Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Retsof on August 29, 2011, 04:34:43 pm
-
Okay, as some of you may know, I have been browsing for a new rig. But I have noticed that pretty much all of them come with ATI graphics cards. Now, it seems like ATIs are plagued with bugs. So are new ones less buggy, should I just get it and live with it, or should I buy a replacement as soon as I get it?
-
why would you buy anything that comes with anything?
look for good parts yourself and put it together yourself~ (like a real man!)
unless you're getting a laptop in which case i would not advise trying to pull out the graphics card.
-
i mostly stick with nvidia because i understand their naming conventions and they supposedly have better opengl support. but if you want general performance what you should do is look at a recent video card review (or rather several of them) and look at the benchmarks and see what card does the most (that you can afford).
also if youre gonna buy a system you might be better off getting a computer that just has onboard graphics, and drop in the graphics card of your choice. just be sure it has a slot for one. oems like to do things like put in mobos that havent had slot connectors installed because it saved the contracted mobo manufacturer 2 cents per unit. i avoid this by rolling my own, computer that is.
-
why would you buy anything that comes with anything?
look for good parts yourself and put it together yourself~ (like a real man!)
unless you're getting a laptop in which case i would not advise trying to pull out the graphics card.
I hope this was sarcasm.
I used to think this way earlier. Nowadays, I have come to a realization that I find computer building one of the least intriguing things that I can imagine doing, and also on top of that it is quite sensitive for small errors. Due to large amount of frustration, repetition, restarts, heat shutdowns, burned DIMM and a half smoking motherboard and some financial loss (burning DIMMs and the motherboard wasn't even my own doing due to the fractured arm at that time!), I realized this is one of the things I exactly want to outsource to somebody else.
After this enlightenment, I only cherry pick the components myself, the rest they can assemble in the shop, and they carry the responsibility of f***ed up thermal paste or misaligned DIMMs or incompatibility between components. Really, not my problem, I'm paying for a working system! After spending 1000 € on the equipment, the 50 € installation is pretty cheap and gives some kind of warranty and it being somebody else's fault and thus refundable , a detail which is not to be overlooked. I wouldn't hesitate a moment to pay a computer shop 50 € for all the assembly and installation stuff, it is really not something I want to do myself. I can, but I just don't want to, and this is where trading money for services becomes great.
I am the worst kind of customer, aren't I?
EDIT: seems to be one of 'em typo days
-
well, if you are willing to pay twice the price and get a bunch of ****ware insulated to save yourself two hours of work then by all means...
-
There are shops where you can order parts and have them assembled for (far) less than twice the price of the components. And if the end result can be called 'a bunch of ****ware', there is fair possibility of it being your fault.
-
Back to ATI vs Nvidia, I tend to think they are equally ****ed or great, depending on how you look at it. Rest assured this NVidia hasn't been without its problems, like missing textures etc. that they fix up a couple of months later with driver updates. It is kind of a grass is greener on the other side sort of thing. Having used ATI and Nvidia for about 15 years, I don't find either of them have really a lot of to complain about. You'll always find the people that are not contempt at something being louder than the majority that is contempt with what they have.
What is more important, is thinking how long do you plan using the card. Will it be 6 months and then replace it for something better (and try to get some amount of money back), or will it be more like "I'll go down with this thing even if it kills me!" and use it for the next five to ten years. If going for the Hi-Fi route, you tend to lose more money, but you get the latest stuff - which might be disappointing given the price and such a short upgrade interval. If you go with the five year route, I don't recommend buying the latest or the best card. Buy instead a card from the best quarter that has already been beta tested by the early adopters, and you'll find you saved some good amount of money, grief, and still got a reasonable performance for a foreseeable future especially now that the consoles are slowing down the graphics requirements.
What it comes to shop assembled computers, I never choose brand computers, but only the parts that I want in my computer. The shops here assemble computers from the components and install all the necessary software to start it up to Windows and charge about 50€ for that job, which takes more than two hours if I did the same, hell even installing Windows 7 with the drivers seemed like an eternity. The thing is, I could have a relaxing massage for about 40 € that lasts for one hour, so this gives a perspective. And also this: the company I work in charges way more than 50€ of a single hour of my time - don't worry, I don't see much of that money myself. But I have never found bloated stuff in brand less computers, and I pretty much got all the software and exactly the software installed that I wanted in the first place.
-
To answer the thread starter, I assume you have an old prejudice against ATI/AMD cards, but since some generation ago (say... x3000) that prejudice doesn't make any sense. AMD cards have since then been best in performance/price and haven't been buggy enough (at least by comparison with the competition's) to warrant any kind of worries.
