to the OP, ive had nothing but problems with ATI and so have several of my friends. I used to only buy ATI for a long time, but after awhile i started to see a trend with their driver updates and customer service that i didnt like. The drivers would usually fix one problem, but create another. Every time i found issues i reported them to ATI customer service, however the most i got back was a thank you for informing us and no updates for several months. The point where i finally had it was i found a major bug when playing DAoC. I informed ATI about it and asked if they can look into it. The only response i got was a list of possible solutions. I replied saying i tried all of these and none worked... i got the same automated reply again.
Since i switched to nVidia i've yet to encounter any real problems with gaming of system lockups. drivers seem to come at a steady pace especially when new games come out.
IMO go with nVidia. i did and have been happy since the switch
Protip: If someone does NOT list at least one positive and one negative about the game they are critiquing, its best to ignore the post.
My only advice, which applies to both nVidia and ATI is to stay the HELL AWAY from X2 cards. I had a 7950GX2. Boy that pos was not worth the money. Almost 700 CAD for a buggy card and almost no game used both GPUs. My friend has a 3870X2 right now and the performance is...well, not that great. It's not worth the money. You're better off SLIing 2 8600GTs geez.
This argument dates back sometime and has very vocal segments on both sides. Just like AMD and Intel and Gateway and Dell. First and foremost, people who have very very strong opinions have usually gotten screwed by the one they dislike. I have a strong opnion and I say this up front to let you know I am slightly biased (but I will explain why). I am solely an Nvidia user. Not only that I ONLY use XFX cards. I have tried BFG and eVGA brand and the XFX has been the best for me so far. A little history. I built my first computer and at that time, ATI had come out with a card that put anything Nvidia had to shame. So I got the ATI. I couldn't play a single game. Apparently, after weeks of research and buying a lower rank Nvidia, I found out that my motherboard and ATI had issues (this was probably 5 years ago maybe). Since then I have had no luck with ATI and stuck with Nvidia. My main issue with ATI is two-fold: I hate the drivers (multiple versions and huge software downloads with them including sometimes Steam!?!?!) and all of the applications that run with them. People get so caught up with the argument and benchmarks and other stuff they forget that programs running in the background, defragmentation and other associated issues can hurt card performance regardless of the card - Nvidia or ATI. Example - I just purchased the XFX Geforce 9600GT. Installed it and got the same performance and frame rates I was getting with my old 7600gt. I was angry. 200 bucks down the drain so to speak. Checked out the box and it recommends a 500 watt power supply. I had a 450 watt supply. I decided to upgrade to a 550 watt supply. Just installed it and I saw a huge increase in performance. HUGE increase...in some games as much as 30-40 fps. Nvidia is easier to use and upgrade drivers. ATI seems to release drivers more often and that concens me too. Nvidia releases them usually about every 3 months. It is a simple download and installation process. All of this is why I use Nvidia and it ultimately equals to personal preference and I advise you to use what you prefer for the reasons you prefer.
All the specs I've seen say the 9600gt needs a 400 wat suply..
Only reason I ever look is because my 7950 needs a 325 wat and my power suply isn't that big (WTF would gateway put such tiny ass power suplies in thier systems?). I've had a feeling that my card wasn't performing as well as it should as a result of the powersuply, but I've never really been sure.
Stop beating the dead horse. NVIDIA > AMD-ATI right now. Everything > AMD-ATI right now. MACs > AMD-ATI right now. People here have no knowledge why, I am not going to explain why. Go to any hardware performance site or "techpowerup" (probably the best site for hardware info imo) and you'll understand why. They may catch up in the future, but for now majority of people are using 8800GTs. Look at 3dmark benches, look at Steam hardware surveys.
Now stop beating on the dead horse before it kicks you and you get owned.
ATI is at the top of the 3D Mark Benches with the HD2900. But there are more people running around using 8800GT who get thier benchmarks on 3D Mark.
I like the poster who posted before about the Price-Performance Ratio. I did the same thing. I am very happy with the card I got.
http://www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/priceandperformance/ While the 8600GT is absolutely the "best bang for the buck" card at the moment - you get 47% of the performance of an 8800 Ultra for a paltry 12% of the price - I don't think most people are interested in that (unless your budget is only $100), when you can have the 8800GT for $200.
But based on the same statistics you could argue that the HD3850 is the best in the $170 area.
In general, you cannot say whether ATI or NVidia is better. Every price range has a certain best card, sometimes it is NVidia, sometimes it is ATI.
