ReconSnake Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specter Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buff Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 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......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconSnake Posted February 5, 2004 Author Share Posted February 5, 2004 Read Rocky's post and you'll find a current problem right there. I've been buying individual components for about 5 years now and I've heard countless probs with ATI over that span. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakebite1967 Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 ive heard of plenty of ATI problems myself tho i still purchased an ATI card and after playing COD i didnt notice any issues, im not saying they dont excist i just had no issues playing this game. at the end of the day buy the card that suits your usage and budget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finster Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 I'm waiting to see the specs on GR2 before I upgrade anything. That will tell me if I should install a new vid card / cpu or if I'll need to up the mobo too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buff Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Please tell me you guys dont read tomshardware guide ......please....... 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...... 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specter Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Please tell me you guys dont read tomshardware guide ......please....... 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...... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconSnake Posted February 5, 2004 Author Share Posted February 5, 2004 (edited) 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 February 5, 2004 by ReconSnake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buff Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 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? 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......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specter Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 This is RS's Nvidia thread. He is right. We should save the ATI stuff for another thread, so we won't discuss that here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurFACE Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.