NVidia Or ATI
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: [B][O][T]
A request from bawa@Klite_user
BOT
Posted by: BawA
tanx bot
BTW which one do u use for me every body knows :P nVidia Ge-Force
Posted by: [B][O][T]
Same here, already voted :)
BOT
Posted by: Jay
nVidia all the way
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
nvidia or ati WHAT? is there an actual question? if so, it should be in the poll topic.
btw, *ahem*http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=545716 (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=63707&view=findpost&p=545716)*ahem*
Posted by: BawA
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@13 October 2003 - 12:57
btw, *ahem*http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=545716 (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=63707&view=findpost&p=545716)*ahem*
:angry: this is 3rd time u r posting this link
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
Originally posted by bawa@Klite_user@13 October 2003 - 01:00
:angry: this is 3rd time u r posting this link
just making sure you noticed it, since you never bothered to reply.
i'll try not to bump that thread again (at least not until HL2 comes out). ;)
Posted by: N£MO
NVidia for me.
Posted by: Lamsey
ATI = faster
nVidia = prettier
I think I'll forgoe the extra 3 fps for a better-looking game. ;)
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
ATI
thanks to Zero Cool for this link: http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/video/t...chyon_g9600pro/ (http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/video/tyan_tachyon_g9600pro/)
Posted by: Virtualbody1234
Nvidia. Just think about the drivers.
Posted by: DarthInsinuate
ATI for their better choice - i'd choose 9600pro over 5600, because the its faster and not too much more expensive (its cheaper in some cases)
also because of the HL2 and Aquamark benchmarks i've seen
Posted by: abu_has_the_power
where can i find detailed info to compare a gfx 5200 and 5200 ultra? i can oc mine to a ultra, but i'm not sure wat the specs r
Posted by: BawA
still nVidia is leading :lol:
Posted by: Virtualbody1234
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030311/index.html
Posted by: adamp2p
Originally posted by bawa@Klite_user@13 October 2003 - 15:15
still nVidia is leading :lol:
We'll only be able to draw a definite conclusion about the GeForceFX 5600 when ATi launches the new Radeon 9600 series. But compared to the Radeon 9500 PRO (priced about the same, at $199), NVIDIA's mainstream flagship comes up short. In addition, there's the FSAA/ anisotropic image quality of the ATi R3x0 chip, which turned out to be significantly better in our previous test. The only thing that can save NVIDIA from more serious damage is the poor delivery situation that is typical with ATi.
Toms Hardware. You guys should read the whole article next time.
Posted by: sage0112
I'd choose Nvidia, since its usally the gamers choice.
ATI is more of a buisness type video card.
Nvidia has horrible drivers though.
Posted by: abu_has_the_power
9800 pro is better than 5900 ultra. but sometimes its hard to tell the difference.
Posted by: Wolfmight
how they compare up
Nvidia=AMD great quality, lower price
Radeon=Intel better, cost alot more
Posted by: fr600
Both are very good. But I like the most expensive one...
Posted by: Cygnuz-Y
Right know i own a Nvidia but i seriouly think ATI is better, i have seen all the benchmarks so far and is amazing how a 128 ATI can outperform a 256 Nvidia card :blink:
Posted by: Neo 721
Nvidia have alwys been the better card,but if it value for money ATI are slightley pushing ahead considering the benchmark results.
Posted by: Benno
ATI
Nvidia=AMD great quality, lower price
Radeon=Intel better, cost alot more
Nah not true, Radeons arent more expensive
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
Originally posted by Wolfmight@13 October 2003 - 19:07
how they compare up
Nvidia=AMD great quality, lower price
Radeon=Intel better, cost alot more
that analogy is ridiculous.
how about this?
Nvidia=Intel higher clock speeds, less bang per MHZ
Radeon=AMD lower clock speeds, more bang per MHZ
i'm sure if Lamsey sees this, he'll be the first to point out what's wrong with my revised analogy. but the point is, both analogies are wrong.
people these days act like Nvidia is such an underdog and ATI are such greedy bastards. several months ago, it was completely the other way around. everybody thought Nvidia were the big evil monopoly and ATI were the underdog-- then the only thing that happened to make a difference was that Nvidia released the GeforceFX series and it was hugely disappointing. Nvidia's new generation performed just on par with, and sometimes much worse than, ATI's previous generation. oh, boo-hoo, poor Nvidia, now ATI are the bad guys just because Nvidia released a crappy video card. ;)
Posted by: Wolfmight
Actually both of the fastest AIT and Nvidia cards have they're Good and Bad sides.
more of a 50/50 even though speed isnt the same.
