NVidia vs. ATI

Someone please shed some insight on these 2 products. I recently bought a Dell Inspiron E1505. I have already purchased the 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™Go 7300 TurboCache Graphics Card, but which one is better? I purchased NVidia because I have always had a good experience with nvidia, so didn't want to change.

Which one is better and why?

256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™Go 7300 TurboCache
256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400 HyperMemory™

 

The ATI card is better.

The Nvidia Card would have to be a 7400 to compare properly to the X1400.

I prefer ATI, but they are both basically the same as long as you compare the corresponding cards to eachother, like x1300 to 7300, x1400 to 7400, x1600 to 7600.....etc.

 

Yup the ATI card is better.

 

Might try reading this guide:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

 

Is it a huge deal that I got the NVidia card. Is it a big enough deal that I should return the laptop and get the other Card? Price really isn't the issue.

 

I just checked that thread...Why doesn't dell sell anything in the inspiron series (besides XPS) that have better than low end graphics cards? I got the Inspiron E1505with the 256MB NVidia, hoping to play F.E.A.R with good graphics.

 

Sorry but your not going to play FEAR with good graphics with a 7300. Lots of people think because their video card has 256mb of ram that is amazing, its not the case. Ive had a 6200 that had 256mb of vram.

The reason why the XPS systems have the performance hardware is because the XPS series are the performance systems. The Inspiron's are the entertainment systems, ment for video editing, movie watching etc. With the excption of the 1705 they're not super great at gaming. If you wanted to play games then you should have gone with an XPS with a good card, the 7300 is a very low end card, not good for gaming. Sorry for the bad news.

 

Um, the X1400 is even better than the Geforce go 7400, mind you talking about the 7300. But anyways, it isn't that much a big deal to return your computer. But just to reason with you, you definitely ARN'T going to run Crysis etc. on that thing. In fact, don't even bother trying.

 

Then you should have moved up to the 1705 with the available GeForce 7900 GS. If you absolutely needed a 15-inch screen, a PowerPro L 8:15 that has a GeForce 7600 or an Asus with a Radeon X1600 would work far better than the Dell you ordered.

 

yeah I would return it for the x1400.

 

Dell probably has ripped countless people off with that deal.

 

The difference between them is minimal. Yes the X1400 has the unified shader and everything that all ATI cards have, but Hypermemory sucks, while Nvidia's TurboCache is very good. The difference is so minimal they are considered equal.

 

Hey, if you can deal with another two inches I would go with the E1705 with a 7900gs. You will have plenty of power with that card. If you are set on the E1505 I would suggest getting the x1400 even if its only a small increase over the 7300. As far as I know Hypermemory and TuroCache are the same thing, just with different names.

 

They're not the same actually - there's a basic explanation in this guide:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

 

Yeah TurboCache and Hypermemory are actually very very different in how they do what they do.

 

I have always dealt with a 15.4" screen, and thought that size was pretty good and big enough. My PC has a 17 inch screen, and I thought the E1705 is too big, and would be like carrying around a big laptop. Is it a big difference in size, weight, etc.

 

I forgot to tell all you guys. I am not a HUGE gamer, I install the games, and maybe play them for about 15-30 minutes a day. I think of graphics as, playing the game smoothly, not about counting the freckles on someones face in a game. As long as a game can run smoothly, without lagging in the middle, I am fine. Please comment on this with the laptop that I ordered...

Intel Core Duo Processor T2400 (2MB/1.83GHz/667MHz)
15.4 Inch UltraSharp TrueLife Wide-Screen WSXGA+
1GB Ram (DDR2, 533MHz)
256B GeForce 7300 Graphics Card
120GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
Microsoft Windows XP Home SP2
8X DVD+/-RW Drive
SoundBlaster Advanced Audio
Intel PRO/Wireless 3945 802.11a/g Mini Card (54Mbps)
Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Module (2.0 + EDR)
53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
Windows Vista Capable

 

Oh many you fell for the 7300 scam too. You should have gotten the X1400. Its cheaper and alot better than the 7300. Dell is scamming people this way. If you can cancel the order and get the X1400, it will make a big difference in the playabilitly of your games, and make them look alright.

