Is there any reason to buy a Nvidia card over ATI?

In the end if you want dx8.1 bragging rights for next to nothing go a 5900nu BUT if you want a proper dx9 card then nvidia has nothing that can even match ATI'S 9600XT;)With AA and AF on.

But if you like nvidia then the 5900nu is about as good as it currently gets ;)
 
Originally posted by @trapine
In the end if you want dx8.1 bragging rights for next to nothing go a 5900nu BUT if you want a proper dx9 card then nvidia has nothing that can even match ATI'S 9600XT;)With AA and AF on.

But if you like nvidia then the 5900nu is about as good as it currently gets ;)
Click to expand...

It doesn´t beat the Geforce 4 ti-4200 though in term of good dx 8 card. If you look it that way...
 
bah i had to say this cause i heard 3 guys refer to the 269 9800pro in newegg , its a sapphire bulk card, not retail and not an ati branded card, its built by ati still a sweet deal but thought it should be added i know me i wanted the cool box lol


and for the poster get the 9800pro its all rade! nvida fell down and never got back up, after the few sorry cards they put up no one has forgot bout em!
 
I LIKE NVIDIA....but im a nvidiot like the rest of em so fuck it....

besides.....when i start playing true DX9 games, then mabey i swap to ATI...untill then, ill keep my $180 5950ultra.... :)
 
Originally posted by raz-0
get your head out of your ass.

The quodro cards are the same core and the same drivers as the consumer cards. The only difference is that less people make them and they ship with application specific drivers for some 3d apps like 3ds Max. And video editing has nothing to do with it. Abotu all most video editing suites care about your video card is in regards to it having hardware overlay, which they all pretty much do these days. (warning: video capture devices and the editing apps that gop with them care about a lot of things, do real research on them before putting down money)

the visual quality of the quadro 3000 is representative of the 5900 cards.


That out of the way, the answer to the question is at this point a matter of what matters to you.

You run real 3d apps? The NVIDIA quadro cards currently rule the roost.

You want 3d under linux? Nvidia still has a major advantage there.

for 2d quality, the ATI cards edge out the nvidia cards by a wee bit, and 3even then it can easily fall within the range of personal preference.

for your average 3d game, the ATI card is going to look better, but not a jaw dropping ammount. Same goes for framerates.

AT the moment, ATI currently plans more driver releases per year than nvidia.

Beyond that there are a bunch of other factors about which ones run hotter, draw more power, play nicer with which motherboard, etc. Those would require more specific descriptions of what you plan to put it in.
Click to expand...

Well said & 100% accurate.
:D
 
I'd like to warn you about Saphire 9800Pro OEM. I went through 2 of them , the first lasted 2 weeks the second one a month. Got me now FX 5900SE with Call of Duty included. The fan runs noticeably quiter which is a big deal to me, I hate noise.
I get 37 in AquaMark 2003 vs 40 with Radeon 9800PRo, cannot see any difference in any games performance though. The card cost just $188 , definitely good price/performance.
I play mostly Stalker : oblivion and Half Life 2. both run quite respectably, no slowdowns so don't think that only the latest and the most expensive card will let you play the future games :)
 
Originally posted by oqvist
It doesn´t beat the Geforce 4 ti-4200 though in term of good dx 8 card. If you look it that way...
Click to expand...
Well let's look at the benchmarks in UT2003.
GFFX 5900 - 95.5fps
GF4 ti4200 - 55.3fps

Yea, REAL close dx8.1 preformance there.
 
Originally posted by Carnival Forces
you read the [H]
you recommend FX series?

it's like,
if(statement == stupidity)
run nVidiaFX.exe
just, no.
Click to expand...


Unlike yourself, I have experience using ATI and nVidia's latest lineup of cards. I choose the FX 59xx series, based on my experience. I did not choose based on a blind-faith fad.

Oh, why bother......... Doc put you in your place.

Thanks DocFaustus.
 
