's edition comes with a coupon to upgrade your card to a newer nVidia card. ATI hasn't done as good a job at advertising i think.

 

nVidia has kinda picked up a little bit in this thread. The last time I read this nVidia was behind by more than 20 votes. It's kinda nice for this nVidia owner.

 

I prefer the Doom 3 engine games to the Source engine games. Throw in my bias beacuse of my Desktop replacement laptop and wierd graineness with the x1600 laptop card and I go with nvidia. 7900gs 3DMark05- 8203

 

Ditto. All that should really matter is how well it plays the games you play or want to play. Benchmarking is a good way to caliber stuff, but it's not absolute to your preferences.

 

I am very impressed by ATI and nVidia's new IGP graphic cards. The ATI Xpress 200M, 1150, and the new 1250 are amazing strides for integrated graphics; nVidia suprised evryone this year when they released the nVidia GeForce 6100 and 6150. These notebooks with these chipsets can compete with some outdated dedicated cards in terms of performance. I am looking forward to the future of integrated graphics in notebooks as well as the longer battery life and low temperature they provide.

 

GOOOOOOOOO NVDIA

Stock 7900GS, 3dmark05: 6233. Which also happens to be mobile model number (Nokia 6233).

 

Haha, I'm split, I have a 7900gs in my laptop, and an X700Pro in my desktop. I gotta go with Nvidia though. I get somewhere around 3500 in my E1705 and I haven't even overclocked this beast yet (I really want to but I don't have accidental damage and I'm scared to try it, rofl).

 

Nvidia all the way here.

 

ATI for low-end and medium-range noteboks.

nVidia for high-end and workstation notebooks.

Charlie

 

Never thought much about ATI in the past, as I had always utilized nVidia graphics. It was not until my latest laptops that ATI came into the picture for me. Granted, mine are low-end integrated, but I've been satisfied with the performance and drivers (aside from Catalyst Control Center).

 

I agree with hitman, I would go with an x1400/x1600 over nvidia's 7400/7600.

 

Nvidia GO 7400 OC

3dmark05 = 2120

 

Nintendo uses ATI cards ... =D.

I S2 Nintendo!

 

I got a Ati card in my desktop, and a Nvidia in my upcoming laptop

 

i really don't care if it is Nvidia or ATI as long as i can play games without lagging on max quality.

 

Does your 7400 take care of that?

 

i can play most games on mid-high settings

 

I own both a 7300GS and an X1300pro, also I own a 7600GT and an X1600, these are all desktop GPUs, now of course I have run tests on them and I got better scores by the Nvidia 7600GT then any other card, but that was only in the benchmarks. The 7300GS is laughable, it hardly performs at all, the X1300pro was decent but still ran horrible in newer games like FEAR, and PREY.

In ES4 Oblivion, my 7600GT performed better than my X1600 by about 10FPS,
but in HL2 EP1 the X1600 performed around 40FPS better than the 7600GT.

Now, why I originally said that Nvidia cant handle PS v3 is because I had a 6600GT that performed horribly worse than my X1300pro in everything, especially in HDR enabled games(And I spent $250 on it, and less than $80 on the X1300pro), which I was very displeased about.

Everything I have said was not facts based upon something that I read, these are facts that I have made by testing these cards.

 

I voted Nvidia because of ATi's drivers which I have had very many problems with in the past!

Right now I have an xpress 200m on my laptop which is fine for what I do, and a Geforce 2 MX on my media centre which again, is fine for what I do, no complaints at all with either.

Would help if ATi supported theirown freaking card though! Thank god for Omega drivers!

 

what would u say has the upper hand, the nVidia 7950 or the Ati x1950

 

In general, they're pretty similar. The 7950 has problems with HDR and AA sometimes, but then the x1950 will not give as good of a framerate at the same settings. The x1950 gives better looking textures, but the 7950 can be faster. Some games that are optimized for ATi cards (such as HL2) will perform stronger on an x1950, while games like F.E.A.R. will typically run better on the 7950 since it's optimized for nVidia cards. Generally speaking though, they're pretty similar.

Of course, the 8800GTX own all.