OT: ATI or NVidia?
Thread Starter
Registered!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,712
Likes: 0
From: Scarborough, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0 
OT: ATI or NVidia?
Haha, let's start a debate, for y'all fellow geeks.
R350 will kick ***... GF FX is even slower than R9700Pro, and it's not even ready yet!! R350 on the other hand will be out late March...
Yum yum, FPS galore!
R350 will kick ***... GF FX is even slower than R9700Pro, and it's not even ready yet!! R350 on the other hand will be out late March...
Yum yum, FPS galore!
well on my new pc i have a Gforce 3 and it rocks hahaa dont know the exact model but its wicked
and on my OLD pc i got a Nvidia Riva card...sucks big time.. hahaha
but as long as i can see everything im very happy
and on my OLD pc i got a Nvidia Riva card...sucks big time.. hahaha
but as long as i can see everything im very happy
Registered!!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0 GeForce FX is not much faster than R300.. and R350(9800P)is supposed to be 40% faster than 9700P and 9900P tick faster than 9800P.
clearly FX is bottnecked somewhere, it's clocked at 500mhz for crying out loud, while the new R350 will be clocked at 375mhz.
NVidia has 1 billion dollars cold hard cash as a reserve, so they wont go belly up like 3Dfx did, but if ATI keeps this up, I dont see how NVidia will reassert itself... ATI also has the lmobile and integrated solution business in its pockets as well.
clearly FX is bottnecked somewhere, it's clocked at 500mhz for crying out loud, while the new R350 will be clocked at 375mhz.
NVidia has 1 billion dollars cold hard cash as a reserve, so they wont go belly up like 3Dfx did, but if ATI keeps this up, I dont see how NVidia will reassert itself... ATI also has the lmobile and integrated solution business in its pockets as well.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,712
Likes: 0
From: Scarborough, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0 The only thing that's hurting ATI right now is insider trading on it's executives... But technology-wise they seem to have surpassed NVidia. All-in-all, NVidia got scammed by Microsoft for the XBox, so they will need to make something much better than the FX to gain back that lost revenue.
Registered!!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: MSoft
The only thing that's hurting ATI right now is insider trading on it's executives... But technology-wise they seem to have surpassed NVidia. All-in-all, NVidia got scammed by Microsoft for the XBox, so they will need to make something much better than the FX to gain back that lost revenue.[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: MSoft
The only thing that's hurting ATI right now is insider trading on it's executives... But technology-wise they seem to have surpassed NVidia. All-in-all, NVidia got scammed by Microsoft for the XBox, so they will need to make something much better than the FX to gain back that lost revenue.[hr]
Anyway, NVidia didnt get scammed. Out of desperation to win the XBOX contract over ATi, it left itself open for abuse, which MS fully took advantage of.
There are other questionable decisions made by NVidia, such as acquiring 3DFX and all its curses and producing Geforce FX (0.11 process, leaf blower, 12 layer PCB, 128bit bus).
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, ON
Rep Power: 0 ATI has a complete line out, starting from the 9000 to 9500 to 9700 to the upcoming 9800 (R350). Nvidia has yet to realize the GeForce FX and has no produced any on store shelves just yet. Not to mention that high-end cards like that don't make the money, it's the mass market cards like the 9000 that do. In that regard, the 9000-series is superior to the GeForce4 MX.
It also important to note that GeForce4 Ti cards, while still excellent, are already considered dated in the fast paced computer world. GeForce4 MX is only a DirectX 7 card too.
GeForce FX gains its performance through clock speed, whereas ATI uses lower clock speed but a more optimized GPU, hence less heat and no need for that abnormally large card.
Many recent benchmarks have shown that ATI's GPUs take less of a performance hit when anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing features are turned on. For example, the recent GeForce4 Ti vs. Radeon 8500 always showed that the GeForce4 Ti was quicker than the Radeon 8500. However, once you crank up the AF & AA, the GeForce4 Ti takes a big hit and drops below the Radeon 8500. So in effect, ATI is able to render higher quality images at higher framerate, but Nvidia can crank out faster framerates if you don't use these image enhancing features.
ATI also has a commanding lead in integrated GPU and the laptop market. ATI is also expanding into other areas like mobile, phones, PDA with their Imageon chip, and also into set top digital TV boxes.