-
why would you buy anything that comes with anything?
look for good parts yourself and put it together yourself~ (like a real man!)
unless you're getting a laptop in which case i would not advise trying to pull out the graphics card.
I hope this was sarcasm.
I used to think this way earlier. Nowadays, I have come to a realization that I find computer building one of the least intriguing things that I can imagine doing, and also on top of that it is quite sensitive for small errors. Due to large amount of frustration, repetition, restarts, heat shutdowns, burned DIMM and a half smoking motherboard and some financial loss (burning DIMMs and the motherboard wasn't even my own doing due to the fractured arm at that time!), I realized this is one of the things I exactly want to outsource to somebody else.
After this enlightenment, I only cherry the components myself, the rest they can assemble in the shop, and they carry the responsibility of f***ed up thermal paste or misaligned DIMMs or incompatibility between components. Really, not my problem, I'm paying for a working system! After spending 1000 € on the equipment, the 50 € installation is pretty cheap and gives some kind of warranty and it being somebody else's fault and thus refundable , a detail which is not to be overlooked. I wouldn't hesitate a moment to pay a computer shop 50 € for all the assembly and installation stuff, it is really not something I want to do myself. I can, but I just don't want to, and this is where trading money for services becomes great.
I am the worst kind of customer, aren't I?
i did this once. it actually turned out to be a fairly nice rig. its what i played fs2 on when it came out. of course this was back in the day when system builders were professionals making big bucks, instead of the screw monkeys they are today. but soon i got a job in the system building profession and got a chance to see some of the shenanigans that go on. people dropping hard drives and installing them without any further testing, people not wearing their esd wristbands, general asshatery, that time i boned the receptionist behind that pile of computer cases. sometimes the boss decided to bring in people who never built a computer before (like the janitor, or the whore receptionist) just to meat a quota. and we would routinely ship machines that failed burn in tests. on top of that most of the people came into work stoned most of the time. granted it was a fun job but i dont ever want to buy one of their rigs.
after that experience i decided that i could do a better job on my own. ive built hundreds if not thousands of machines and usually they run fine. i didnt have any problems till i started buying top notch bleeding edge hardware. its better to aim for upper mid range because thats where the most stable hardware is. parts are cheap and lightweight, you dont need a monster of a psu to run it, you dont need a case that looks like a server, it doesn't need to sound like a jet engine. you can move it around and take it to lan parties without fear of it breaking. and you are generally left with a far more pleasant computer.
so far ive had 2 main problems with high end hardware. ive had a lot of trouble with high performance ram. usually because the factory specification called for it to be overclocked. i generally dont like to overclock, i kind of think that clock specifications exist for a reason. but when the factory says its ok i guess its fine, of course when you try to overclock it you get all kinds of memory errors, you tweak the timing to the factory spec and it still dont want to run stable, and you end up running it at a lower clock. this is mostly just a matter of product misrepresentation. when i buy 1066 ram, i expect that i can run at 1066 without overclocking it, and when i find that it doesnt i tend to get pissed off. i think i ended up running it at 800 because of this, which was somewhat disappointing. it would have cost more to send it back so i decided id just deal with it.
the other thing ive had trouble with is more of a structural problem and a specification oversight. high performance hardware is plastered with beefy heat sinks. your video card has a beefy heat sink, if you want to overclock your cpu will have a beefy heat sink (i dont and the stock cooler is usually adequate), and chances are your mobo will be covered in copper heat sinks and heat pipes. yet the case specifications were never intended to support these huge chunks of metal. if the heat sinks were directly secured to the case that would be in improvement. i dont like seeing the pcb and its plastic sockets used as structural members. the thing that especially disturbs me is the video card mounting. a screw and a plastic connector clip are supposed to support one of these beastly double wide cards that is mostly heat sink. i once had heat stress physically break one of the chips in the chipset, where the regular expansion and contraction of metal as it is heated and cooled pulled the top of the chip package (the manufacturer cemented it to the sink).
case specs need to be seriously rethought for the high end rung. id like to see video cards in a stack-able parallel mount configuration (maybe with a riser card, but that would block airflow, though i think something like a big pin array that would pass multiple buses and video cards that supported expansion would have a similar connector on their top side) that allows standoffs to pass the structural load down to the mobo mounting plate. if you wanted multiple video cards you just extend the standoffs and put in another card. i mean at least do something like double end mounting brackets where the other side of the card bolts to something, as it would require a less radical amendment to case specs.