Tomshardware has a good overview here, updated every month.
Personally, I stick to a video card until it is broken or until I really want to upgrade. If it is broken, I prefer switch the manufacturer from ATI to NVidia or backward, otherwise I prefer to stick to the same manufacturer.
My recent history is something like this:
NVidia (broken) -> ATI (broken) -> NVidia (current since 2 years, longest so far).
Stop beating the dead horse. NVIDIA > AMD-ATI right now. Everything > AMD-ATI right now. MACs > AMD-ATI right now. People here have no knowledge why, I am not going to explain why. Go to any hardware performance site or "techpowerup" (probably the best site for hardware info imo) and you'll understand why. They may catch up in the future, but for now majority of people are using 8800GTs. Look at 3dmark benches, look at Steam hardware surveys.
Now stop beating on the dead horse before it kicks you and you get owned.
ATI is at the top of the 3D Mark Benches with the HD2900. But there are more people running around using 8800GT who get thier benchmarks on 3D Mark.
I like the poster who posted before about the Price-Performance Ratio. I did the same thing. I am very happy with the card I got.
Yeah, and if the only thing you care about is performance go get the card. That card has/had major issues in the past and still does now. Everyone is better off with an 8xxx or 9xxx nVidia card or a 3xxx ATI card.
It isn't always about price vs. performance, esp. when some cards overclock a lot better than others on stock cooling. Sure the 2900 can outperform other some other cards on god damn liquid nitrogen cooling but if you can't afford that, or hell can't even afford water cooling, why the hell would you buy a 2900?
The only thing Nvidia Trounces is sale figures, performance has always been on ATi's side since the mid 90's. Nvidia just uses better marketing , and we will also see the effects of such "marketing" will be determined in the current anitrust case pending in Europe for Intel.
Are you serious? ATI was definitively ahead for an entire generation once, when it was R300 vs. Geforce FX.
Geforce 6 beat R420, especially with the 6600 GT in the midrange. Geforce 7 beat R520 early on, until ATI's refreshed X1650 and X1950 with the triple shaders pulled even (and later ahead in newer games like Oblivion and Bioshock). Of course by the, we were almost to the release of the 8800 GTX, which ATI could not answer for a year.
To recap:
ATI clearly won the Geforce FX vs. R300 generation.
ATI launched late, and still could not match Geforce 6 with their initial X800. Later iterations of the X800 traded blows with the 6800, but the X700 could not match 6600 GT in the midrange.
In the Geforce 7/R520 generation, X1800 was outperformed by 7800 GT. The first X1650 couldn't touch 7600 GT. The updated X1650 XT with double shaders came close. The new X1950 with triple shaders competed well with 7900 and 7950, and would later pull ahead in shader heavy games.
From November 2006 to April 2006, Geforce 8 was untouched at the high end. Even after the HD 2900's release, it could was hot and power hungry, and could not match 8800 GTX. AMD was uncomfortably squeezed by the 8800 GTX, 8800 GTS, and 8800 GTS 320 into a very small niche of:
- Cheaper than GTX
- Higher resolution than 320
- Games where the hotter HD 2900 would outperform the GTS 640
However, AMD's previous generation X1950 competed very well with lackluster midrange 8600's and their own 2600's.
Which brings us to present day.
HD 3870 X2 beats 8800 Ultra, which is way overpriced. However, 8800 GTX is nearly as powerful, and $50 to $100 cheaper. Also 2x 9600 GTs or 2x 3870s will match that performance for nearly $100 less.
8800 GTS/8800 GT have no competition, but are right in line price/performance wise with the others.
HD 3870 and 9600 GT compete.
HD 3850, 8800 GS, and 8800 GT 256 MB compete. Although 8800 GSs can be hard to find.
At present, AMD has the highest performing card on the market, but it's still a bad value compared to 2x 9600s or 2 of their own 3870s.
The entire range spanning from HD 3850 to 8800 GTS is "best value range", and here AMD and Nvidia compete neck and neck right now.
How can you say either is ahead in performance right now?