So if we do choose to go nVidia, of which I'm planning, why do we get the FX 5900 NON ULTRA over the FX 5900 Ultra??? :confused:
 
Originally posted by ajm786
So if we do choose to go nVidia, of which I'm planning, why do we get the FX 5900 NON ULTRA over the FX 5900 Ultra??? :confused:
Click to expand...
5900NU - $185
5900U - $350

That's why (although the 5900U comes with 256MB ram). Outside of memory size, both cards have the same memory speed (850MHz). The 5900U core is just clocked 50MHz higher (450 vs 400MHz).
 
I spent 529.99 at Best buy for my 9800XT when it came out and i couldn't be happier. If you have the money.. Go for it.. If not.. Buy a lower card.
 
Originally posted by Badger_sly
Unlike yourself, I have experience using ATI and nVidia's latest lineup of cards. I choose the FX 59xx series, based on my experience. I did not choose based on a blind-faith fad.

Oh, why bother......... Doc put you in your place.

Thanks DocFaustus.
Click to expand...

Anytime bud. It's a shame to see ignorance run rampant around here. That happened to be a particularly extreme example, so I had to help clean it up.
 
Dont forget, 9800 Pros overclock also. Everyone harps one getting the 5900NU and OC'ing it. My little brother and I both got 9800 Pros for x-mas, his hits 465/390, mine hits 420/390. Both with stock coolers, with AS2 applied. His at 465 is the fastest thing I've ever seen. I'm going to get a VGA silencer for mine, and see what i can get it up to. I'm also picking up a pre-tested 3200+ capable Barton. Once i get that beast i'll post some 3dMarks, my 1800+ is crippling my shiny video card =(. Two of my friends own 5900NUs. They are pretty nice, but I prefer my 9800 at 420MHz =).
 
DocFaustus & Princess_Frosty, it's good to see some people think before speaking (er, typing).

I'm shocked no one has touched on this, more important to me than HL is Doom3. Yes Carmack believes ATI to be the better brand at the moment in general, but he has expressed his worries as it doesn't seem to even be able to run HL at playable framerates. I couldn't tell you if thats a drivers issue or not, and i don't want flames that HL is better anyways and go ATI, cause I don't give a fuck. I'm shooting for D3 out of nostalgia, and yes I'm positive they will licence the engine as well, so that argument for HL is mute. At least Nvidia can play both currently.
 
Just to followup, I'm not saying Nvidia is the only way to go at all. Just that each person has their own reasons to base their opinion on, and that you can't base "who's got the biggest dick" on a poll cause the technology these cards were built for hasn't even been fully fleshed out yet.
 
yeah i see that the FX5900nu is a great deal for the price but i decided to go with 9700Pro for $20 more i feel i made a good decision...but definately FX5900nu for that price is awesome! the only thing i miss is something called "digital vibrance" which is only a feature on FX line cards :(
 
Originally posted by Mikey20
yeah i see that the FX5900nu is a great deal for the price but i decided to go with 9700Pro for $20 more i feel i made a good decision...but definately FX5900nu for that price is awesome! the only thing i miss is something called "digital vibrance" which is only a feature on FX line cards :(
Click to expand...
I think the Padawan is learning.
 
RedHalo, it is silly to buy a videocard for future titles.When the future games come out there will be much better, cheaper videocards for sale. It always cracks me up when people talk about which video card is good for Doom3 - check the release date at ebgames.com, it is been delayed ... again ....
The HalfLife 2 coupon is good only for making a paper airplane since it is unlikely that the game will be released this year , just like Doom3.:eek:
Buyng sub $200 NVIDIA video card that equals $300 Radeons is really the only sensible decision today.
 
Originally posted by akanafene
It always cracks me up when people talk about which video card is good for Doom3 - check the release date at ebgames.com, it is been delayed ... again ....
The HalfLife 2 coupon is good only for making a paper airplane since it is unlikely that the game will be released this year , just like Doom3.
Click to expand...

Doom 3 never had a release date, thus cannot be "delayed".

And you know it wont be released this year? It will still save people $50 when it comes out.

Originally posted by akanafene

Buyng sub $200 NVIDIA video card that equals $300 Radeons is really the only sensible decision today.
Click to expand...