-
To answer the thread starter, I assume you have an old prejudice against ATI/AMD cards, but since some generation ago (say... x3000) that prejudice doesn't make any sense. AMD cards have since then been best in performance/price and haven't been buggy enough (at least by comparison with the competition's) to warrant any kind of worries.
Thanks, it just seemed that ati's seemed to be bug prone, but really all i needed was confirmation.
-
ATI works flawlessly for me. i have a 6950 with the extra shaders unlocked. the only thing i don't like is the ATI drivers seem to be content to let the card cook rather than increase the fan speed. only presents a problem when overclocking though. it would be nice to have a way to fix this driver-level. i can use MSI afterburner, but i don't like having third party stuff running in the background controlling my card.
-
So, opinions on this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229266) ?
-
nvidia for life, yo.
in short, ati sucks IMO, without dragging out the war again. from what i've heard the GTX560 is a beast, but i'm really not under any sort of rush to upgrade anywhere, due to the fact that my old-ish GTX260 can still play many all games at very reasonable quality and framerate.
you might want to check out however how hot the GPU's you're looking at get. i've had so much grief with this gtx260 and its heating...
-
To answer the thread starter, I assume you have an old prejudice against ATI/AMD cards, but since some generation ago (say... x3000) that prejudice doesn't make any sense. AMD cards have since then been best in performance/price and haven't been buggy enough (at least by comparison with the competition's) to warrant any kind of worries.
Thanks, it just seemed that ati's seemed to be bug prone, but really all i needed was confirmation.
On rare occasion people make this statement but never seem to really be able to back it up. I've owned nVidia cards the last several video card purchases but the AMD cards are always worth a look and I just so happened to stumble onto a better price/performance deal for a nVidia card each time. AMD makes great video cards and so does nVidia. There are tradeoffs back and forth a little bit but ultimately it's the same. Sometimes video drivers are buggy but that's pretty universal... nVidia and AMD.
-
Nvidia isn't the number one maker of discrete graphics chips anymore guys, it's like that for a reason.
-
On rare occasion people make this statement but never seem to really be able to back it up. I've owned nVidia cards the last several video card purchases but the AMD cards are always worth a look and I just so happened to stumble onto a better price/performance deal for a nVidia card each time. AMD makes great video cards and so does nVidia. There are tradeoffs back and forth a little bit but ultimately it's the same. Sometimes video drivers are buggy but that's pretty universal... nVidia and AMD.
heh, I've had precisely the opposite experience, every time I've looked to buy a new GPU it's always been AMD/ATi that have offered the best price/performance. First it was a 9500 Pro with my Athlon XP (which I side-graded to a 9800 Pro because I saw one cheap on eBay), then a 4850 with my Athlon X2/Phenom II setup and now, with a few other factors to consider (I needed a relatively short card with miserly power consumption since I didn't want to have to buy a new PSU along with the new GPU), I've wound up with a 6850 in the i5 rig. I will admit, however, there have been a few times in the past where, was I looking to buy at said times, nVidia would have been a smarter choice (the 8800GT, the GTX460 and a coule of others I can't remember off-hand). As for dirver issues, the most grief I've ever had in something like nearly 7 years of using ATi cards is when, a couple of years ago, there were issues with AGP cards over about a 6-8 month period, but that's forgivable since AGP was long since dead at that point and I should have upgraded to a PCIe setup years before the issue occured.
-
The only bugs I have ever encountered with either brand are backwards compatability issues with new drivers and (very) old games, like Shogun, Age of Empires, Baldur's Gate, Republic Commando. However, each manafacturer has its own problems with that, and it is easily solved (dailing down 3d Acceleration in DXDiag usually does the trick).
-
Noise is much bigger concern than which brand sucks more. Research properly to find a quiet cooling solution. That said, both brands have had their own share of problems in both hardware and drivers. No matter which you get, you will probably have at least small amount of grief getting a game or two working properly. As far as FSO goes, at least atioglxx.dll trick works for ATI which cannot be said for NVIDIA. On the other hand, NVIDIA has less of those issues than ATI. But if and when it does, you're either stuck with old driver or broken FSO until it is fixed. (better hope it will get fixed)
-
AMD offers better price/performance ratio. Linux support is still not up to par with nVidia. If you get an AMD card, try to get a reference card, and wait until the Radeon HD 7xxx series comes out.
nVidia has better drivers. Linux support using nVidia's drivers is much more stable.
I used to be nVidia-only. I picked up a 6950 for my latest build, and it's been stellar.
-
As has been said, ATI is better performance per dollar.
nVidia is better high end performance and stability (IMO.)
I tend to stick with nVidia, personally, as that company seems more endorsed by software companies which aids in comparability and performance. I am also fond of PhysX, when people program for it.