 

They do the same thing, just with different implementations.
But they both serve to extend video ram using system memory, so from the end user's perspective, it's pretty much the same, give or take a bit of performance.

ATI's cards don't have unified shaders. Their Xbox 360 GPU has, yes, and their next-gen cards will probably have it too, but not this generation.
And turbocache isn't "very good". It might be a bit more efficient than hypermemory, but both technologies are just to make slightly less slow cards at a budget price point. None of them come close to a card that has the amount of memory it actually needs on the card in the first place.

 

Yes I know they do the same thing, I didnt say they didnt. Ill be more specific for you if you dont understand. Both of them do the same thing, but hypermemory is more software based, while turbochache is more hardware based, directly taking system ram for the video card, so yeah turbo cache makes it like my card has 256mb of ram because part of my 2gb is directly set aside for it. Hypermemory is different, and less efficent.

 

I have almost the same setup. I bought this laptop in April and missed out on the integrated SoundBlaster HD Audio option that was released in May and I was a bit upset since I love music. The PCMCIA Sound Blaster Audigy ZS card is my alternative. The Dual Core Processor is far more superior than the Pentium M processor in my older Inspiron 6000 (Sold), and I love the True-Life coating which gives me a far better display/picture overall. The X1400 does play all the recent games but as in the guide mentioned earlier, don't expect to put the settings up to high but games play excellent in medium settings. I also love the portability of my 15.4 and wish dell offered the ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 or the GeForce Go 7600 option to match the sharpness of the WSXGA displays (1680x1050 resolution) because most of the time I wish I could have the higher detail levels. Anyone with the 7300 Go that can run some 3DMarks?




My Dell E1505:

Intel® Core™ Duo processor T2400 (2MB Cache/1.83GHz/667MHz FSB)
LCD Panel 15.4 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen SXGA+ Display with TrueLife™
1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2Dimm
Video Card 256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400 HyperMemory™
Hard Drive 100GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
Combo/DVD+RW Drives 8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Wireless Networking Cards Intel® PRO 3945 and Dell 350 Bluetooth
Primary Battery 53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery


3DMark05 - 1763
3DMark03 - 3686
PCMark05 - 3154

(#s right out of the box.)

 

Interesting read on notebook cards:


http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Grafic-Cards-update.130.0.html

 

just a heads up but the e1505 does not have a pcmcia slot (that im aware of anyways) so the PCMCIA Sound Blaster Audigy ZS card isn't really an alternative.

 

I did my homework and your right! Instead of a full PCMCIA slot, they are using an expresscard slot. Hmmmm.

Slots
One ExpressCard slot 54mm 1.5 V and 3.3 V

 

nividia is way better most games suppot nividia more than ati and games which support ati equally support nividia so nividia is the best

:nvidia: :nvidia: :nvidia: :nvidia: :nvidia: :nvidia:

 

That statement doesn't make any sense. Some games may run better on a certain card, but that doesn't mean they won't play on the other.

 

That statement was pure fanboy drivel, nothing more. That said, I prefer NVIDIA for its multiple monitor and OpenGL support. Also, I really dislike ATI's Catalyst Control Center. It's bloated and buggy.

 

I wouldn't want to be at ATi's mercy when they decide year or two from now to drop support (driver updates) for their older hardware.

Even if there's difference in performance, it is getting less and less important as new techologies emerge and make existing low-to mid level cards obsolete.