1. There is no denying that the 5900 at $185 is a great deal, if you get one that can be overclocked well. Most of them can, so its almost a sure thing.
2. You can get the 9800 Pro for less than $300, so that point is invalid.
3. The 9800 Pro can be overclocked as well, which you avoided. So the comparison is invalid as well.

And you also forgot that most 9800NP's can be flashed to 9800 Pro's. They were $200 a while back now, and are much harder to find. Perhaps the same thing will happen to the 5900NU's. Hopefully not.
 
Iv been eye balling those sub 300 9800pros, just because of there ownage in BF1942
 
Originally posted by obs
5900NU - $185
Click to expand...

Just a fyi.. that site has a lifetime rating of just 7.02%.. And the 6 month rating is just 5.56%Has anyone delt with them, are they good or not? I dont usually stray too far from newegg, or googlegear unless I know for sure they can be trusted.

edit, I mean just read some of these feedbacks from customers; http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1877.html

I dont think I would buy from them at this time, it doesnt look very good.
 
Originally posted by fallguy
Just a fyi.. that site has a lifetime rating of just 7.02%.. And the 6 month rating is just 5.56%Has anyone delt with them, are they good or not? I dont usually stray too far from newegg, or googlegear unless I know for sure they can be trusted.

edit, I mean just read some of these feedbacks from customers; http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1877.html

I dont think I would buy from them at this time, it doesnt look very good.
Click to expand...
I personally just ordered from them shortly after xmas. They shipped the next day. I too was concerned about their reseller rating but upon further inspections it looks like most people have problems getting monitors from them. Most of the reviews of them concerning video cards seemed pretty good.
 
Originally posted by akanafene

Buyng sub $200 NVIDIA video card that equals $300 Radeons is really the only sensible decision today.
Click to expand...

wats ur (or anyone's) take on the $~200 radeon 9700 pro's at various retailers? from all the benchies ive seen, they are afew fps ahead of the 5900's in some games, while the 5900's r afew higher in others. Although the 9700 pro probably runs ps 2.0 alittle faster.
 
Originally posted by akanafene
RedHalo, it is silly to buy a videocard for future titles.When the future games come out there will be much better, cheaper videocards for sale. It always cracks me up when people talk about which video card is good for Doom3 - check the release date at ebgames.com, it is been delayed ... again ....
The HalfLife 2 coupon is good only for making a paper airplane since it is unlikely that the game will be released this year , just like Doom3.:eek:
Buyng sub $200 NVIDIA video card that equals $300 Radeons is really the only sensible decision today.
Click to expand...

I didn't buy it just for Doom 3, don't put word in my mouth. I bought it cause I need a new card period "and" I decided to shop smartly for the games I know I will be playing. Hell, Ati may make some fix that zoops fps through the roof on the game by then, but it doesn't look good now so why would I buy one when I needed a card immediatly? Also, if you know any history on EB, they've been makeing up release dates on games for a while now without ever talking to the game companies.
 
Wow! I did not know I would get this many replies to my question!!! It is impressive how civil everyone has remained as a whole. Anyway, I am not new to hardware and video cards. I have built 55 comptuers in the last 2.5 years. I just never had a ATI card. I do not have anything against them. I just never got one. I do hear so many good things about them though. Most people seem to think it is the best card to get "right now". It appears that the 5900 is the card to get for people that play dx8 games. It also appears from your responses that the ATI is more likely "right now" to perform better with dx9 games. I guess it just depends on what I use the card for. Thanks for all of the responses and keep them coming.
 
Originally posted by gplracer
Wow! I did not know I would get this many replies to my question!!! It is impressive how civil everyone has remained as a whole. Anyway, I am not new to hardware and video cards. I have built 55 comptuers in the last 2.5 years. I just never had a ATI card. I do not have anything against them. I just never got one. I do hear so many good things about them though. Most people seem to think it is the best card to get "right now". It appears that the 5900 is the card to get for people that play dx8 games. It also appears from your responses that the ATI is more likely "right now" to perform better with dx9 games. I guess it just depends on what I use the card for. Thanks for all of the responses and keep them coming.
Click to expand...

You are right.

