Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Which card out of these 2 is better?


Recommended Posts

I still hear about ATI compatibility issues though

At the midrange, Nvidia beats ATI for speed. At the high range (Rad 9800

vs GF5950), ATI is on top. ATI is considered to have nicer color warmth and

anti-aliasing, but drivers still have probs on some games (incl call of

duty).

which is a huge negative for me. Also, it wasn't too long ago they (ati) were notoriously slow in updating their drivers as well. I am not so much interested in which card is at the top of benchmarking results as I am actual in-game performance readily noticeable to the human eye, so I really don't need (nor can I justify from a price point of view.) a $300 or up video card. It's not a matter of having the money to spend, it's a matter of tangible return on my investment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I still hear about ATI compatibility issues though
At the midrange, Nvidia beats ATI for speed. At the high range (Rad 9800

vs GF5950), ATI is on top. ATI is considered to have nicer color warmth and

anti-aliasing, but drivers still have probs on some games (incl call of

duty).

which is a huge negative for me. Also, it wasn't too long ago they (ati) were notoriously slow in updating their drivers as well. I am not so much interested in which card is at the top of benchmarking results as I am actual in-game performance readily noticeable to the human eye, so I really don't need (nor can I justify from a price point of view.) a $300 or up video card. It's not a matter of having the money to spend, it's a matter of tangible return on my investment.

Right on, bro ! !

You hit it right on the head.

Us folks that do other things besides gaming have to consider other things besides benchmarks.

Semper Fi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

uhm, I have only used ATI since the days of the GF2(2x8500,4x9500np,1x9700pro,1x9800), and have never ever had a driver prob.

whats probs specifically?

I just dont know.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rofl::P

:rolleyes:

Please tell me you guys dont read tomshardware guide ......please....... :stupid:

just for some info...toms and hardocp have inflated Intel scores..... and toms

is a newbie guide......neither are reliable because companys give them many for reviews...... :yes:

and I dont think there is a prob with ati drivers....... I never had a prob....

I also frequent rage3d.com/board, and there are not many probs of incompatibility(that I remember). Before the 8500 there were many probs.....but not after the catylist series. I would rather have a fast video card, then a slow card with "fast" drivers.... we all know how Nvidia likes to play with their drivers <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
:rofl::P

:rolleyes:

Please tell me you guys dont read tomshardware guide ......please....... :stupid:

just for some info...toms and hardocp have inflated Intel scores..... and toms

is a newbie guide......neither are reliable because companys give them many for reviews...... :yes:

and I dont think there is a prob with ati drivers....... I never had a prob....

I also frequent rage3d.com/board, and there are not many probs of incompatibility(that I remember). Before the 8500 there were many probs.....but not after the catylist series. I would rather have a fast video card, then a slow card with "fast" drivers.... we all know how Nvidia likes to play with their drivers <_<

First off, no, we don't read Tom's hardware guide.

Second, ATI has some known hardcore driver issues. If you read my post, I do alot with other OS's that ATI seems to think they are too good to support, which Nvidia does. So, Nvidia gets my business for compatability and stability.

The Catalyst series of Drivers have given countless users here problems. ATI is probably the worst company for drivers that I, as a professional have ever seen.

Yes, Nvidia plays with there drivers. THank God they do. Thats why they are stable, and that's why they are available with full support for other OS's.

IF ATI "Played" with their drivers more, I'd proly try them again. But a fast card is only as good as the drivers, as you don't have a fast card without them. Without a good driver, all you have is a generic SVGA card that will do 256 colors at 800X600 max resolution. Drivers make the card. Plain and simple. Without good instructions to drive the hardware, you have zip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree P. Like I said, I could care less about which card scores 10% higher on benchmarking, especially when you are talking about cards hitting the $400 mark. To me, that much $ for a video card is a waste of money. At the price range I am interested in, ati and nvidia are more than close enough in performance, and I know thru personal experience over the years that nvidia is constantly improving its product. To those of you that like ati, great! For me, their cards aren't in consideration at all.

BTW - this thread is about which of the two Nvidia cards I listed is the better buy, not ati vs. nvidia.

Edited by ReconSnake
Link to post
Share on other sites

driver probs as in linux-unix?

fireGL stuff?

I did play ghost recon with the stock drivers on the dsik that came with my 8500, not a prob......

could u specifiy what probs specifically? rendering errors?

kicks to the desktop?

:huh:

and yes, the low end cards are much closer. I am kinda tempted to buy a GF-FX5900se/xt. I dont have a prob with buying nvidia hardware, but I just havn't had driver probs in 3+ years of oc'n and gaming. well, i do get rendering errors when oc'd to far.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your going to pick one of the Nvidia cards go with the 5900SE card. It runs faster than the 5700 so upgrading process will last you longer. Chart

5700 Ultra

API Supported:

Direct 3D , OpenGL

RAMDAC Clock Speed:

400

Multiple Display Support:

Yes

Dual VGA Support:

Yes

Video Input:

No

Available Connectors:

DB15&DVI and S-Video

2D/3D Graphics Support:

Yes

Vendor:

NVIDIA

Video Memory Installed:

128MB 128-bit 2.2ns DDR2

Compliant Standards:

Plug-N-Play

Interface Type:

AGP

Supported O/S:

Windows 2000 Windows XP

System Requirements:

AGP 2.0 Compliant

5900SE

API Supported:

Direct 3D , OpenGL

RAMDAC Clock Speed:

400

Multiple Display Support:

Yes

Dual VGA Support:

Yes

Video Input:

No

Available Connectors:

DB15&DVI and S-Video

2D/3D Graphics Support:

Yes

Vendor:

NVIDIA

Video Memory Installed:

128MB 256-bit 2.8ns DDR

Compliant Standards:

Plug-N-Play

Interface Type:

AGP

Supported O/S:

Win9X NT 4.0 Windows 2000 Windows XP

System Requirements:

AGP 2.0 Compliant

The major difference is 256bit memory interface with an advanced 0.13-micron process. Gives it added muscle over the 5700. I believe if you do some research you will be happy to find either card will do. 5900SE gives you more performance base on technology specs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...