But YMMV, so go with what you like.
I have owned both in the past so this is simply my experience. (Owned a Geforece2, then 9800 Pro, then 3850 AGP, then 2x460+GT250 so I've run a decent gamut.) I still miss my Voodoo3. lol
-
I can't really say much for ATI cards, having never owned one, but I can say a few things about nvidia cards.
Despite what people say, I tend to have troubles with their drivers, such as them randomly crashing for no real reason and that gets fixed by reinstalling the driver.
Older cards have been ****ed over in the newer drivers. I used to use a 270 driver and was having ****ty performance and control panel options like AA not working then I downgraded to 160 something and got much, much better performance and the control panel worked as it should.
Nvidia stopped making new cards years ago. (since all of the 'new' ones are based off of 8000 series chips)
-
Nvidia stopped making new cards years ago. (since all of the 'new' ones are based off of 8000 series chips)
GTX4xx and and GTX5XX series would like to smack you over the head.
-
I can't really say much for ATI cards, having never owned one, but I can say a few things about nvidia cards.
Despite what people say, I tend to have troubles with their drivers, such as them randomly crashing for no real reason and that gets fixed by reinstalling the driver.
Older cards have been ****ed over in the newer drivers. I used to use a 270 driver and was having ****ty performance and control panel options like AA not working then I downgraded to 160 something and got much, much better performance and the control panel worked as it should.
Nvidia stopped making new cards years ago. (since all of the 'new' ones are based off of 8000 series chips)
are you sure the crashes are because of the card and not an overheating chipset?
driver issues exist with every video card, though id say ive had better luck with nvidia drivers.
-
(since all of the 'new' ones are based off of 8000 series chips)[/size]
Might be time to update your info, it's been out of date for a while now.
-
gonna build a new comp in a couple months (maybe). lookin at a gtx560, though i may just recycle my 260 since it still runs most games quite well.
-
Might be time to update your info, it's been out of date for a while now.
trollolo
are you sure the crashes are because of the card and not an overheating chipset?
driver issues exist with every video card, though id say ive had better luck with nvidia drivers.
I'm not really sure. It's happened with both my 9500m GS and my 9800 GT in what seems to be random. Seems to happen more frequent with Source games than anything though.
-
graphics cards require a rather high speed bus to operate, and the chip on the mobo that controls said bus can get really hot really fast and not work so good. im convinced this is why i get occasional crashes when playing anything on the crytek engine (though it not the most stable engine out there), like mwll. dispite my dual 25cm fans and a mobo encrusted with heat pipes and coper heat sinks, the chipset is always in the red after a game.
-
I've personally found AMD/ATI cards to be the more reliable option. Performance is also typically better in Source and Battlefield games. nVidia is making compromises that I don't necessarily agree with (like pushing proprietary PhysX, easy but low performance CUDA, and slower reactions to new DirectX/OpenGL revisions). Drivers seem to "just work". I'm much happier with a once-a-month driver than nVidia's sometimes sporadic releases. Then again, I don't buy the latest games. I want to buy a new Tahiti Pro (HD 7950)... pending benchmarks. I don't want to wait until later in the generation like I did for HD 5850.
-
Might be time to update your info, it's been out of date for a while now.
trollolo
are you sure the crashes are because of the card and not an overheating chipset?
driver issues exist with every video card, though id say ive had better luck with nvidia drivers.
I'm not really sure. It's happened with both my 9500m GS and my 9800 GT in what seems to be random. Seems to happen more frequent with Source games than anything though.
if its an acer laptop, dont be surprised. acer's overheat like nobody's bussiness.
-
if its an acer laptop, dont be surprised. acer's overheat like nobody's bussiness.
never had a problem with it, and the 9800 GT is my desktop
graphics cards require a rather high speed bus to operate, and the chip on the mobo that controls said bus can get really hot really fast and not work so good. im convinced this is why i get occasional crashes when playing anything on the crytek engine (though it not the most stable engine out there), like mwll. dispite my dual 25cm fans and a mobo encrusted with heat pipes and coper heat sinks, the chipset is always in the red after a game.
actually, I tend to get the opposite. rarely happens in a game like Crysis and the like but happens very ****ing often in source.
-
Acer is a POS. Don't worry so much about AMD A-series though: the IGP is a lot cooler than a dedicated card. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion#.22Llano.22_.2832nm.29_2
Source was and is optimized for ATI/AMD. Ask Valve why they haven't fixed code for nVidia cards. They'll probably point the finger at nVidia instead.
-
Might be time to update your info, it's been out of date for a while now.
trollolo
Care to elaborate on that? Want to get muted again?
