Ati's gaming gpu vs nvidia what you think

I think that i read somewhere that the 3870 crossfire is equally to 9800m gts sli. which in most case i find to be true.

 

I'm wondering what is holding ATI back from releasing their 4xxx parts for notebooks.

I guess it may have just been time or thermal considerations, but I was under the impression that the 4xxx series generally had lower idle power consumption than nvidia cards in their same range. (I could be mistaken on this though)

It just seems like the 4xxx series is leaps better than the 3xxx series in terms of power, heat and speed, making it ideal for a notebook card.

Is it just that we're seeing the time it's taken to shrink the pcb's down to notebook size to get them into notebooks?

P.S. I don't really care for one side or the other, both seem plenty capable but it seems like nvidia has better dx10 support, but I think dx10 is rubbish anyway...

 

Yeah ATI essentially shrinks down their cards while NVidia goes crazy with their naming scheme. (See the 9600m GT)

 

You're bang on, they need to cut the thermals to something these weak chassis/cooling systems can handle. They need to find out how to move the circuitry around to make it fit in a laptop sized module. And yes, the 4xxx series is miles ahead of the 3xxx series, they just need some time to make it laptop compatible.

 

Have we seen any ATI 4xxx cards in action yet? Let alone barely any 3xxx cards. I'm not trying to be rude here but were just speculating and speculating and speculating about ATI upcomings when they are so far behind Nvidia in the mobile sector. Nvidia needs stiffer competion and I'm hoping ATI can bring that to the table. Please ATI, even the playing field.

 

Exactly, I agree but you can't really go wrong with the price it is out for. and people complain that 9800m gtx is better than it in crossfire. Yes it is better if you have the money.

but we willl see what the 48 series brings. if ati manages to keep the same desktop specs (like the 3870) nvidia willl be in trouble.

By the way, i'm not the only one thinking this but the chances of have 3870x2 crossfire or 48xxx2 crossfire is just a dream that i have to wake up from right. Lol.

 

theres a 4850 in a MSI notebook, just look it up I dont have the link, not sure about benchmarks for it though.

 

Oh really, I would love to see a link. Can you try and find it please.

 

Yes, the recently announced 17" MSI GT725's specs state it will have a HD4850 card. However, no release dates nor prices have been released.

Info about it in the thread below.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=317614

 

I wonder when someone will crossfire it. if you divide the shaders it will be 160.
I think i'm starting to like ati. if they contunie to keep using the same specs as there desktop and just lowerr the speed alittle. it makes me feel i'm getting my money's worth for a desktop part in a laptop.

I know the 4870 will not be for a while because of the gddr5. But if they do put that in and keep the price lower? I feel sorry for nvidia.

 

right now, the BEST thing for your money is the ATI 4870. forget nvidia cards for now, they thought they were on top but failed because they thought anything they put out regardless of price everyone will buy.
sure thats the case with the fanboys but they had to lower their prices by so much that they are loosing more in the end just to keep up with the Ati. good job ATI, hope they stay on that path. i have a 8800 GTS 640mb right now and its the last nvidia card i am buying always had ATI, dont know why i bought this 2 years ago

 

that card is equal to the 9800m gtx. and nvidia isnt that bad, they just abused there position in 1st place for so many years.

 

Both brands are fine. I'm pretty sure ATI still doesn't have a "scale but keep the same aspect ratio" option though which would really get on my nerves because when I use FRAPS I usually play at a 4:3 resolution because that's the format I want the video in, and I like that nvidia control panel can scale it without stretching it.

Other than that though all I really care about is the performance to cost ratio, which depending on deals and what your price range is means either brand could be the best choice.

 

Because It would beat any HD2900 out there, at that time.

I don't think there will be any 48XX anytime soon. Look at how many laptop just start to use 3870. Will ATI want to kill the sell of their own cards?

 

Well that is why they up the price for higher performance parts.

 

To the posters above, for ATI to actually make a card such as 4870 is WAY WAY cheaper than for an invidia to make a 9800 or w.e. Think of Nvidia as Intel, very demanding process for putting out their product and etc, when AMD and ATI can do the same, but cut the costs down and in the end rub it in Nvidias face. AMD is not quite like that to intel but ATI to nvidia we see a perfect example right now with ATI killing them in sales.

Main thing to look at is sales, if you havent seen the resports and etc, Nvidia had to bring the prices down so much that they arent making much in the end, their stocks went down when that happened. Hope ATI stays on that track, it would be a very good thing for AMD.

 

Your example isn't very good. Intel vs. AMD, Intel is a much bigger company with much more resources and R&D. It does cost more for Intel but they make it back in spades. nVidia isn't as big as Intel compared to ATI which merged with AMD, hence they have a lot more resources at their disposal.

BTW the best bang for your buck is actually the 4850 which you can get for less than $150 ($100 if you're lucky enough to spot the deal for the Visiontek).

 

Last I checked, the 4870 trounced on the 9800 GTX in games and most synthetics.

Perhaps you're thinking the GTX 280, which the 4850 still beats very frequently.

And people keep speaking like the 3870 in the OCZ is some sub par card, I've even heard people say the 8800 GTS is a better card. My understanding is that the 3870 competes fairly evenly with the 9800 GTS, but anyhow.

I cant wrap my head around why people would think this. I think it just stems from ATI being absent from the notebook realm for so long people just assume they aren't worthwhile.

IMO ATI is 'dominating' the desktop realm. The main reason they arent a major player in the notebook realm is that it took them a long time to get to market with a great product (4850/4870) and their 2xxx series was basically worthless for notebooks.

the performance people seem to be getting out of the CF 3870's is pretty amazing in my opinion.

