Nvidia Vs ATI - Page 2

spiewalk · 01-09-2002, 03:23 AM

dude go with ati, look at all the new features, true form, smartshader, go to there site and check it out.. it's worth every penny http://www.ati.com/na/pages/resource...rel/demos.html

[o2] cable · 01-09-2002, 03:24 AM

radeon 8500 is unstoppable but a overclocked 7500 wouldnt be bad either since i think the memory in the 7500 actually outperforms the memory in the 8500 i read that somewhere i forget though but 7500 for 220 dollars is a rip off i dont know what the australian - american dollars exchange rate is but you shouldnt be paying more than 170 american dollars for the 7500 you could easily find it for 150 probably...thats retail too not oem. oem 100 dollars but then you couldnt hope to match the 8500 performance.

[o2] cable · 01-09-2002, 03:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Athlon7:
Go the nvidia route, I'm hoping ATI drops the prices on the 8500, till then I doubt anyone should opt for the ATI, can't lose with nvidia! Geforce 3 TI200=best bang for your buck, oh and overclock it a bit!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

negative gf3 ti 200 goes for about 150 oem radeon 7500 goes for about 90 - 100 bucks oem and the 7500 has comparable, if not better in some areas, performance than the ti200

ATI is smoking nvidia right now and will continue to do so until geforce4...that is if anyones mobo's will support gf4 lol.

[o2] cable · 01-09-2002, 03:31 AM

if games were coded with ati boards in mind then nvidia wouldnt stand a chance but since most games are designed with geforce technology in mind they have a slight edge with in game performance. but technology wise radeon 8500 is on top theoretical benchmarks put geforce to shame.

Manny · 01-09-2002, 03:33 AM

Most of ATI's features are usless.

btw, they cheated themself on top of the benchmarks.

They released 'slightly modified' drivers for all Quake III benchmarks (read: fps tests) made by magazines and websites. Radeon 8500 scored slightly faster than the Geforce 3 cards. That's because with the modified drivers used by ATI it dramaticly decreased image quality to get the extra fps boost. That's the only reason they scored faster than the Geforce 3.

Also, Doom 3 is one of the many next generation games that will be on top of Geforce 3 and nothing else.

And your pointing to ATI's website? Huh?

Radeon 8500 has horrible drivers as well. And a Geforce 2 Ti is better than the Radeon 7500. To quote William O'Neal from Computer Gaming world Magazine:

"The only reason we'd recommend buying the Radeon 7500 over the Geforce 2 Ti is to help the Canadian economy. Then again, who really cares about the canadian economy anyway, eh?"

------------------
Death

is only the beginning

Thompson · 01-09-2002, 05:07 AM

AGREED MANNY

------------------
Thomp.

My clan Website

Manny · 01-09-2002, 05:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Thompson:
AGREED MANNY
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good

geRV · 01-09-2002, 05:31 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAH

Most of ati's features are useless?? LMAO What have nvidia come up with thats so innovative? Fsaa oh thats right they copied 3dfx on that one.

Nivida's only innovation to date has been hardware t&l and that going on 3 years old now as it was in the original geforce 256.

Plus it is a useless feature. 3dfx were right when they released the vodoo 5, hardware t&l was pointless because cpu's were becoming so fast it negated the need for it. But all the drones who seen 3d mark the nvidia benchmark went out and bought nvidia cards even though there was nothing really innovative about them at all.

Anyone else think its funny since the death of 3dfx nvidia have had no new innovations? Nvidia stole and infringed on 3dfx patents left right and centre then bought them out because the court case was flying in 3dfx's favour.

The only real innovater is ati with their truform which gives a more realistic image which is the whole goal of 3d graphics. gaming isn't about retarded framerates with sub par graphics so you can boast "i run quake 3 at .35fps faster than you".

Nvidia always go for speed while letting the visuals suffer whereas ati and 3dfx in their last few years where concentrating on more realistic graphics.