Originally posted by solareus
" ATI Radeon Graphics Rule Top 20 3DMark05 and 3DMark06 Scores, Capturing 36 of Top 40 Spots AMD announced that systems utilizing ATI Radeon HD graphic cards established new records in Futuremark 3DMark05 and 3DMark06 benchmarking standards, demonstrating once again that ATI Radeon HD graphics cards are preferred by overclockers around the globe. On Feb. 16, MemoryExtreme Team Italy, a group renowned for record-breaking overclocking achievements and better known online as giampa, Leghorn and giorgioprimo, set a new world record 3DMark05 score of 39,133, surpassing the previous record also set using ATI Radeon HD graphics cards. The same day, the team captured the 3DMark06 record by posting a score of 30,662, edging the previous world record by 56 points. The ATI Radeon HD graphics line, is a clear favorite of the overclocker community. As of Feb. 20, 2008, ATI Radeon graphics cards take a clean sweep of the current top 20 records in 3DMark05 and 16 of the top 20 3DMark06 scores, for an aggregate 36 of the 40 best 3DMark05 and 3DMark06 scores posted on the Futuremark website. “The enthusiast community continues to be an incredibly important audience for AMD,” said Matt Skynner, vice president, Marketing, AMD Graphics Products Group. “Our unmatched results in industry benchmarks demonstrate that we listen and deliver when enthusiasts ask for improved multi-GPU scaling, greater overclockability and industry-leading stability.” "
Before it was even released we knew the HD 2900 had superior hardware specs to the Geforce 8. Unfortunately, from day one we saw it was an underpeformer in actual games.
HD 2900 gets high 3Dmark scores, but when your superscaler shaders can't be efficiently utilized, when AA eats up your shader resources, when your huge memory bus goes to waste...
Most of us buy graphics cards to play games, not run synthetic benchmarks.
Both AMD and NVIDIA have good and bad products and both companies compete quite evenly in most of the price ranges. Also both have had their share of driver problems and otherwise managed to irritate some customers to hate them, but neither has really bad general reputation.
There is no rational reason to decide that you are going to buy either AMD or NVIDIA graphic card. Just compare all the graphic cards, and buy the one you think is best for you, wether it's made by AMD or NVIDIA.
And don't even look at graphic card clock speeds when trying to compare two diffirent cards. It's like comparing car speeds based on how many rpms their engines can achieve, not very wise since there are so many other factors wich influence a car's max speed (or a graphic card's speed). The only viable comparison for graphic cards is testing them in actual use, sites like tomshardware.com do some good tests.
And don't believe any proof, review, or evalutation of how good a graphic card is if it's made by the card's producer. It should be clear without saying that those reviews aren't neutral.
You know, that really kinda pisses me off at how stupid some people can be. It absolutely amazes me how we have three posts about 3dmark benches. I have both the 8800GT and the 3850. The 3850 I have on my home computer, and 8800GT at school. I am in no way a fanboy for either groups, I just buy accordingly to what a need and what gives me the most bang for the buck with all factors involved (overclocking, cooling, accessories etc.).
For the idiots, sorry there is no other word, trying to back up ATI/start an argument with 3dmark benches. Please take this to another board. Any person here knows that unless you are being paid, having a crap load of money, or are just bored shiatless, 3dmark benches mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR GAMES. The 2900 out BENCHES everything right now but the Geforce 8, and soon to be 9 series out perform ATI-AMD in EVERY GAME POSSIBLE.
Now the dumbest part about this is...
Because ATI hasn't been able to get it's head out of a mule's ass, nVidia (this applies to AMD vs. Intel too) has been taking it's slow time at making better video cards. There is no need to. nVidia knows it has the best on the market, we know they do, so why would they need anything better? Until ATI makes something better than the Geforce 8800 Ultra (notice this is a single card, not TWO), nVidia isn't going to do anything. And don't tell me that the X2 beats the Ultra because the GX2 coming out is going to rip everything apart. I personally stay the hell away from X2/GX2 cards due to stability issues.
I'll say it again, leave 3dmark benches out of this. This is a game site, we are not swinging our e-peens at who has a higher score. And even if 2900 has a better score, I'll still be enjoying my games at a higher FPS than you at any resolution.
You know, that really kinda pisses me off at how stupid some people can be. It absolutely amazes me how we have three posts about 3dmark benches. I have both the 8800GT and the 3850. The 3850 I have on my home computer, and 8800GT at school. I am in no way a fanboy for either groups, I just buy accordingly to what a need and what gives me the most bang for the buck with all factors involved (overclocking, cooling, accessories etc.).
For the idiots, sorry there is no other word, trying to back up ATI/start an argument with 3dmark benches. Please take this to another board. Any person here knows that unless you are being paid, having a crap load of money, or are just bored shiatless, 3dmark benches mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR GAMES. The 2900 out BENCHES everything right now but the Geforce 8, and soon to be 9 series out perform ATI-AMD in EVERY GAME POSSIBLE. Now the dumbest part about this is...