Ati has the best card on the market right now. Nvidia and Ati chose 2 paths to go down. Ati was lucky on the path they took.
Nvidia should be able to recover nicely. Buy Ati if you want a card now, or wait and see if Nvidia redeems itself with the Nv40. The FX line of cards is real disappointment, even to the biggest of fanboys.
 
Originally posted by olaf2821
The Nvidia cards are signifigantly faster in 2D than the ATi cards. since I do a lot of very large complex illustrations in Illustrator, page layout in InDesign and all the shit that goes with it in PS, I will stick with my nVidia card.
Click to expand...

You should be running matrox then..

In any case I can see a visible difference between the ATI and nVidia cards in 2D. The ATI cards were clearly better in image quality.
 
Originally posted by emorphien
You should be running matrox then..

In any case I can see a visible difference between the ATI and nVidia cards in 2D. The ATI cards were clearly better in image quality.
Click to expand...
My friend has a 9700 pro. I got a 5900NU. Both look the same.
 
redhalo

Carmack always supports the faster hardware out at the time, he's flipped back and forth for ages. Because of the nature of doom3, its heavy use of the GPU and things like stenic shadows (something Nvidia does rather well) its possible doom 3 will run better on a nicely overclocked 5900/5950, obviously thats just speculation, but there has been benchmarks with doom3 demos been done on webpages throughout its development and it seems the FX cards are ahead in the ones i've seen (including HarcOCP's one)

Who know though no one can really tell with doom3 atm, its an opengl based game and we have no real grounds for testing.

Buying a card that will run future games, is becoming something of a fad, not long ago when it was just more raw power per new card it was easy to predict performance and you didnt have to worry about much. Games like HL2 are so stressfull of the system that if it was released on its origional deadline (september) only people with top of the range cards would have been able to run it with MEDIUM settings.

Obviously as you said, if you're in the market for a card now anyways, its only smart to worry about future perofrmance as part of your decision.

The SMART thing to do here people, is to look at the facts and buy the card that most suits you, its not just about stock performance and benchmarks, its about drivers, quality and speed, amount of support and bugs, price per power for your price range, and future compatability. Dont blatently listen to peoples suggestions on which actual card, that doesnt really help at all.
 
Why people recommend the 5900 for dx 8 games is not because it beats the radeon but because they are competitive in term of performance in dx 8 games :)

For people who for some reasons need nVidia in their systems
 
Originally posted by oqvist
Why people recommend the 5900 for dx 8 games is not because it beats the radeon but because they are competitive in term of performance in dx 8 games :)

For people who for some reasons need nVidia in their systems
Click to expand...

im not trying to start a war here...but i run my 5900nu in my system because it the best bang for the buck, i cant get anything sub 200 that will run as fast as it dose...If i had 300 to spen i would bought a 9800pro. but i didnt, its all good though, what ever anyone says im happy with it... :)


(this was before the 9700pro droped to 200) but i dont really want to run an old card anyway.
 
but in the end your sig pretty well sums it up in a couple of words + afew added killabee
But really, dose anyone care? as long as your happy
Click to expand...
the civil war might be over oneday lmao:p
 
Originally posted by creedAMD
You are right.

Ati has the best card on the market right now. Nvidia and Ati chose 2 paths to go down. Ati was lucky on the path they took.
Nvidia should be able to recover nicely. Buy Ati if you want a card now, or wait and see if Nvidia redeems itself with the Nv40. The FX line of cards is real disappointment, even to the biggest of fanboys.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's it. It was luck all along and here I was thinking that it was design. :rolleyes:

My 2 cents on the question. If both cards can play <=DX8 games more than adequately and only ones plays DX9 games adequately that kind of makes the decision a no brainer.
 
Originally posted by nleg
Yes, that's it. It was luck all along and here I was thinking that it was design. :rolleyes:

My 2 cents on the question. If both cards can play <=DX8 games more than adequately and only ones plays DX9 games adequately that kind of makes the decision a no brainer.
Click to expand...
Well the DX9 standard was released a little over a year ago. The newer games take about two or more years of development. You are still looking at a while before DX9 games become mainstream. Even HL2 uses much more DX8 than DX9. With that said, the NVIDIA FX series really was a dissapointment. However, by slashing prices like crazy on a few cards, they have really made them attractive. They may not be as efficient in DX9, but even taking a 40% performance hit, a 5900NU will outperform a 9600XT. Well at least the NV40 is coming.
 