People are soon gonna wake up and realise that optomisations are made in the graphics of games for a better frame rate. 60fps is more than playable who needs 130 fps? Anything over 60 is just for bragging rights.

Personally id take a game with outstanding graphics running at 60fps than a game running with sub-par graphics running at 150 fps anyday of the week.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Manny:
Most of ATI's features are usless.

btw, they cheated themself on top of the benchmarks.

They released 'slightly modified' drivers for all Quake III benchmarks (read: fps tests) made by magazines and websites. Radeon 8500 scored slightly faster than the Geforce 3 cards. That's because with the modified drivers used by ATI it dramaticly decreased image quality to get the extra fps boost. That's the only reason they scored faster than the Geforce 3.

Also, Doom 3 is one of the many next generation games that will be on top of Geforce 3 and nothing else.

And your pointing to ATI's website? Huh?

Radeon 8500 has horrible drivers as well. And a Geforce 2 Ti is better than the Radeon 7500. To quote William O'Neal from Computer Gaming world Magazine:

"The only reason we'd recommend buying the Radeon 7500 over the Geforce 2 Ti is to help the Canadian economy. Then again, who really cares about the canadian economy anyway, eh?"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------
nVidiot: Human being brainwashed by false statements and propaganda from nVidia Corp. into believing all things GeForce are of the highest of superiority and defy all logical grounds of video cardness. Belief in 3Dmark2001 Benchmark scores regardless of quality, functionability, and compatability is a common worship and religion of these fundamentalists. However do not take these poor souls lightly they are armmed heavily with propeganda, false statements, DetonatorXPs, and GeForces. Remember nVidiots come in all shapes and sizes. Be on guard or you will be assimilated.

See also: stupid, moron, idiot

[This message has been edited by Gerard (edited January 09, 2002).]

Manny · 01-09-2002, 05:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gerard:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAH

Most of ati's features are useless?? LMAO What have nvidia come up with thats so innovative? Fsaa oh thats right they copied 3dfx on that one.

Nivida's only innovation to date has been hardware t&l and that going on 3 years old now as it was in the original geforce 256.

Plus it is a useless feature. 3dfx were right when they released the vodoo 5, hardware t&l was pointless because cpu's were becoming so fast it negated the need for it. But all the drones who seen 3d mark the nvidia benchmark went out and bought nvidia cards even though there was nothing really innovative about them at all.

Anyone else think its funny since the death of 3dfx nvidia have had no new innovations? Nvidia stole and infringed on 3dfx patents left right and centre then bought them out because the court case was flying in 3dfx's favour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Geforce 3 cards lack uslfull features, so does ATI. The power behind Geforce cards has always been their speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gerard:
The only real innovater is ati with their truform which gives a more realistic image which is the whole goal of 3d graphics. gaming isn't about retarded framerates with sub par graphics so you can boast "i run quake 3 at .35fps faster than you".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed automatically means better graphics. Even with 1.4 ghz, you need a very good card to run Wolfenstein in 1600*1200 (which, btw, looks amazing). Most people don't have more than 1.2 ghz and thus for, for them at least, more speed means cranking up the details or resolution, which means better image quality. Not even 1/3 of the people who play are able to go higher than 800*600. Also, playing in 1024*768 instead of 800*600 makes a bigger difference than a usless feature that increases image quality by 10%.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gerard:
Nvidia always go for speed while letting the visuals suffer whereas ati and 3dfx in their last few years where concentrating on more realistic graphics.

People are soon gonna wake up and realise that optomisations are made in the graphics of games for a better frame rate. 60fps is more than playable who needs 130 fps? Anything over 60 is just for bragging rights.

Personally id take a game with outstanding graphics running at 60fps than a game running with sub-par graphics running at 150 fps anyday of the week.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Difference Ati cards deliver (if any compared to Geforce 3) is minimal. So minimal that you might not even see it. Also, please run Return to Castle Wolfenstein in 1600*1200 maxed resolution with 150 fps. Good luck.