Source was and is optimized for ATI/AMD. Ask Valve why they haven't fixed code for nVidia cards. They'll probably point the finger at nVidia instead.
Citation needed.
In short, no, there's no reason to avoid any particular brand of video card. As has been pointed out in this thread. And, as always, keep in mind that all hardware sucks and all software sucks. Accept it, and move on. Do not believe that your favourite vendor is without fault in all things.
-
I've been looking into new video cards for two weeks now, I'm getting a EVGA GTX570 this weekend if everything goes ok.
I had a hard time choosing between HD and GTX counterparts, HD6950 had me interested for a while but then I checked the overall framerate performance vs price and decided to spend a few more $$ and go a hole step up the nvidia way.
I'm not a fanboy, but I must say recent threads in the scp forum got me thinking that ATI drivers suck, and since I don't have another pc to play fs2 well... I wanna go with the safest choice.
-
Might be time to update your info, it's been out of date for a while now.
trollolo
Care to elaborate on that? Want to get muted again?
Care to keep the threats between big scary moderator and Hades a little bit more private? Thanks.
Source was and is optimized for ATI/AMD. Ask Valve why they haven't fixed code for nVidia cards. They'll probably point the finger at nVidia instead.
Citation needed.
In short, no, there's no reason to avoid any particular brand of video card. As has been pointed out in this thread. And, as always, keep in mind that all hardware sucks and all software sucks. Accept it, and move on. Do not believe that your favourite vendor is without fault in all things.
For ATI/ADM graphics cards. I didn't necessarily mean for AMD processors. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU/104 http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2010-gaming-graphics-charts-high-quality/Left4Dead-2,2474.html Keep in mind the price differences between the cards. For example, the GTX 470 was more accurately the rival for the HD 5870.
-
I have seen both brands of cards have their fair share of problems over the years. They both run most current games nicely (which are console ports that don't stress modern cards in the first place), have occasional issues with old games, and require third party software to get the best out of.
if its an acer laptop, dont be surprised. acer's overheat like nobody's bussiness.
Acer has gotten a lot better with this lately. The Timeline series routinely gets 20% GPU overclocks while remaining cool, which is a lot more than you can say about most of the large-market OEMs.
-
If you're buying a top-range card of any generation you will be fine with either companies cards, however in such a comparison typically ATI are slightly better cost effectiveness, they are also closing the gap on nV's OGL support.
If you're looking at anything even remotely not-top-range STAY THE **** AWAY FROM NV.
-
are you sure the crashes are because of the card and not an overheating chipset?
driver issues exist with every video card, though id say ive had better luck with nvidia drivers.
I'm not really sure. It's happened with both my 9500m GS and my 9800 GT in what seems to be random. Seems to happen more frequent with Source games than anything though.
hardly surprising, since driver manufacturers often have to include dirty hacks to make their drivers play nice with various games. never played anything in the source engine though. starcraft 2 is likely the largest performance hog i run and it is rock solid 99.9% of the time. with crytek i always get the green (not blue) screen of death every 3rd game, which is apparently very common in that engine.
-
Not that it matters, but gonna chime in with my own personal anecdote. I've had nothing but trouble with ATi's software (@#$% you, Catalyst Control Center), and even though their hardware is extremely solid and great value for the price, I just can't bring myself to recommend buying an ATi card until they fix whatever is wrong with their control software. The 5750 that I have also tends to cook itself without third-party fan control. My best friend has the same problems with his ATi software (we both run Win7 Ultimate 64 bit, it's probably OS-specific).
My laptop and past two desktops ran NVIDIA cards and they're all still going strong, and I've never expressly had problems with their software. Laptop has a 9500M, oldest desktop has an 8500 GT, second-oldest has a 9800 GTX+. I've had at least 8 years of uptime on these rigs without problems from the GPU/drivers. They just cost more than a comparable ATi card and they suck a bit more power from the PSU, so that's something to pay attention to if you build your own rig.
-
The 5750 that I have also tends to cook itself without third-party fan control. My best friend has the same problems with his ATi software (we both run Win7 Ultimate 64 bit, it's probably Specific).
ATI just runs hot, it isn't Win7's fault. Use CCC to manualy control the fan, it can do that. Not that I've had any temp concerns (using Win7 Ultimate 64-bit).
Anyway, I've used a few ATI and nVidia cards, all low end (sub $150 range) and so far the drivers are not bad at all for either side, in this aspect I really don't see a difference, they both have problems now and again.
