>>>| Radeon (ATI) - - VS. - - Nvidia |<<<

[alien886]

I know this topic has probably already been covered (annoyingly), but I think that this debate still has good grounds.

Just to start up my side of the issue, I think ATI video cards have nVidia cards beat hands down. I say this from experiences, specifically bad ones...

For example, just recently (2 weeks ago), I had to send in my 3 month old Asylum FX 5600 256MB (manufactured by BFG Technologies) for a replacement. Also, the last few computers i have built within the last 2 years have been more difficult w/ Nvidia video cards (aka I'll have video display problems, where I can't even log into Windows, nor tweak any BIOS settings).

Share your opinion: nVidia or ATI (Radeon)? Which one is more RELIABLE? Which one is BETTER? (SUPPORT YOUR OPINION)

 

[InlineFive]

This type of thread is illegal because it can start flame wars.

 

[Robor]

Neither...

 

[Schadenfroh]

matrox

 

[hans007]

uh this kind of comes and goes.


you nvidia card dying doesnt mean most nvidia cards suck. i mean... i used to think ati had crummy drivers, and well i just bought an ati recently because well... the drivers are better (though less linux support still) and well ati cards currently produce less heat, and i can get passive cooling with decent performance.


i doubt it will stay like that forever, i am not well going to turn into a fan boy anytime soon.

 

[alien886]

well, why do nVidia cards have low 3d benchmarks on Half-Life 2 then?

 

[alien886]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
This type of thread is illegal because it can start flame wars.

BTW, its not "illegal" and if each person has an opinion and supports his or her opinion, this debate is more intelligent than a flaming contest. Please don't jump to conclusions

 

[Atlantean]

You are an idiot for posting this. It really doesn't matter what brand you get both are good. Now its basically a matter of personal preferance, I chose a radeon 9800 pro because I was told they are better for anti aliasing.

 

[alien886]

Originally posted by: Atlantean
You are an idiot for posting this. It really doesn't matter what brand you get both are good. Now its basically a matter of personal preferance, I chose a radeon 9800 pro because I was told they are better for anti aliasing.

Correction: I am currious idiot. Would you ever buy a nVidia (say a MSI fx 5900 ultra)?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alien886
well, why do nVidia cards have low 3d benchmarks on Half-Life 2 then?

Maybe because Valve worked solely with ATI???

Why are people basing the purchase of a video card now on a game that is not even out yet? A game that neither card will run very well when it finally is released. And when the next generation cards are right around the corner?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: alien886
I know this topic has probably already been covered (annoyingly)

Yes it has, annoyingly so, thank you, thread over, go back to AOL.

Matrox > you.

- M4H

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: alien886
I know this topic has probably already been covered (annoyingly)

Yes it has, annoyingly so, thank you, thread over, go back to AOL.

:beer: Cheers and happy new year man

 

[alien886]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: alien886
well, why do nVidia cards have low 3d benchmarks on Half-Life 2 then?

Maybe because Valve worked solely with ATI???

Why are people basing the purchase of a video card now on a game that is not even out yet? A game that neither card will run very well when it finally is released. And when the next generation cards are right around the corner?

So you're saying that PC Game Publishers like Valve scam us into thinking that we should buy a specific video card manufacturer over another (i.e. in this case, Radeon over nVidia for the Half-Life 2 game). I am justing curious about what the majority (over 40 pollers counts as a statistically accurate sample>>> a representative sample) of Anandtech forum members prefer for video cards. Thats all I am doing... I am just curious for crying out loud. I am NOT trying to convince ANYONE that one is better than the other (Radeon nor nVidia). Relax people, jeesh!

 

[high]

ATI > NVIDIA.


nuff said.

 

[lifeguard1999]

What are you going to use the card for?

Linux? --> Nvidia
Gaming? --> ATI
Workstation? --> NVidia Quadro

The answer depends on your application.

 

[Corporate Thug]

radeon vs nvidia?

how bout Ati vs nvidia

 

[nRollo]

I am justing curious about what the majority (over 40 pollers counts as a statistically accurate sample>>> a representative sample) of Anandtech forum members prefer for video cards

Why don't you explain why you think this?

It's not a very good question for several reasons:
1. This topic has been discussed to death already. If you're "curious" as you say you are, why not just read the multitude of threads already existing?
2. "who wins" what? Gaming? What games? What settings? Productivity software?
3. What constitutes "winning"? Being 5% faster at some game at some setting?

This thread is flamebait.

 

[Deeko]

3dfx 4 life!

 

[clicknext]

It's a constantly changing thing, and even at one specific instant, it's mainly a matter of preference.

By the way, it's ATI, not Radeon.

 

[PliotronX]

Akin to "Pentium vs. AMD."

 

[VIAN]

Hah, AMD all the way.

Anyway, ATi seems to have guaranteed performance over nVIDIA, but there are also compatability issues that ATi cards face that do drop a lot of games off of their shelf.

I chose nVIDIA.

 

[McArra]

Another silly thread, the question isn't that simple don't you think?

 

[Richdog]

alien886, no offence mate, but if a new user on this forum wants to retain a bit of credibility and make sure his threads attract a bit of respect and attention... starting one as stupid, as tired, and as antagonizing as this usually isn't the way to do it.:beer:

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: alien886
well, why do nVidia cards have low 3d benchmarks on Half-Life 2 then?

Because the GeForce FX was designed before the DX9 standard was established and because nVidia had already invested millions in designing it, the couldn't scrap it and start over to conform to the DX standards. I've read in a few places that nVidia approached MS and told them a new programming language would be needed for the future of video cards and MS decided it wasn't time yet, so nVidia went to work on their own language called CG... then supposedly ATI approached MS and asked for the same thing, a new language, so MS create DX9. And it just so happens that CG and DX9 are very different. And since the GeForce FX is designed to work with CG, and ATI's cards are designed to work with DX9 and adhere to DX9 specs exactly, they perform better. Imagine that!

nVidia's been pumping our drivers furiously because they keep making changes to their compiler to try to translate DX9 code into code that their GPU can process more efficiently... that's why from the time the GFFX was announced they've touted their "highly programmable GPU." Sounds good doesn't it? Well... it has to be highly programmable cause it's not designed to run DX9 software. Kinda like running a Windows emulator in Linux so you can use Windows apps.

 

[nRollo]

Well... it has to be highly programmable cause it's not designed to run DX9 software. Kinda like running a Windows emulator in Linux so you can use Windows apps.

That's not true. They're just designed to run DX9 at either 16 or 32 bit precision. MS decided to use 24 bit, as did ATI.

I bet alien886 posts "Why won't the PLO leave Palestine?" polls on Middle Eastern bbs, and "Why do abortion Dr.s kill babies" on Planned Parenthood bbs. Sigh.