Radeon 8500 and Geforce 3 Ti 200 are so close onto each other that it's not even worth argueing.

[This message has been edited by Manny (edited January 09, 2002).]

painkiller44 · 01-09-2002, 06:21 AM

go for a 8500, I purchased mine for $200 retail, you can find it cheap if you keep looking. The card is outstanding, and dont listen to what everyone says about drivers and problems, people dont realize that you need to take out all detonator drivers before installing the ATI product..... if you want more opinions....go here..more discussions
http://gamershq.madonion.com/

Inforit · 01-09-2002, 08:03 AM

I would go Geforce based cards all the way.

Nvidia is always been great with the driver support. And I think its the most crucial part for me.

Drivers are what makes the computer and games run. And Nvidia doesnt disapoint in their driver support. Almost every month they come out with new version and I think its very important becuase every day there is a new game or new hardware that is out and you want to make sure it works with what you have.
ATI rarely comes out with new drivers.
Something to think about.

My cards were: First Monster voodoo card and then TNT, Geforce 256 and now Geforce 3. Nvidia has good products on their hands and I support them.

Thats my 2cents

geRV · 01-10-2002, 05:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Geforce 3 cards lack uslfull features, so does ATI. The power behind Geforce cards has always been their speed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truform is a useful feature. If used properly for the first time in game we will see proper curves on characters instead of the usual polgonal edges we are accustomed to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Speed automatically means better graphics. Even with 1.4 ghz, you need a very good card to run Wolfenstein in 1600*1200 (which, btw, looks amazing). Most people don't have more than 1.2 ghz and thus for, for them at least, more speed means cranking up the details or resolution, which means better image quality. Not even 1/3 of the people who play are able to go higher than 800*600. Also, playing in 1024*768 instead of 800*600 makes a bigger difference than a usless feature that increases image quality by 10%.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, its a proven fact that if you play a game at 8000x600 on a voodoo 5 with 4xfsaa adn full lod bias you easily get 1600x1200 image quality and then some. As i stated before trform is not a useless feature and nvidia bullshit propoganda is not something i bother listening to.

What did nvidia say about fsaa when 3dfx was introducing it? "its a useless feature higher resoloutions are better". Yet they still felt it necessary to produce a hack in their drivers enabling their version of fsaa. Enter the geforce 3 advertising quincunx fsaa and enhanced 4xfsaa.

Funny enough for something they consider useless they spent enough time hyping it and making it a key feature in their new cards.

Ati has fsaa and truform. Truform like fsa has to be seen in person to be appreciated. It smothes out the edges giving characters a more realistic appearence.

And speed does not automatically mean better graphics. Nvidia always go for more fps no matter what the cost. If it compromises graphics they dont care cause it'll show up better in benchmarks even though its a sub-par image. If nvidia concentrated their efforts on improving graphics quality and not sacraficing everything for a .35fps frame rate increase i might have some respect for them.

I have owned voodoo 2's voodooo 3's voodoo 5's a geforce 256ddr, a geforce 2 gts and today a radeon 8500. Of the lot in terms of image quality with fsaa the voodoo 5 just edges out the 8500. In terms of 2d image quality the radeon is high and dry untouched by the rest. In terms of speed with good image quality the radeon is the winner.

As for saying the 8500 compares with the ti200, wise up. The 8500 easily competes with the ti500.

------------------
nVidiot: Human being brainwashed by false statements and propaganda from nVidia Corp. into believing all things GeForce are of the highest of superiority and defy all logical grounds of video cardness. Belief in 3Dmark2001 Benchmark scores regardless of quality, functionability, and compatability is a common worship and religion of these fundamentalists. However do not take these poor souls lightly they are armmed heavily with propeganda, false statements, DetonatorXPs, and GeForces. Remember nVidiots come in all shapes and sizes. Be on guard or you will be assimilated.

See also: stupid, moron, idiot

[This message has been edited by Gerard (edited January 10, 2002).]