A big pro I have for ATI is on-board and dedicated vid cards working together in non-crossfire. I have a 4290 on my motherboard and the above stated 5570. They run off the same driver. As a result I can have 2 monitors on my 4290 and 2 on my 5570, run youtube in 1080 on the 4290 and not have it effect my game on the 5570. (nVidia might do this too, but I haven't seen it and onboard nVidia seems rare now)
Another pro for both sides would be if your dedicated card dies and your onboard uses the same driver, you don't have to go through 800x600 hell to install its driver while you get a new card just to install your old driver back again.
For those who cant understand ATI's naming, its really not that hard. I have a HD 5570, lets break it down:
HD (the series name)
5 (current generation of card, higher = newer)
5 (class of card, 5 is probably low-mid range, higher number = higher class)
7 (level of the class, higher = stronger/faster)
0 (because everything is more awesome with a 0 on the end)
To this end, I have a 5th generation HD series in the strong low-end class.
-
In short, no, there's no reason to avoid any particular brand of video card. As has been pointed out in this thread. And, as always, keep in mind that all hardware sucks and all software sucks. Accept it, and move on. Do not believe that your favourite vendor is without fault in all things.
In short, this is the bottom line. I'd just like to play the devil's advocate for a moment and point out that it's actually tough industry; you need to constantly churn out bleeding edge tech you had little time to properly test, that needs to be compatible with a constant supply of new features, a wide array of different machines, operating systems and software, and backwards compatible with god knows what. You fall back on the specs a bit, the competition will eat you alive. You don't support the latest shiny features, ditto. The only factor that levels the playing field is that the competition is having the exact same problems and can't really deliver a stable product most of the time.
So yes, the hardware and software suck. But quite frankly it would be a wonder if they didn't; fact of the matter is the end user is a spoiled brat that absolutely must have the latest shiny graphical feature at 120 FPS, and if he doesn't get it he'll go somewhere else.
-
Read through the entire thread and I think everything has been covered. That never stopped me in the past from mouthing off my own uneducated opinion though so here ya go:
- Both brands have problems (hell, nVidia had a massive recall on laptop motherboards in the US about a year ago and 2007 nVidia based MacBooks have been dying all over the place).
- ATI VGAs are usually (at least whenever I've gone shopping) cheaper at the midrange, while things even out the higher you go. For hardware I usually consult bit-tech.net (they have a monthly buyer's guide (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/buyers-guide/2011/09/01/pc-hardware-buyer-s-guide-september-2011/1) of price-ranged systems which is very well thought out) and Tom's Hardware (benchmark charts (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2011-gaming-graphics-charts/benchmarks,123.html) and monthly "Best VGA for the money" (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-performance-radeon-geforce,review-32251.html) articles; the latter tells you which VGA will give you the best performance in each price range, which is great when you're on a budget).
Something I haven't seen mentioned (though I might have missed it) is the manufacturer of the actual card. Some dismiss it entirely but there have been benchmarks were different makes of the same chipset show different performance. Trying to save a bit of money on a cheaper brand usually backfires when the quality of the cooler and connectors is sub-par.
For nVidia, I prefer Asus, MSI and XFX, though that's simply experience and personal trust in certain companies.
I have less experience with ATI, though from what I understand Saphire is supposed to be the leading manufacturer (please correct me here if I'm wrong) and the brands mentioned above do a good job on ATIs as well.
I very recently bought this (http://overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-114-MS) and it's great at staying cool under load.
-
The only factor that levels the playing field is that the competition is having the exact same problems and can't really deliver a stable product most of the time.
From last year but very relevant to that point (http://semiaccurate.com/2010/02/17/nvidias-fermigtx480-broken-and-unfixable/)
Acer is a POS. Don't worry so much about AMD A-series though: the IGP is a lot cooler than a dedicated card. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion#.22Llano.22_.2832nm.29_2
Here's the funny thing though, NVidia doesn't even have a product like Fusion, nor does it seem to have any plans to produce one.
-
i remember way back when i put a voodoo card into my ancient 120mhz pentium rig and it turned a soso computer into a gaming rocket. we went from sub par software 3d to epic hardware 3d overnight. seriously, install retail freespace 1 and run it in software. then play it with hardware 3d, its like day and night. i cant think before or since ive ever felt a product really had a major impact in performace. every videocard (or cpu for that matter) ive bought since then has only felt like a marginal increase in performance than what came before. we are kinda spoiled. for some reason i think my 2 year old video card that still gets a good framerate in most games with the settings full up is just not good enough to use in my next computer.