Because ATI hasn't been able to get it's head out of a mule's ass, nVidia (this applies to AMD vs. Intel too) has been taking it's slow time at making better video cards. There is no need to. nVidia knows it has the best on the market, we know they do, so why would they need anything better? Until ATI makes something better than the Geforce 8800 Ultra (notice this is a single card, not TWO), nVidia isn't going to do anything. And don't tell me that the X2 beats the Ultra because the GX2 coming out is going to rip everything apart. I personally stay the hell away from X2/GX2 cards due to stability issues.
I'll say it again, leave 3dmark benches out of this. This is a game site, we are not swinging our e-peens at who has a higher score. And even if 2900 has a better score, I'll still be enjoying my games at a higher FPS than you at any resolution.
Uhh you are the one who brought up 3dmark benches... We just noting that the HD2900 is the top of those benches along with the HD3870x2. Also 3DMark scores really are a nice basis to use for 1 reason. Thier tests are were gaming is heading rendering wise in the next couple years.
Comments
to the OP, ive had nothing but problems with ATI and so have several of my friends. I used to only buy ATI for a long time, but after awhile i started to see a trend with their driver updates and customer service that i didnt like. The drivers would usually fix one problem, but create another. Every time i found issues i reported them to ATI customer service, however the most i got back was a thank you for informing us and no updates for several months. The point where i finally had it was i found a major bug when playing DAoC. I informed ATI about it and asked if they can look into it. The only response i got was a list of possible solutions. I replied saying i tried all of these and none worked... i got the same automated reply again.
Since i switched to nVidia i've yet to encounter any real problems with gaming of system lockups. drivers seem to come at a steady pace especially when new games come out.
IMO go with nVidia. i did and have been happy since the switch
Protip: If someone does NOT list at least one positive and one negative about the game they are critiquing, its best to ignore the post.
My only advice, which applies to both nVidia and ATI is to stay the HELL AWAY from X2 cards. I had a 7950GX2. Boy that pos was not worth the money. Almost 700 CAD for a buggy card and almost no game used both GPUs. My friend has a 3870X2 right now and the performance is...well, not that great. It's not worth the money. You're better off SLIing 2 8600GTs geez.
Only reason I ever look is because my 7950 needs a 325 wat and my power suply isn't that big (WTF would gateway put such tiny ass power suplies in thier systems?). I've had a feeling that my card wasn't performing as well as it should as a result of the powersuply, but I've never really been sure.
Wish Darkfall would release.
ATI always owned Nvidia. They had a bit of a set back last year, but this year they are back in the business.
ATI 4 life!
I like the poster who posted before about the Price-Performance Ratio. I did the same thing. I am very happy with the card I got.
In general, you cannot say whether ATI or NVidia is better. Every price range has a certain best card, sometimes it is NVidia, sometimes it is ATI.
Tomshardware has a good overview here, updated every month.
Personally, I stick to a video card until it is broken or until I really want to upgrade. If it is broken, I prefer switch the manufacturer from ATI to NVidia or backward, otherwise I prefer to stick to the same manufacturer.
My recent history is something like this:
NVidia (broken) -> ATI (broken) -> NVidia (current since 2 years, longest so far).
I like the poster who posted before about the Price-Performance Ratio. I did the same thing. I am very happy with the card I got.
Yeah, and if the only thing you care about is performance go get the card. That card has/had major issues in the past and still does now. Everyone is better off with an 8xxx or 9xxx nVidia card or a 3xxx ATI card.
It isn't always about price vs. performance, esp. when some cards overclock a lot better than others on stock cooling. Sure the 2900 can outperform other some other cards on god damn liquid nitrogen cooling but if you can't afford that, or hell can't even afford water cooling, why the hell would you buy a 2900?
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)
Are you serious? ATI was definitively ahead for an entire generation once, when it was R300 vs. Geforce FX.
Geforce 6 beat R420, especially with the 6600 GT in the midrange. Geforce 7 beat R520 early on, until ATI's refreshed X1650 and X1950 with the triple shaders pulled even (and later ahead in newer games like Oblivion and Bioshock). Of course by the, we were almost to the release of the 8800 GTX, which ATI could not answer for a year.
To recap:
ATI clearly won the Geforce FX vs. R300 generation.
ATI launched late, and still could not match Geforce 6 with their initial X800. Later iterations of the X800 traded blows with the 6800, but the X700 could not match 6600 GT in the midrange.
