OT: ATI or NVidia

Ok, I admit it.  I know this isn't Amiga-related, but I'm stymied.  I was looking at the Pirates thread and began wondering about what's available in video cards these days.  

There seems to be a large divide in the video card realm between ATI and Nvidia.  I know this isn't news to most, but I simply haven't kept up (owning a business-suitable FX 5200).  Now, there are new games coming out that stretch my 5200 to it's limits and I'm wondering "if I can get a new video card, what should/would I need to buy?"

The weird thing is, I know everyone who uses a PC has a preference between ATI and NVidia, but the sites I've read all seem to vary based on their own personal preferences.  One site says "the ATI x800 pro is the ultimate video card of 2004", while another says that "very clearly the Nvidia 6800 Ultra is the best you can buy for any money".

I own an nvidia-based (clone) FX5200 card.  I like it.  Others I've talked to swear by ATI cards and curse nvidia to death.  Right now, I can't afford the x800 *or* the 6800 Ultra, (I'm more in the x700/6600 category) but I'm just wondering which YOU think is better (and please be clear about why)?

Wayne

[Speelgoedmannetje]

we shall not know
I think a better question is:
wich card will be the best supported one.
I mean, how many games will really take advantage of the hardware?
If we take things back on topic:
look at the graphical difference of for instance: IK+ (International Karate) and Elfmania...

[whabang]

The X800 is definitely the fastest, but we're only talking about a few FPS' lead in Doom here.

Go for the cheaper one. You'll get a great card no matter what.

[Orjan]

I have used Nvidias Geforce cards all the way back since the original Geforce 256, as it was called. I have never had any problems with them, drivers always a pleasure to install with the Detonator packs ( Now called Nforce, or something ) and never reflected that ATI might be better.

Now, with the purchase of my Dell computer, I have a ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and I found out it is just as userfriendly as the Geforce.. So I could swing either way if I was to get a new card.. :-)

Another thing to consider is that the high-end Geforce cards usually have such large fans that they occupy a PCI slot aswell, only to allow the heatsink/fan to fit, whereas the ATI don´t need as much cooling ( I figure )...

[whabang]

I wasn't really clear in my previous post.

ATI are known to have more intelligent sollutions to problems, rather than nVidia's brute-force approach.

[seer]

Does it really matter ? Both top of the lines crank out avout the same FPS, depending on the benchmarks an ATI card outperforms an nVidia with 2 or 3 FPS and another benchmark shows the other way around. Meaning; both cards are fast, some games like nVidia, some like ATI, the difference is minor.

Not helpfull huh ?

It may also depends on the mobo tho...

It may also depends on the mobo tho...

True.  I should probably point out that I also use an NForce2 based motherboard at the moment (MSI K7N2 with an Athlon 2800 and 512mb of DDR400).  Probably makes a difference.  :-)

Wayne

[rayt]

ATI are known to have more intelligent sollutions to problems, rather than nVidia's brute-force approach.

Yeah, I've heard that too. Reminds me of AMD vs. Intel somehow.
Also Nvidia killed 3dfx (which was a cool company imho) and they refuse to freely release information about their cards to developers. So I would go for an Ati card, but thats of course only my personal opinion.

[bloodline]

I have an old TNT2 a Geforce2 and a Radeon9000... the ATI is obviously the most powerful card I own is is really good for modern games. I've found all the cards to be very good, especially my TNT2 which I expect would survive a nuclear war...

If I were to get a new card tomorrow, I would get the 6800, because It's had good reviews and it's a good price. Also I find the Nvidia numbering scheme easier to understand.

I would suggest getting the cheapest card that meets your spec.

[bloodline]

rayt wrote:

ATI are known to have more intelligent sollutions to problems, rather than nVidia's brute-force approach.

Yeah, I've heard that too. Reminds me of AMD vs. Intel somehow.
Also Nvidia killed 3dfx (which was a cool company imho) and they refuse to freely release information about their cards to developers. So I would go for an Ati card, but thats of course only my personal opinion.

3Dfx killed themselves by being crap. Ati are just as lame about giving away technical information about their cards (there is a reason why only Nvidia cards are directly supported by AROS at the moment, other than via the VESA driver).

[seer]

Probably makes a difference. :-)

Well, you would think it would favor a nVidia gfx card. But I recently read a review of an nForce4 mobo (not persee because of the news item) and the differences with an ATI or nVidia based card were minor..

[Blomberg]

A couple of points:

- ATI cards use less power (generally. I'm not sure how it is with the latest offerings from either side)

- Nvidia make better drivers (for Linux too)

- Nvidia generally has better opengl performance (Like Quake-based games such as Call of Duty, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault), whereas ATI have the edge (I believe) on DirectX based graphics.

I could swing either way in the future, but for now it's Nvidia for me.

So we're doomed either way :-)

Pirates uses DX9, Doom3 uses primarily OpenGL.

Wayne

[adolescent]

I currently have a BBA AIW 9800PRO and it has worked very well.  Now, I have a 6600GT (PCX) coming for my new system.  ATIs midrange x700/x600 are not competitive in their price range compared to the 6600GT.  NVidia has really stepped it up after the FX failure.    

So I'd say for now, NVidia...  

Seems like the X800 and 6800 GT are pretty much identically priced. ($399 -- which is pretty much how much my current COMPUTER cost me).  Too rich for my blood, but if I had the money, it'd be a video card that would last me several years until something of an equal speed jump (between the 5200 and x800/6800 GT) would be available.

Wayne