-
Funny you should mention Voodoo. I was just reading this earlier: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/picturestory/25-graphics-radeon-geforce.html
-
Funny you should mention Voodoo. I was just reading this earlier: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/picturestory/25-graphics-radeon-geforce.html
i read through that article earlier. of course i got disappointed that they didnt mention the voodoo 3 which was one badass beast of a card. if i remember correctly nvidia didnt steal the show till the voodoo 4/5 era, where both products turned out to be major flops. the voodoo 3 was still a major contender in its day.
-
Both brands have and always had their ups and downs. Nvidia appeared to be more willing to make hot and noisy cards in order to get every tiny bit of performance, while ati has a much more balanced approach. (Both brands dual gpu cards are noise and heat monsters tho :p)
I really liked the old 8800gts cards a few years back. But after that I went Ati all the way without looking back, as the new Nvidia generation was just idiotic as far as heat and noise goes. And who knows what the next gen cards will be like.
My advice: Don t be a fanboy. Buy whichever card suits your purpose best.
(I.e. I can understand people who build dedicated gaming PCs with the "fastest" card available and simply do not care about noise, heat or the electricity bill. Puting that same card into a multipurpose computer and having to deal with all that noise and energy consumption while its running the whole day would be rather stupid however.)
P.S.: As far as drivers go there is hardly a difference in my eyes, I have plenty of horror stories for both brands, but never had an issue that could not be fixed (usually by installing a different/better/older driver)
P.P.S: Been running an Intel Hexcore on a highend Gigabyte Mainboard with a Sapphire 5870 VaporX for the last year and its without question the best setup I ever owned. Rock stable, solid performance, whisper quiet.
P.P.P.S: Anyone experiencing random crashes is doing something seriously wrong.
-
That list had a few cards missing. Notably...
Voodoo3 (awesome, era-defining card)
GeForce 7600 GT (excellent mid-range card: a hell of a good performer)
GeForce 8800 GTX (best performance you could buy and not surpassed for a very long time)
GeForce 8800 GT (cost-effective performance and the core of 9800's and GTS 250's)
Radeon HD 5850 (again, very cost-effective performance)
-
It's not missing 8800 GTX (Picture 16).
OMG YOU ARE SO WRONG. HOW COULD YOU MAKE SUCH A TERRIBLE MISTAKE?!?!!
...
Just thought I'd point it out.
-
Radeon 9700 should be on that list, not quite era defining but it was when Nvidia made its first big mistake.
-
You mean the 9800, right? :I
-
I'm considering buying an MSI 570GTX Twin Frozr III -- The 480gtx' I have now is just intolerable, noise-wise.
Also, avoid ATI cards if you don't like artifacts and stuff in games; they seem to specialize in that.
-
I'm considering buying an MSI 570GTX Twin Frozr III -- The 480gtx' I have now is just intolerable, noise-wise.
Also, avoid ATI cards if you don't like artifacts and stuff in games; they seem to specialize in that.
Yea.................
No.
Just no.
If you're thinking about saying anything to further your illiterate opinion, just, no.
As many of the sensible people in this thread have already said, there is nothing wrong with either brand, that isn't really wrong with the other.
nV cards have been less reliable in my experience, but I realise that both A) They do for the most part make excellent cards, and B) it's only really their budget or mid-range cards that tend to come out ****ty.
ATi drivers have had problems in my experience, (mostly, to be fair, in the past), but I realise that both A) They drop in occasional dodgey versions, and for the most part they can go years without introducing problems and B) their hardware is more often than not better than nVs.
So it's entirely swings and roundabouts.
-
I'm considering buying an MSI 570GTX Twin Frozr III -- The 480gtx' I have now is just intolerable, noise-wise.
Also, avoid ATI cards if you don't like artifacts and stuff in games; they seem to specialize in that.
Yea.................
No.
Just no.
If you're thinking about saying anything to further your illiterate opinion, just, no.
How about shove it up your ass and I elaborate anyway? Oblivion on ATI's 4870HD; z-buffer problems, showing particles through geometry that should be blocking the view, and producing artifacts when looking at the sky. Problems with shadow rendering, with shadows showing up as jagged in games like BF2 or Call of Duty 4, Assassins Creed, etc. Oh no, I didn't do what you said. That's sad, huh.
-
I never had problems with my HD4890 (which is basically the same card as yours but with higher clock speeds) on any of those games.
Sucks to be you then....
-
Can't we all just agree that the current market is a total crapshoot and get along? :D
-
My advice: Don t be a fanboy. Buy whichever card suits your purpose best.