 

This debate over ATI vs. Nvidia will probably go on forever. The truth is, if you're comparing cards of equal classes from both manufacturers, they are both good cards. They both have have their pros, like ATI's better power management or Nvidia's better implementation of SLI (vs. crossfire). I was using Nvidia for years before the 97-9800 series started mopping the floor with whatever Nvidia had. Then there was that fiasco where it appeared that Nvidia was tweaking 3DMark scores in their favor. I jumped ship and have been using ATI products since and I'm very pleased. But the news of AMD buying ATI isn't very cool and CCC is bloated as some have said already. I would not rule out another Nvidia GPU in my future because the market and technology is always changing. Right now though both companies are making real good products, as long as you dont compare a x1400 to a 7900GS.

 

At the moment it really is just take whoever makes the fastest card. For what it's worth, though, my thoughts on going from ATI to nVidia hardware.

Catalyst Control Center is absolutely awful software, and I avoided installing it, opting to use ATI Tray Tools. But, lucky for us, nVidia have elected to implement their own moronically designed "Control Panel," replacing the extremely utilitarian and useful tab menu that existed in their 80 series and prior. You'll be wanting to avoid their 90 series.

That said, nVidia's drivers I've found to be more feature rich - useful feature rich - and despite some small hurdles I've had, they're well designed.

I think ATI's AA and AF implementations are a lot better and more visually appealing. I've found nVidia's to be somewhat lacking, but this is honestly a minor issue to me.

Now, what I HAVE been able to research a bit is that it seems like the HDR implementation in nVidia's 7 series is extremely well done, and performs beautifully compared to ATI's cards and the nVidia 6 series.

And my bottom line? I'm very happy with my Go 7600, and will probably be running nVidia hardware in my next machine.

 

What's a better card ATI Radeon Xpress 200M or the NVIDIA GeForce Go 6150 ?

 

Hmm, seems like another loser in denial. Which is better in mobile products? ATI of course. Which is better in the latest desktop products? ATI X1900XTX of course. (Nvidia 7950 GX2 sucks because a lack of drivers is pulling it apart). And which is better in integrated products? ATI X1100 and x200 of course. So for all you Nvidia fanboys out there, do some reaserch BEFORE you post. Got that?

Thanks for your understanding, Daniel

 

Now to answer your question. The ATI X200 is better but only by a small margin.

 

Although the 7300 is a low end card, it's not as bad as many of you are considering. I just got a laptop with Geforce go 7300 512mb and I find the card to be very nice actually. Before purchasing I made some research about it, but like this topic many seem to see the 7300 as almost useless. Will despite the comments I got the laptop with the go 7300 512mb and I can run Battlefield 2 on highest settings with antialiasing on 4x and I even tryed Day of Defeat Source on highest settings and no problems at all. Compared to my other laptop with Geforce go 6800 256mb, they look and run the same if not better. I even tryed F.E.A.R on, and guess what? It also ran quite well.
__________________
Duo core [email protected]
Geforce go 7300 512mb
100GB HDD@5,400RPM
1GB RAM

 

Everything on the highest and what's the verdict? Lag lag lag (<1 fps)? Dude, if you're from Ontario, you're in the heart of ATI tech. You should be with ATI not Nvidia. Nvidia must have brainwashed you...

 

This is an out and out lie.

The only time the X200 is faster is when it has 128MB dedicated video memory.

In all other instances, the 6150 is faster. Marginally, but faster. This is coming from someone who's actually used both.

I would appreciate it if you kept your own fanboyism in check and, as you so eloquently put it, do some research. While I don't fight for the green OR the red party, I'll also point out that the 7950GX2 is widely considered the fastest video card available. Driver issues only crop up with Quad SLI.

 

So i just ordered the dell system as well:

Inspiron 6400
Intel® Core™ Duo processor T2600 (2MB Cache/2.16GHz/667MHz FSB)
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHZ, 2 DIMM
256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400 HyperMemory™
120GB 5400rpm Hard Drive

what i'm wondering is if i'd be able to play a game like Ghost Recon and with what kinda detail? What about the newer games coming out like Crysis?

thanks

 

anyone have any ideas?