However, Nvidia has typically had better driver development and its nForce2 AMD chipset has earned rave reviews.
Both companies are decent financially, with large cash reserves to fund liquidity, R&D, etc. Both are run relatively well in a highly competitive industry. I don't think you can go wrong with either company at this point. I have an ATI Radeon 9000-series card, own ATI shares, and an Nvidia nForce2 motherboard... so I endorse both companies! [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/IMG]
It also important to note that GeForce4 Ti cards, while still excellent, are already considered dated in the fast paced computer world. GeForce4 MX is only a DirectX 7 card too.
GeForce FX gains its performance through clock speed, whereas ATI uses lower clock speed but a more optimized GPU, hence less heat and no need for that abnormally large card.
Many recent benchmarks have shown that ATI's GPUs take less of a performance hit when anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing features are turned on. For example, the recent GeForce4 Ti vs. Radeon 8500 always showed that the GeForce4 Ti was quicker than the Radeon 8500. However, once you crank up the AF & AA, the GeForce4 Ti takes a big hit and drops below the Radeon 8500. So in effect, ATI is able to render higher quality images at higher framerate, but Nvidia can crank out faster framerates if you don't use these image enhancing features.
ATI also has a commanding lead in integrated GPU and the laptop market. ATI is also expanding into other areas like mobile, phones, PDA with their Imageon chip, and also into set top digital TV boxes.
However, Nvidia has typically had better driver development and its nForce2 AMD chipset has earned rave reviews.
Both companies are decent financially, with large cash reserves to fund liquidity, R&D, etc. Both are run relatively well in a highly competitive industry. I don't think you can go wrong with either company at this point. I have an ATI Radeon 9000-series card, own ATI shares, and an Nvidia nForce2 motherboard... so I endorse both companies! [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/IMG]
dude i havent seen u around for a while haha
still playing CS at that same place??
i have a Nvidia TNT2 and it sucks!!!
it wont play any of the new games... or it chugs as hell...
i dont mind using the Gforce 3 on the new pc hehehe. it kick's bootie
still playing CS at that same place??
i have a Nvidia TNT2 and it sucks!!!
it wont play any of the new games... or it chugs as hell...
i dont mind using the Gforce 3 on the new pc hehehe. it kick's bootie
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: klam
ATI has a complete line out, starting from the 9000 to 9500 to 9700 to the upcoming 9800 (R350). Nvidia has yet to realize the GeForce FX and has no produced any on store shelves just yet. Not to mention that high-end cards like that don't make the money, it's the mass market cards like the 9000 that do. In that regard, the 9000-series is superior to the GeForce4 MX.
It also important to note that GeForce4 Ti cards, while still excellent, are already considered dated in the fast paced computer world. GeForce4 MX is only a DirectX 7 card too.
GeForce FX gains its performance through clock speed, whereas ATI uses lower clock speed but a more optimized GPU, hence less heat and no need for that abnormally large card.
Many recent benchmarks have shown that ATI's GPUs take less of a performance hit when anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing features are turned on. For example, the recent GeForce4 Ti vs. Radeon 8500 always showed that the GeForce4 Ti was quicker than the Radeon 8500. However, once you crank up the AF & AA, the GeForce4 Ti takes a big hit and drops below the Radeon 8500. So in effect, ATI is able to render higher quality images at higher framerate, but Nvidia can crank out faster framerates if you don't use these image enhancing features.
ATI also has a commanding lead in integrated GPU and the laptop market. ATI is also expanding into other areas like mobile, phones, PDA with their Imageon chip, and also into set top digital TV boxes.
However, Nvidia has typically had better driver development and its nForce2 AMD chipset has earned rave reviews.
Both companies are decent financially, with large cash reserves to fund liquidity, R&D, etc. Both are run relatively well in a highly competitive industry. I don't think you can go wrong with either company at this point. I have an ATI Radeon 9000-series card, own ATI shares, and an Nvidia nForce2 motherboard... so I endorse both companies! [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/IMG][hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: klam
ATI has a complete line out, starting from the 9000 to 9500 to 9700 to the upcoming 9800 (R350). Nvidia has yet to realize the GeForce FX and has no produced any on store shelves just yet. Not to mention that high-end cards like that don't make the money, it's the mass market cards like the 9000 that do. In that regard, the 9000-series is superior to the GeForce4 MX.