^ this. i use nvidia out of familiarity with the drivers and naming conventions. im sort of a lazy fool in that reguard, go with whats worked in the past and dont try anything new. though i dont exclude the possibility of ati having a better product at the time im shopping for a new video card. last 2 laptops i bought had ati chipsets, simply on the grounds that the mobile nvidia gpu at the time used shared memory while the mobile ati gpu used dedicated memory. had the roles been reversed id have bought nvidia gpus.
-
You mean the 9800, right? :I
Which was a slightly tweaked version of the 9700. :) The reason being that the 9700 thoroughly trounced the best GeForce 4 at the time, and nvidia's response was the hot, noisy and underperforming GeForce "Dust Buster" FX 5800.
Now fast forward 9 years and following several other high profile screw ups with Fermi last year, the 2011 sales picture looks like this:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/05/11x0504nvidiamij.jpg)
Source (http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/04/nvidia-losing-ground-to-amd-and-intel-in-gpu-market-share/)
But it all started with the Radeon 9700......
-
I am saddened by intel's market growth, I also hope nV don't drop off too much, since competition is part of the reason the market has progressed as fast as it has :I
-
I am saddened by intel's market growth, I also hope nV don't drop off too much, since competition is part of the reason the market has progressed as fast as it has :I
Why is Intel's market share (or growth) a problem? It's a different market if you ask me. The non-gaming, family internet-browsing or office computers (which are far more than gaming computers) have no need for nVidia or ATI VGAs. Even the cheapest nVidia/ATI VGA is probably overkill for that and most on-board Intel chips are more than fit for the task, especially the latest ones. I'm expecting to see that share grow much further as more people start realising how cheap a casual-use PC can get.
-
It means the PC gaming market isn't expanding as fast as the glorified pocket calculator market :P
-
Source was and is optimized for ATI/AMD. Ask Valve why they haven't fixed code for nVidia cards. They'll probably point the finger at nVidia instead.
Citation needed.
In short, no, there's no reason to avoid any particular brand of video card. As has been pointed out in this thread. And, as always, keep in mind that all hardware sucks and all software sucks. Accept it, and move on. Do not believe that your favourite vendor is without fault in all things.
THey did have this huge ATI logo in their graphics options for a while...
-
I am saddened by intel's market growth, I also hope nV don't drop off too much, since competition is part of the reason the market has progressed as fast as it has :I
im not so much, a lot of that is basic computers for the dumb (you know the ones that use their computer as an overzealous web terminal), and buisness computers. neither of which usually need a good gpu. computers for the masses. even carmack is giving props to intel for making its integrated stuff suck less. this ensures that all computers have at least some 3d accel. should also point out that a lot of motherboards have this as standard, i think this computer has intel graphics, not that it every gets used with the 260 jacked in. most people buy the video card as an upgrade. i like to see mobos with an integrated nvidia if only to use it for physx, rather than not using it at all.
-
It means the PC gaming market isn't expanding as fast as the glorified pocket calculator market :P
Where a lot of that came from was probably the apparent implosion of SiS.
I also hope nV don't drop off too much, since competition is part of the reason the market has progressed as fast as it has
Actually in the long term nVidia won't be competitive. The trend in the market appears to be shifting towards these new fangled CPU/GPU hybrids, which is what the AMD Fusion and Intel Larrabee are. Both of them had been tooling up for the last 5 years to do that, and we're now seeing the end results. nVidia has made no such preparations, and doesn't appear to have any plans for a competing product.
-
It really depends on how well nVidia can stay atop Intel. The problem is graphics hardware isn't as protected as x86 processors.
-
It means the PC gaming market isn't expanding as fast as the glorified pocket calculator market :P
Where a lot of that came from was probably the apparent implosion of SiS.
I also hope nV don't drop off too much, since competition is part of the reason the market has progressed as fast as it has
Actually in the long term nVidia won't be competitive. The trend in the market appears to be shifting towards these new fangled CPU/GPU hybrids, which is what the AMD Fusion and Intel Larrabee are. Both of them had been tooling up for the last 5 years to do that, and we're now seeing the end results. nVidia has made no such preparations, and doesn't appear to have any plans for a competing product.
Nvidia s Tegra Chipset is huge in the Android Tablet and phone market (which currently grows insanely fast) tho with Ati and Intel nowhere to be seen.
Nvidia also pretty much owns the (gaming) laptop market right now. Although that may be coming to an end with AMD Fusion and the new Intel Chips. Even the current Sandybridge i5 cpus are outright amazing and uncomfortably close to even Nvidias midrange mobile cards. Thats a rather huge change from the times where integrated Intel simply wasn t capable of 3d graphics at all. ;-)
-
I just built a new rig and I went with Nvidia cards (GTX 550s), but I'd be lying if I said my brand loyalty wasn't more superstition than anything else.