Graphic Cards Duel

[Gandalf on Crack]

Soul where are you getting that from...Thats cheap enough to scare me....


I got my Radeon 9700 PRO (the one in the red box from Best Buy) for $170 (including S and H)

But I didn't get it legally obviously...I don't think I would of bought it for its normal $400 price at the time..
Though the card is great and I had a crappy Gf4 MX before it.

[Supernatural]

QuietSilence is right. All you Nvidia fanboys need to face the fact: ATI reigns supreme. Even their entry level Radeon 9000 performs really well. All of their boards beat their Nvidia counterparts, for about the same price.

And here something to think about: The Geforce FX has a core clock speed of 500Mhz and the Radeon 9700 pro has a core clock speed of 325Mhz. That's a about a 40% speed advantage, yet it's only BARELY faster? And you say ATI cards are buggy!

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Super, funny man. You are wrong... nv30 silly, is the Geforcefx... the current one, that is out, the 128meg, directx 9 card, with the big ass fan, thats why they say its a niche market...

the nv35 is the next big chip, due out in a month or two, get ur facts straight before u come talkin smack to a pc builder...

and heres the proof, for you noobs who dont read accordingly, and follow every hardware release cycle...

nv30 = geforce fx.... nv 35 is new card...

[Schmiggy_JK23]

NV## is the representation of the order the cards are released...

nv31 = 5200 (just paper released, out soon)
nv34 = 5600 (same)
nv30 = 5800 ultra (out now, after some delays)
nv35 = ??? (the next geforce card, assuming they keep the name, not paper released, just back from the fab plant)

Its not the low end card that ur earlier post said it was... its the next high end card..... the next set of low end cards would be like nv36, and nv39 or such, and wouldnt be out for like another 5-6 months.

the nv35 is being rushed out, cuz the nv30 ( the 5800 ultra) didnt compete with the Radeon Pro 9700, and 9800 as well and nvidia thought.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Originally posted by Supernatural@24 March 2003 - 00:19
And here something to think about: The Geforce FX has a core clock speed of 500Mhz and the Radeon 9700 pro has a core clock speed of 325Mhz. That's a about a 40% speed advantage, yet it's only BARELY faster? And you say ATI cards are buggy! 

It has nothing to do with buggy. I have no clue where you learned about hardware, but you need more lessons.

The Radeon Pro uses 256bit memory... while the geforce fx use 128bit memory. Yet, the geforce fx beats the Radeon 9700 pro in some tests, as does the 9700 beat it in some tests, (especially higher aa levels). The reason the Geforce fx competes, yet being only 128 bit memory, is cuz of the higher clock speed.

Its not about bugs.

Im no fan boy of either... if i buy a card say next month, it will be the 500$ radeon pro 256 meg 9800. But I may just wait for the nv35, and see what its packing.

[Supernatural]

My mistake... I get the NV34 and the NV35 mixed up. I feel like an @$$ right now. :">

[maybe]

Originally posted by mikharris@20 March 2003 - 21:04
If you really want to go out and pay £300 for a graphics card that is full of bugs then go ahead.
ati still have driver problems.
nvidia fx is a bit new. (and does beat the ati in benchmarks)
get a ti 4600 it will run any game that is likely to be out in the next year so why pay for new technology that is yet to be proven.
bet you bought a betamax

yeah, but the GeForce Ti series are not directX 9 cards.

i mean isn't what this whole hype about Geforce Fx is all about? DirectX 9 cards for the messes?

correction, shitty DirectX 9 cards for the messes. even radeon's 9000 pro series is faster than the new GeForce FX 5200, it's really kinda sad.

[Supernatural]

True, but the GeForce FX 5200 has DX9 capabilities that the Radeon 9000 does not have.

[3RA1N1AC]

it's been a while since i've read any Geforce FX previews, but from what i remember, most sites were saying that the GF FX and the Radeon 9500 were fairly comparable in speed. it's possible that nvidia will release drivers that improve the performance of the FX so it leaps ahead of the 9500 by a bigger margin, but at the moment it seems like kind of a letdown.

and i realize that opinions are very passionately split down the middle about the 3D Mark 2003 benchmark, but i would caution people to avoid using that test as the most important factor in their choice of card because it doesn't reflect the performance of the cards in any games that are currently available... and the idea that it accurately reflects performance with upcoming games is extremely questionable as it is impossible to predict how well the designers of actual games will be able to take advantage of video card technology. 3D Mark should be taken with a grain of salt and be considered a technology demonstration rather than a reflection of game performance, since nobody can say how well DX9 cards will run DX9 games, until games using DX9 graphic effects are actually released. one company can release a DX9 game that runs extremely fast on DX9 cards, while another one can release a DX9 game that crawls like a snail on DX9 cards... it all comes down to the skill of the software programmers, in the end.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Supernatural@23 March 2003 - 21:19
And here something to think about: The Geforce FX has a core clock speed of 500Mhz and the Radeon 9700 pro has a core clock speed of 325Mhz. That's a about a 40% speed advantage, yet it's only BARELY faster? And you say ATI cards are buggy! 

megahertz and gigahertz mean something, when you're comparing one processor to another processor of the same design. i.e. a 2ghz athlon is better than a 1ghz athlon. but when you start comparing different processor designs, megahertz/gigahertz become what is jokingly referred to as "meaningless indicator of processor speed." a 2ghz athlon is not the same as a 2ghz pentium 4 is not the same as a 2ghz mac g4. the mhz or ghz can give you a rough idea of the real world performance, but everyday use is the true indicator.

along that same line, an ATI video processor is a completely different design from a nvidia video processor, so comparing their clock speeds is basically meaningless.

it has nothing to do with buggy or not buggy, but how efficiently the designers were able to transform mhz into effective work, using a combination of processor design, board design, memory, and driver software. if a 300mhz video card is able to compete with a 500mhz video card, it means that ATI is using their mhz more efficently... not that nvidia's card is buggy. however it does serve as proof that mhz are not the be all, end all... and you can't judge computer equipment just by how many MIPS (meaningless indicator...) it has.