It also important to note that GeForce4 Ti cards, while still excellent, are already considered dated in the fast paced computer world. GeForce4 MX is only a DirectX 7 card too.
GeForce FX gains its performance through clock speed, whereas ATI uses lower clock speed but a more optimized GPU, hence less heat and no need for that abnormally large card.
Many recent benchmarks have shown that ATI's GPUs take less of a performance hit when anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing features are turned on. For example, the recent GeForce4 Ti vs. Radeon 8500 always showed that the GeForce4 Ti was quicker than the Radeon 8500. However, once you crank up the AF & AA, the GeForce4 Ti takes a big hit and drops below the Radeon 8500. So in effect, ATI is able to render higher quality images at higher framerate, but Nvidia can crank out faster framerates if you don't use these image enhancing features.
ATI also has a commanding lead in integrated GPU and the laptop market. ATI is also expanding into other areas like mobile, phones, PDA with their Imageon chip, and also into set top digital TV boxes.
However, Nvidia has typically had better driver development and its nForce2 AMD chipset has earned rave reviews.
Both companies are decent financially, with large cash reserves to fund liquidity, R&D, etc. Both are run relatively well in a highly competitive industry. I don't think you can go wrong with either company at this point. I have an ATI Radeon 9000-series card, own ATI shares, and an Nvidia nForce2 motherboard... so I endorse both companies! [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/IMG][hr]
wow klam ~ you know so much !!
ATI rulez !!
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, ON
Rep Power: 0 Well I have a friend who works at ATI now, who used to work at Matrox. So I know a bit inside the graphics card industry. I also invest in those stocks, so I keep abreast of industry developments for my own good!
Thread Starter
Registered!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,712
Likes: 0
From: Scarborough, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0 BTW, the 9500 and 9700 are gonna be faded out soon, eh. The 9600 and 9800 will take over with the R3X0 core, and will be based on the R2X0 design, but with much more power and less cost...
Exciting.
I'm still on my GF2 Ultra so will be getting rid of that soon, haha...
BTW, anyone need a mediocre video card, I've got an Original ATI AGP Radeon 32MB DDR, $50.
Exciting.
I'm still on my GF2 Ultra so will be getting rid of that soon, haha...
BTW, anyone need a mediocre video card, I've got an Original ATI AGP Radeon 32MB DDR, $50.
Registered!!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: txtadik
i'd go for an NVidia since they're relatively cheap compared to ATI and does the job pretty well [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG][hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: txtadik
i'd go for an NVidia since they're relatively cheap compared to ATI and does the job pretty well [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG][hr]
relatively cheap? if I recall, no NVIDIA card, low end or high end, offer better performance and dollar value than ATI.
Nvidia GF4 TI4200 [bottom line card for Nvidia] is neck and neck in performance with ATI 9000P which is priced lower, but ATI9000P is a DX9 card [sorta], while GF4 is DX8.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,712
Likes: 0
From: Scarborough, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0 NVidia's had it's time, but according to resources and market share, ATI is way dominant.
It's the OEM sales that helped ATI win this battle. No one buys retail boxes anymore, and NVidia's OEM market is shallow because they don't have any real low-end cards.
What? What's an MX card?
That's not a video card. [IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-puke.gif[/IMG]
It's the OEM sales that helped ATI win this battle. No one buys retail boxes anymore, and NVidia's OEM market is shallow because they don't have any real low-end cards.
What? What's an MX card?
That's not a video card. [IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-puke.gif[/IMG] 
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, ON
Rep Power: 0
Quote
[hr]Nvidia GF4 TI4200 [bottom line card for Nvidia] is neck and neck in performance with ATI 9000P which is priced lower, but ATI9000P is a DX9 card [sorta], while GF4 is DX8.[hr]
[hr]Nvidia GF4 TI4200 [bottom line card for Nvidia] is neck and neck in performance with ATI 9000P which is priced lower, but ATI9000P is a DX9 card [sorta], while GF4 is DX8.[hr]
The 9500 and 9700 series cards are ahead of GeForce4 though.
Thread
Thread Starter
Honda Civic Forum
Replies
Last Post