 

I've done the 3DMark05 Test with the nvdia 6300 and here is my result:

3dMark05 - 1670

 

What are the biggest differences between ATI and Nvidia?
I don't mean differences in speeds but in quality and stability.
The only two differences i know are these:
1) Ati X1.. cards can turn HDR and AA on, Nvidia can't.
2) Nvidia cards has better AA quality when you turn that on in windows.

 

You got it! The 6150 is currently the only integrated card known to comfortably play Doom 3 800x600, and it only has 2 pipelines. It's a step in the right direction for integrated.

 

How about you do the same?

How about, if people have nothing better than braindead fanboyism to offer, they go create a fansite, and leave the rest of us alone?

ATI isn't "better in mobile products". They have some good mobile products, and some bad ones. I'm seeing a lot more NV-based notebooks these days. One reason could be that the GF7xxx series is just much more power-efficient than the Radeon x1k.

Which is better in desktop products? The 7950GX2 is the fastest there is, with or without mature drivers, so how about you do some research?

Integrated products? Would you care to state *why* those two are better?

Please, don't go around calling people "losers in denial" when the exact same description applies just as well to you.

Now please, if you and ibmps3cell has nothing intelligent to contribute, please at least stop misinforming others. Thank you.

PC_Pulsar: There aren't many differences. In *current* cards, you're right, ATI can do HDR + AA, and NVidia can't, but that only applies for this generation. Last generation, ATI couldn't do HDR at all. Next generation, they can most likely both do HDR + AA.

Both companies make good, fast and stable cards with good, fast and stable drivers. I personally am not a huge fan of ATI's driver control panel, but hey, it works.

 

Dell is pretty slick by making it seem the Geforce 7300 is better than the ATI x1400 by increasing the price. i just ordered the dell e1505 with the geforce 7300 video card. but, tom. morning i'm calling dell and telling them to switch it to the ati x1400 and now i wont have to wait 11 extra days. sweeeeeet

 

Yeah, it's a fairly shifty deal. But, I've come to realise that if Dell had have offered the 7300Go here in Aust. that I should have gone for that. nVidia just have that much better drivers. I get a new notebook in 6 months, and if AMD and nVidia haven't picked up their game, I'll go Intel.

 

I have the same question regarding these 2 cards. The most important thing to me is that if I wanted to, I could always upgrade the card in the future, vs the integrated option, which does not even allow me to do that. Heres what im looking at currently:

Dell Inspiron 6400 Dual Core
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7200 (2.00GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 667MHz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Basic
15.4 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen SXGA+ Display with TrueLife™
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHZ, 2 DIMM
120GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400 HyperMemory™
Dell Wireless 1390 802.11b/g Mini Card (54Mbps).

Seems like a good deal for around $1200 shipped. Only real sticking point was the card, and from which I've seen so far in this thread, and from the benchmark sheet is not super. Main point being the X1400 would prob be the way to go out of the 2. I could always upgrade in the future. I noticed as well that Dell is charging $30 more for the Nvidia for some reason.

You guys think this is a good deal for what I have listed above? Basically I'd like to be able to play Sims 2 well, like on my home PC, and maybe play Battlefield 2 with reasonable settings, but nothing near full tilt. Thoughts?

 

If you could get that for $1200 shipped gymway I would do it. At could play the games you mentioned but not at high.

 

Unless Dell releases another version of the 6400 with a card that is better than the X1400, you will not be able to upgrade that card. Get the best you can for your needs now, and don't count on upgrades.

 

comparing cards is senseless at this time cause were in a big os transition period.
As of now nVidia is he black sheep cause vista choaks its performance

 

Nvidia is releasing desktop midrange cards (8600GTS, 8600GT, 8500GT) tomorrow and midrange notebook cards (Go 8600, Go 8400, Go 8300) next month. ATI has nothing.

What isn't there to love?

 

lololol....
midrange cards are for pre-fab'd desktops. WHo the hell cares about that?
Go to any computer parts store and the majority volume percentage of vid cards bought are NOT midrange cards lol