Nvidia vs ATI poll

[mtkafka]

What will win?

Maybe 3dfx will make a comeback? Any other companies out there to steal the crown from ATI/Nvidia?

Do you care? Maybe Consoles win in the end :( !

etc

[Guido Jones]

I refrained from voting because I'm using a GeForce 4 in my desktop and a Radeon 9000 64MB in my new Dell Laptop (thanks for the heads up on this board btw) - I think Nvidia will win though :P

[voltaic]

Even the consoles are ATI and NVidia nowadays. At least, the good consoles are. :twisted:

[Aleck]

What will win?

Maybe 3dfx will make a comeback? Any other companies out there to steal the crown from ATI/Nvidia?

Umm... Didn't NVidia literally swallow 3dfx?

Anyway, I made the jump to ATI on two separate occasions: first with a rage fury, then with a Radeon 64 VIVO. In both instances, driver problems disrupted a number of games.

When the Radeon came out, people said "wow! Great card! And don't worry, ATI's sketchy history with drivers is coming to an end." Which is almost exactly the same thing folks said when the Catalyst drivers came out. Me... I'm on the sidelines. But at least I know my NVidia drivers will work with damn near everything.

asjunk

[Kalle]

But at least I know my NVidia drivers will work with damn near everything.


That was my impression too, until I installed the latest 43.45 Detonator drivers and watched the frame rates in Combat Mission 2 drop 90%.

[Ergo]

My GeForce Ti4400 blew up about 3 weeks ago. The only high-end card my local Fry's had was a Radeon 9700 Pro, so that's what I bought (after years of loyal Nvidia use).

So far, I've had zero driver issues with the latest Catalysts.

[Ben Sones]

I'm using a Radeon 9700 Pro right now, and like it just fine. That's not to say that I wouldn't switch back to an NVIDIA card without a second thought if they offer the card that best meets my needs when I'm next in the market for a video card. My brand loyalties are pretty fickle, and subject to the whim of the moment. :)

[Gladguy]

Anyway, I made the jump to ATI on two separate occasions: first with a rage fury, then with a Radeon 64 VIVO. In both instances, driver problems disrupted a number of games.

When the Radeon came out, people said "wow! Great card! And don't worry, ATI's sketchy history with drivers is coming to an end." Which is almost exactly the same thing folks said when the Catalyst drivers came out. Me... I'm on the sidelines. But at least I know my NVidia drivers will work with damn near everything.

asjunk
My sentiments exactly. I've been burned on the same two ATI products. I'll take a drop from 120 to 108 FPS if it means I'll be able to play all my games, TYVM.

ATI is getting better at working with the development community to find and fix problems before games ship, but nVidia is already there.

[graller]

Wasn't it prpven that the human can't ever detect frame rate differences beyond like 50-70 range...this is one of the stupid things about card geeks that kill me. They debate ATI/NVidia over things that the human eye can't detect like it is life or death. Me I always choose price, stability, and quality...

[Gordon Cameron]

You can detect them if you have the frame-counter activated in the corner. :wink:

[voltaic]

The important part about frame rates isn't the "high" or "sustained" rates, which many times are over 60-70 FPS. The important part is the "lows". How bad does your card eat shit when 4 dudes with rocket launchers blaring all of a sudden enter the picture? That's the point. So if your card is maxing out at 60-70, then yes most times you won't see small changes. But then you'll have half a second when it chug-a-lugs down to 15 FPS as it is loading all the new textures and all that shit, then my friend you will notice it.

I think the reasoning is if your card is churning out over 70 FPS normally, then the "lows" won't be as low. Frankly I'd be OK with games having a top FPS at say 80 FPS and using extra "time" per frame to calculate better AI and physics or to guess and precache graphics/textures I am likely to need soon or something. In other words, I'd prefer a game to always be 50-80 FPS then 35-120 FPS. Heh.

[Gordon Cameron]

Or in the case of Morrowind, 8-25 FPS.

[MarchHare]

I'm using a GF4 4400 now, but most likely my next card (which I plan to puchase in the late-summer/early-fall) will be ATI.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

....uhm, am I even allowed to vote? :?:

You can detect them if you have the frame-counter activated in the corner. :wink:

ROFLMAO!!!!

/me rolling on the floor

[Jim F.]

I'm using a Radeon 9700 Pro and my wife is using a GeForce 4600 TI (box says 4400, card say 4600, so who knows?).

Both cards are great, and both seem to perform better at different games and in different situations. I'll stick with my 9700, but I wouldn't feel cheated with a GeForce

[Bullhajj]

my wife is using a GeForce 4600 TI (box says 4400, card say 4600, so who knows?).

Go buy what it says on the reciept! What did they charge you for?

[Jason Becker]

I'm putting my money on SiS.

[voltaic]

Actually Derek, I'd be interested in your thoughts. You haven't busted mad caps in the ATI driver team in two or more moons. What do you think about the new hardware (both NVidia and ATI) and the latest few iterations of ATI's Catalyst drivers?