Graphics Cards?

[Lamsey]

A lot of people do prefer nVidia. ATi cards tend to be slightly less universally compatible, and at least in my experience are more expensive than nVidia counterparts.

[pc-gamer-dude]

nvidia is actually way better then ya'all make of it. there gfx card 5600 is a cheap card offereing performance on scale with the radeon 9600 regular. and you can get the 5600 for $100 if u look closely. and the 9600 is like $30 more. i think ati is over priced, no good budget cards like nvidia. and nvidia cards last super long (espiecally the mx serious of the geforce 4). considering me dad has a geforce2 mx420 64mb is running games like COD at 1024x768 with medium details at a very playable framerate, on a 1ghz amd cpu, and 512mb pc2100 ram. so dont ya'all be dissin agaisnt nvidia. yeah im not saying ati is bad, im just saying nvidia is pretty damn good if you think about it.

[Rip The Jacker]

I voted for Nvidia!

[DWk]

Originally posted by DWk@19 January 2004 - 18:14
Pointless argumentative post.

Edited by: Virtualbody1234.

Another? Hmmm ok. I guess I shouldn't post anymore :

[adamp2p]

Question: Please tell me, those of you who voted for Nvidia, who do you turn to when you decide to buy any hardware for your computing needs?

I will tell you this much: I don't know who you guys listen to, but they are few and far between, let me tell you!

Let me start a "proof" for you.

First I will say that those of you who voted for Nvidia did so because you are sour you missed out on the Microsoft Direct X 9 API and wasted money on a card that was supposed to fare well in the DX9 API but did not. You should be angry at Nvidia and not try to justify an unfortunate decision you made.

Proof.

I am now going to prove to you that every respecable hardware website that you respect (or say you do and refer people to ahhemm...lamsey...) will categorically conclude that Nvidia was destroyed by ATi througout 2003, and so far in 2004.

1. Tom's Hardwaredisagrees with you.
2. Anandtech disagrees with you:

You’ve been living too perfect of a life if you’ve never used the phrase “it’s been a long day,” and for NVIDIA it has most definitely been a very long day. Just over two weeks ago the graphics industry was shook by some very hard hitting comments from Gabe Newell of Valve, primarily relating to the poor performance of NVIDIA cards under Half Life 2. All of the sudden ATI had finally done what they had worked feverishly for years to do, they were finally, seemingly overnight, crowned the king of graphics and more importantly – drivers. There were no comments on Half Life 2 day about ATI having poor drivers, compatibility problems or anything even remotely resembling discussions about ATI from the Radeon 8500 days.

Half Life 2 day was quickly followed up with all sorts of accusations against NVIDIA and their driver team; more and more articles were published with new discoveries, shedding light on other areas where ATI trounced NVIDIA. Everything seemed to all make sense now; even 3DMark was given the credibility of being the “I told you so” benchmark that predicted Half Life 2 performance several months in advance of September 12, 2003. At the end of the day and by the end of the week, NVIDIA had experienced the longest day they’ve had in recent history.

Some of the more powerful accusations went far beyond NVIDIA skimping on image quality to improve performance; these accusations included things like NVIDIA not really being capable of running DirectX 9 titles at their full potential, and one of the more interesting ones – that NVIDIA only optimizes for benchmarks that sites like AnandTech uses. Part of the explanation behind the Half Life 2 fiasco was that even if NVIDIA improves performance through later driver revisions, the performance improvements are only there because the game is used as a benchmark – and not as an attempt to improve the overall quality of their customers’ gaming experience. If that were true, then NVIDIA’s “the way it’s meant to be played” slogan would have to go under some serious rethinking; the way it’s meant to be benchmarked comes to mind.

3. Kyle from [H]ardOCP disagrees with you:

Video Processor of the Year. ATI follows up 2002 with another VPU award from [H]. This time we are going to focus on the mainstream rather than the high-end parts. The technology behind the Radeon 9600 has certainly enhanced the game playing experience of many in the last twelve months, as very affordable 9600s, 9600 SEs, 9600Pros, and 9600XTs have been readily available. NVIDIA had a chance here this year, but finally coming to market in December and with very little penetration does not an award of the year make. ATI has been on target all year long fulfilling the true needs of gamers.

4. Xbitlabs.comdisagrees with you:

In the graphics processor market our readers appeared surprisingly unanimous. The indisputable leader here is ATI Company, which managed to win with a huge advantage. This company released the whole family of very successful solutions based on RADEON 9700 PRO architecture last year and definitely deserved this honor.

5. The Members of Neowin disagree with you.
6. Driverheaven disagrees with you:

The gap in performance is closer in this product cycle than it was when the 9800 Pro and 5900 Ultra were doing the rounds however based on the fact that the Radeon is faster overall in all but one of the tests we performed the Radeon 9800 XT should still be the card that’s top of your shopping list.

Now, please show me who you do trust!

I am honestly disappointed in some of you for basing not basing judgments on facts.

However, that is only human nature. We make a mistake and the first thing we do is attempt to justify it with another mistake. Its always better to be objective and base your decisions on facts. When the entire respected hardware community makes a judgement and agrees, its a little hard, you must admit, to argue with them.

Why be a martyr for Nvidia when they have nothing to offer you?

Edit!
Oh, yeah, I forgot my Q.E.D.

[bigdawgfoxx]

...wow...lol go ATI!

[DWk]

The bad thing about this matter is - what happens if M$ comes out with a different DX API whenever they release DX10 (for example...don't even know if it'll be 10).

What does ATI assure you then? That your 9800XT will support DX10? No one ever knows

And yes, I'm "angry" (well not precisely angry, but disappointed) that nVidia didn't release some good DX9 cards.

However, you ask who WE trust? Well I probably trust myself. I've had nVidia cards for about 3-4 years and they have kept up until now. For example, my TNT2 Riva can play Call of Duty on high settings.

I think it pretty much depends on what your gaming is based on. For example, I wouldn't buy a DX9 card if I were to play Call of Duty or BF1942 or Counter-Strike. It would be a waste of money.

EDIT - spelling

[bigdawgfoxx]

yeah i mean...dont we all just like to by old outdated cards because the new cards arent good with DX9...that makes no since. ATI is better for DX9 period.

What does ATI assure you then? That your 9800XT will support DX10? No one ever knows
^^^ Nvidia isnt promising great DX10 cards...so why should ATI have to?

[DWk]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@20 January 2004 - 20:31
yeah i mean...dont we all just like to by old outdated cards because the new cards arent good with DX9...that makes no since.  ATI is better for DX9 period. 

What does ATI assure you then? That your 9800XT will support DX10? No one ever knows
^^^ Nvidia isnt promising great DX10 cards...so why should ATI have to?

As I said, it pretty much comes to what games you play.

Edit - Yes a lot of people would still buy some DX8 cards because they don't have 200 dollars to spare.

[bigdawgfoxx]

I guess thats true...but you can get DX9 cards for under $200. But yeah I see your point.