I think once ATI gets their 48xx series to market people's views will change. When that happens is anyone's guess though, the MSI notebook is almost enough to convince me to wait to get a computer though.

 

We are talk about notebook cards. but show me a link for that ati card, i'm currently building for for a client.

 

When i said, "that card" i meant the 8800 gts desktop card is equal to the 9800m gtx. sorry for not putting it down.
I think the 3870 crossfiree is equal to the 9800m gts sli

 

No, actually only an overclocked 9800M GTX will be equal to a stock desktop 8800 GT. If you have seen those Alphadog 8800 GT desktop cards, they are way faster than the mobile 9800M GTX.

 

Well I do hope that mobility HD46x0 would whop arse the 9600M GTs which are essentially the same as desktop version of 9400GT, it time to stop NV making huge profit on making low end desktop GPU into "performance" mobile card!

 

Hey i wonder if they are going to make the 4870 use the same mxm slot as the 3870 crossfire.

 

thank you for the sharing!

 

What do you mean?

 

how come you only get a 512 ati or a dual card in 17in laptop and a 1gig in 14in laptops? they have the 1 gig on Xotic pc. i would rather have 1gig ati than a dual unless they are planning to biuld the 4670 with a 1gig.

 

I don't understand, you'd be basing your purchase merely on the amount of VRAM offered in a GPU? The amount of VRAM means little on the performance of the card. It depends on the card(s) we're talking about .

VRAM is a gimmick most of the time anyways(in the case of large numbers of it). Unless the GPU has the memory interface required, it can't even handle all that dedicated VRAM .

Ex: the 9600M GT has 512Mb of dedicated VRAM, but only has a 128bit interface, therefore the GPU can only handle 256mb at a time.

At the time, I think the largest interface for laptop GPUs is 256bit so the max amount of VRAM really useable for a notebook GPU is 512mb.

I wouldn't use the amount VRAM as an indicator of the card's strength, other factors come into play.

 

yep. forever meledy is right. i couldn't explain it any better. basicly one bit inter face is 2mb. so for a computer to use one gb of video ram, it needs a 512 bit interface

 

So then why are these 256-bit interface cards shipped with 1gb of RAM? Are you absolutely sure all of the ram cannot be accessed? Maybe it wouldn't give better performance than a 512mb version in games, but maybe it can allow room for more detailed textures.

Why would these cards be produced if the extra ram is useless, it costs money and resources to build them with extra ram, and they are willing to put it at a waste? Or just to sell to misguided customers?

 

Read Chaz's guide to remove your misconceptions(if any) regarding the use of video memory. 256 bit GPUs can't access more than 512 MB of video memory. It has been proved countless times.

 

memory so cheap and if they purchase in huge bulk shipments, it would be very cheap.

and the money the receive in return for conning out ppl for thinking they are getting a better card because of the VRAM amount, probably out weighs the cost of the ram.

 

some cards can benefit from 1gb frame buffer. ie hd4870. but in this case, 1 gb is useless.

 

with high end cards its different, because at very high resolutions it might be effective, but sticking 1gb VRAM on the lowliest cards, etc is just a marekting ploy, as usual.

 

Why was the 8800M GTX rebranded the 9800M GT when they are exactly the same thing? It's all sales marketing. Making the people think one thing if they aren't informed enough.

VRAM is perhaps the most emphasized thing on a GPU(other than the name lol ). If you go to a store and look at a graphics card box, chances are the amount of VRAM is displayed on the front, yet the pixel shaders, core clocks and such are on the back or the sides. Why do you think that is? Is VRAM necessarily more important than the core clock, shaders and all that? They are all as important in terms of the card's performance.

This puts people into believing VRAM is that important and significant. Therefore, adding in 1Gb of VRAM to a card might convince the consumer to get that card even though it might not even yield any performance increase. Not to mention it allows Nividia to sell more versions to different rebranders and resellers.

 

but don't forget the ati 3870 is not reall that much compaared to the nvidia's high end mobile. so when you compared it, you can really say ati is garbage it sucks.

if you have over 2,500 to get a 9800m gt/gtx sli, then you can talk smack. but if you are on a budget then that is the best price/performance ratio.

 

Meh . . . there are trade offs inherent in every generation. Just a year or two AMD processors were dominating the P4 and Dual-core Pentiums. Then core 2 came out and the Phenom fell on its face.

The Radeon 97-9800 cards were amazing, but eventually the geforce 6 series came out and owned. Then we had the ATI x1900 series. Then geforce 8 series. Do you see where I am going with this?

At this time, I think there is better value in the ATI 48xx series. They have a good price point and can play pretty much anything. But with all desktops, power consumption and heat are getting to be pretty big issues, IMHO.

The Laptop world does amaze me considering the performance that can be had with a chip that has only a fraction of the wattage and a piece of copper to work with. I agree with others however that note that there seems to be a big difference between say, the mobile 8600GT and the desktop 8600GT. It makes it a lot more difficult to know if you are going to have the performance you want and be able to play the games you want to play.

The 9xxx series Geforce cards are more like a rebadged 8 series with a die shrink, so I don't think they deserve the name. I am wondering where the ATI option is at this time however, as the 3xxx series hasn't seemed to do a whole lot.

The tech industry will forever be trading punches, and that is my main point. Be glad there are choices however, because either company will keep the prices high on the hardware you want if the other is not offering a competitor.

 

Great post mgh_a1. It's a shame there are those that live and die by one company's product, because at times they're missing out on getting a better product or saving money.