Posted by: adamp2p
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+14 October 2003 - 20:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 14 October 2003 - 20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wolfmight@13 October 2003 - 19:07
how they compare up
Nvidia=AMD great quality, lower price
Radeon=Intel better, cost alot more
that analogy is ridiculous.
how about this?
Nvidia=Intel higher clock speeds, less bang per MHZ
Radeon=AMD lower clock speeds, more bang per MHZ
i'm sure if Lamsey sees this, he'll be the first to point out what's wrong with my revised analogy. but the point is, both analogies are wrong.
people these days act like Nvidia is such an underdog and ATI are such greedy bastards. several months ago, it was completely the other way around. everybody thought Nvidia were the big evil monopoly and ATI were the underdog-- then the only thing that happened to make a difference was that Nvidia released the GeforceFX series and it was hugely disappointing. Nvidia's new generation performed just on par with, and sometimes much worse than, ATI's previous generation. oh, boo-hoo, poor Nvidia, now ATI are the bad guys just because Nvidia released a crappy video card. ;) [/b][/quote]
You are funny! :lol: :lol: But so so true...
Personally, I never root for the underdog...I stick to the facts...
I don't want to insult anyone's opinion in this thread, but the people who are trying to say that Nvidia is the leading graphics firm obviously have a screw (or two) loose. :ph34r:
I like to make objective judgements (it a good habit to get into). I guess the people who voted for Nvidia as the leader either/and/or:
a) Have not read any of the recent (for some time now) results of benchmarks from every review site imaginable (be it Tom's hardware, Andantech, or Xbitlabs) which clearly make ATI the leader by a longshot.
B) Are sore losers for buying one of those new FX series thinking it was top of the line, only too late did they realise that they got ripped off and won't just admit it... :blink: :angry: :o
Posted by: ZaZu
I have an ATI All In Wonder Pro
agp 4x,w/32MB ram
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
i think they're both good companies. i've got three nvidia cards and three ATI cards (six total, but only four are still in use). i didn't pay more than $150 for any of them, but they were all pretty well-suited to what i wanted to do with them.
Posted by: abu_has_the_power
Originally posted by adamp2p+15 October 2003 - 00:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (adamp2p @ 15 October 2003 - 00:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@14 October 2003 - 20:35
<!--QuoteBegin-Wolfmight@13 October 2003 - 19:07
how they compare up
Nvidia=AMD* * * great quality, lower price
Radeon=Intel* * better, cost alot more
that analogy is ridiculous.
how about this?
Nvidia=Intel higher clock speeds, less bang per MHZ
Radeon=AMD lower clock speeds, more bang per MHZ
i'm sure if Lamsey sees this, he'll be the first to point out what's wrong with my revised analogy. but the point is, both analogies are wrong.
people these days act like Nvidia is such an underdog and ATI are such greedy bastards. several months ago, it was completely the other way around. everybody thought Nvidia were the big evil monopoly and ATI were the underdog-- then the only thing that happened to make a difference was that Nvidia released the GeforceFX series and it was hugely disappointing. Nvidia's new generation performed just on par with, and sometimes much worse than, ATI's previous generation. oh, boo-hoo, poor Nvidia, now ATI are the bad guys just because Nvidia released a crappy video card. ;)
You are funny! :lol: :lol: But so so true...
Personally, I never root for the underdog...I stick to the facts...
I don't want to insult anyone's opinion in this thread, but the people who are trying to say that Nvidia is the leading graphics firm obviously have a screw (or two) loose. :ph34r:
I like to make objective judgements (it a good habit to get into). I guess the people who voted for Nvidia as the leader either/and/or:
a) Have not read any of the recent (for some time now) results of benchmarks from every review site imaginable (be it Tom's hardware, Andantech, or Xbitlabs) which clearly make ATI the leader by a longshot.
B) Are sore losers for buying one of those new FX series thinking it was top of the line, only too late did they realise that they got ripped off and won't just admit it... :blink: :angry: :o [/b][/quote]
good point. ATI makes much better cards than nvidia, i voted for ati. c, if i had money, i would've gotten a radeon 9500 pro or at least a 9600, but i don't :angry: :( , so i went with the cheapest 128 mb that can play hl2 and doom 3 on low (gfx 5200)
Posted by: racer II
i bought the 9600pro a while ago, its a great card!!! kicks ass =)
B)
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
Originally posted by racer II@15 October 2003 - 20:35
i bought the 9600pro a while ago, its a great card!!! kicks ass =)
B)
i agree :D