Originally posted by obs
They may not be as efficient in DX9, but even taking a 40% performance hit, a 5900NU will outperform a 9600XT. Well at least the NV40 is coming.
Click to expand...

Have any numbers to back that up?

redhalo,

I would not put any stock into those either the HL2 or the D3 numbers.

For the HL2 we have had new drivers from NV that should close the game. Since the R3xx chips seem to be more powerful in the PS shader I don't think NV will catch them in true DX9 mode. Plus with the game having to have some code re-written who really knows. Finally IIRC the HDR effects were not in those demo runs. So yea...too many unknowns.

With Doom3 you have two different paths (NV and ARB2) with the ARB2 having a oh so slight increase in IQ. You also have Tom's Hardware showing that when the Doom3 benhcies are ran in High Detail, the ATI cards came out on top. The current drivers used in those test did not work correctly with the ATI cards (they only recognized the 256mb cards as 128mb). And much like how the HL2 benchies were done/controlled by ATI, Doom3 were all NV doing (Beyond3d asked to bench DM3 as well, ID told them to talk to NV). Thus I have no good confidence with those numbers.

Then factor in that both games are still being tweaked, both IHVs are tweaking their drivers. Roll all that up and you can not really claim one is better then the other in that given titile. We can admit that the shaders are strong on the ATI cards so if HL2 is shader limited then ATIs should be faster. And DM3 use of stencile shadows and their custom NV code path should be a bit faster on the NV cards.

In the end I think either card will run the both games just fine.....
 
Originally posted by obs
Here
TR:AOD w/PS2.0
5900SE - 46.61
9600XT - 40.32
Click to expand...

I think you might want to look at the history of this game as a benchmark. A reviewer can select PS2.0 or 1.4 but that doesn't guarantee what shaders are going to run and at what precision levels.
 
I think you might want to look at the history of this game as a benchmark. A reviewer can select PS2.0 or 1.4 but that doesn't guarantee what shaders are going to run and at what precision levels
Click to expand...

And you would wanna relook at that statment of the 5900nu against a 9600XT in DX9 by 40% obs :p

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/9600xt/print.html
Now have a look at the punishing that the 5700ultra gets handed in Tomb Raider- Angel of Darkness by a 9600XT and you can guess how a 5900nu will benchy in this game better than the 5700 yes but no where near the 40% caining you like to think:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Jbirney
redhalo,

I would not put any stock into those either the HL2 or the D3 numbers.

For the HL2 we have had new drivers from NV that should close the game. Since the R3xx chips seem to be more powerful in the PS shader I don't think NV will catch them in true DX9 mode. Plus with the game having to have some code re-written who really knows. Finally IIRC the HDR effects were not in those demo runs. So yea...too many unknowns.

With Doom3 you have two different paths (NV and ARB2) with the ARB2 having a oh so slight increase in IQ. You also have Tom's Hardware showing that when the Doom3 benhcies are ran in High Detail, the ATI cards came out on top. The current drivers used in those test did not work correctly with the ATI cards (they only recognized the 256mb cards as 128mb). And much like how the HL2 benchies were done/controlled by ATI, Doom3 were all NV doing (Beyond3d asked to bench DM3 as well, ID told them to talk to NV). Thus I have no good confidence with those numbers.

Then factor in that both games are still being tweaked, both IHVs are tweaking their drivers. Roll all that up and you can not really claim one is better then the other in that given titile. We can admit that the shaders are strong on the ATI cards so if HL2 is shader limited then ATIs should be faster. And DM3 use of stencile shadows and their custom NV code path should be a bit faster on the NV cards.

In the end I think either card will run the both games just fine.....
Click to expand...
No doubt I agree with you, I believe that all will be fixed eventially, how far along I don't know. But as I stated before, when you got to get a card right now you have to predict with what info is available at the time. As for the benchmarks go, I was getting my info from Carmack whom isn't really biased either way. But I would assume inorder to make this game successfull id would work to iron out the wrinkles for all major chipsets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top