In the Geforce 7/R520 generation, X1800 was outperformed by 7800 GT. The first X1650 couldn't touch 7600 GT. The updated X1650 XT with double shaders came close. The new X1950 with triple shaders competed well with 7900 and 7950, and would later pull ahead in shader heavy games.
From November 2006 to April 2006, Geforce 8 was untouched at the high end. Even after the HD 2900's release, it could was hot and power hungry, and could not match 8800 GTX. AMD was uncomfortably squeezed by the 8800 GTX, 8800 GTS, and 8800 GTS 320 into a very small niche of:
- Cheaper than GTX
- Higher resolution than 320
- Games where the hotter HD 2900 would outperform the GTS 640
However, AMD's previous generation X1950 competed very well with lackluster midrange 8600's and their own 2600's.
Which brings us to present day.
HD 3870 X2 beats 8800 Ultra, which is way overpriced. However, 8800 GTX is nearly as powerful, and $50 to $100 cheaper. Also 2x 9600 GTs or 2x 3870s will match that performance for nearly $100 less.
8800 GTS/8800 GT have no competition, but are right in line price/performance wise with the others.
HD 3870 and 9600 GT compete.
HD 3850, 8800 GS, and 8800 GT 256 MB compete. Although 8800 GSs can be hard to find.
At present, AMD has the highest performing card on the market, but it's still a bad value compared to 2x 9600s or 2 of their own 3870s.
The entire range spanning from HD 3850 to 8800 GTS is "best value range", and here AMD and Nvidia compete neck and neck right now.
How can you say either is ahead in performance right now?
Before it was even released we knew the HD 2900 had superior hardware specs to the Geforce 8. Unfortunately, from day one we saw it was an underpeformer in actual games.
HD 2900 gets high 3Dmark scores, but when your superscaler shaders can't be efficiently utilized, when AA eats up your shader resources, when your huge memory bus goes to waste...
Most of us buy graphics cards to play games, not run synthetic benchmarks.
There is no rational reason to decide that you are going to buy either AMD or NVIDIA graphic card. Just compare all the graphic cards, and buy the one you think is best for you, wether it's made by AMD or NVIDIA.
And don't even look at graphic card clock speeds when trying to compare two diffirent cards. It's like comparing car speeds based on how many rpms their engines can achieve, not very wise since there are so many other factors wich influence a car's max speed (or a graphic card's speed). The only viable comparison for graphic cards is testing them in actual use, sites like tomshardware.com do some good tests.
And don't believe any proof, review, or evalutation of how good a graphic card is if it's made by the card's producer. It should be clear without saying that those reviews aren't neutral.
You know, that really kinda pisses me off at how stupid some people can be. It absolutely amazes me how we have three posts about 3dmark benches. I have both the 8800GT and the 3850. The 3850 I have on my home computer, and 8800GT at school. I am in no way a fanboy for either groups, I just buy accordingly to what a need and what gives me the most bang for the buck with all factors involved (overclocking, cooling, accessories etc.).
For the idiots, sorry there is no other word, trying to back up ATI/start an argument with 3dmark benches. Please take this to another board. Any person here knows that unless you are being paid, having a crap load of money, or are just bored shiatless, 3dmark benches mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR GAMES. The 2900 out BENCHES everything right now but the Geforce 8, and soon to be 9 series out perform ATI-AMD in EVERY GAME POSSIBLE.
Now the dumbest part about this is...
Because ATI hasn't been able to get it's head out of a mule's ass, nVidia (this applies to AMD vs. Intel too) has been taking it's slow time at making better video cards. There is no need to. nVidia knows it has the best on the market, we know they do, so why would they need anything better? Until ATI makes something better than the Geforce 8800 Ultra (notice this is a single card, not TWO), nVidia isn't going to do anything. And don't tell me that the X2 beats the Ultra because the GX2 coming out is going to rip everything apart. I personally stay the hell away from X2/GX2 cards due to stability issues.
I'll say it again, leave 3dmark benches out of this. This is a game site, we are not swinging our e-peens at who has a higher score. And even if 2900 has a better score, I'll still be enjoying my games at a higher FPS than you at any resolution.
omg who ressurected this dead horse arguement from 1999?
Uhh you are the one who brought up 3dmark benches... We just noting that the HD2900 is the top of those benches along with the HD3870x2. Also 3DMark scores really are a nice basis to use for 1 reason. Thier tests are were gaming is heading rendering wise in the next couple years.