Does anyone else have a bias for ATI?

[coolpurplefan]

I'll admit it. I have a bias for ATI. But, it's mainly because I downloaded lots of TV shows and movies and I find the only way I can watch them with my Geforce 6600 (non-GT) is with the K-Lite Mega Codec Pack. I also ended up using driver 84.21 because the later drivers totally screwed up some of my movies like Fargo.

I also found out by searching on the Internet that the nForce drivers for the Asus K8N4-E Deluxe would install the firewall even if you didn't want it. In any case, I didn't always like my performance on the Internet. So, for the second computer that I'm building, I already have an Abit AT8 32X motherboard with the ATI 580 chipset (I found a socket 939 4000+ single core real cheap) and I'm waiting for the new ATI video cards in a few weeks. I can't wait to complete my second system though.

I think having a backup computer and a computer for testing is the ultimate in peace of mind. I'll be able to open files on one computer without fear that it might contain a virus.

 

[Ulfhednar]

You've been here over a year and somehow you go telling everyone you're a pirate?

Even worse, that you prefer ATI cards partially because they make pirating easier?

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
You've been here over a year and somehow you go telling everyone you're a pirate?

Even worse, that you prefer ATI cards partially because they make pirating easier?

Downloading TV shows is a gray area between "piracy" and fair use.

OP, do you have a question or are you just saying you like ATI? I've never had the nForce drivers install the firewall without me asking, and there are much better choices for codecs then K-Lite.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: MDE
Downloading TV shows is a gray area between "piracy" and fair use.

He said movies too. You're right about TV programmes though, at least in my opinion.

As for the topic, I'm biased toward both companies for different reasons. In the past ATI tend to have produced slightly better value for money cards with better image quality whereas Nvidia have produced cards with much lower heat and power consumption.

My last three cards were ATI, but I chose Nvidia this time as they hold all the crowns for the time being.

 

[VERTIGGO]

I've always loved ATI and I'm holding my breath to see how the R600 stacks up against the current titlest, but my last purchase was a laptop with 7950GTX. The performance wasn't as good as one of my 1900s, but the drivers are so polished, I'm almost thinking about switching just because of the amount of trouble I seem to have getting a crossfire system to work well.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
You've been here over a year and somehow you go telling everyone you're a pirate?

Even worse, that you prefer ATI cards partially because they make pirating easier?

I didn't see where he admitted to piracy. Maybe he's downloading free content, or has purchased it.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I didn't see where he admitted to piracy. Maybe he's downloading free content, or has purchased it.

He said downloaded, and on-demand content doesn't require extensive plugins like K-Lite Codec Pack.

No need to be pedantic about it, it's all right there.

 

[SexyK]

Is the OP a satire? Don't see the point otherwise.

 

[AmdInside]

Although you wouldn't think it from my name, I really have no loyalty. Look at my PC specs. Its like a rainbow. I give love to all companies that give me good products at reasonable prices. I even own a Mac.

 

[schneiderguy]

ATI killed my puppy so I hate them now :|

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I didn't see where he admitted to piracy. Maybe he's downloading free content, or has purchased it.

He said downloaded, and on-demand content doesn't require extensive plugins like K-Lite Codec Pack.

No need to be pedantic about it, it's all right there.

I need a codec pack to play the content I pay to download.

**Tom Smykowski: It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.

Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.

Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea**

:thumbsdown:

 

[5150Joker]

I have a bias against both companies because they don't give me free hardware. **COUGH HINT VIRAL MARKETING I WANT IN****

 

[Wreckage]

This site is one big ATI fanboy jamboree.

 

[Extelleron]

I definately prefer ATI and their graphics cards and although my 8800GTS is nice, I miss my X1900XT and am definitely looking into getting an HD 2900XT when it comes out. I can't say that I've had many troubles in games, but overall I'm not too happy with the Vista drivers and the inconsistant release of new drivers. One thing I don't like is that I can't even control my GPU fan in Vista, no matter what program I use... Rivatuner, even nVidia's own program nTune. With my X1900XT, I could go into ATI Tool and setup the fan speed based on temperature and now I can't even adjust my fan at ALL.

Other than that I've just always liked ATI's graphics cards better. In the past (not with the 8800) nVidia has "cheated" in a way because while their performance wasn't bad, they had a lot of trouble with image quality. Comparing a 7900 with 4xAA/16xAF to an X1900XT is difficult because the X1900 provides much better image quality, so benchmarks don't tell the whole story.

I also like the fact that, historically, ATI cards have been very efficient with AA and AF and have usually provided less of a performance loss using them, especially at high resoltuions, than nVidia.

 

[SolMiester]

I prefer Nvidia, never had any issues with them. Just plug them in and they go, havent been able to say that with ATI...IMO ATI have always been playing catch up with Nvidia, from the time NV bought out 3dfx. ATI have produced very good card, however nvidia always seems to be the 1st for everything with ATI catching up 6 months later, like wow, lets do that too!

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
I prefer Nvidia, never had any issues with them. Just plug them in and they go, havent been able to say that with ATI...IMO ATI have always been playing catch up with Nvidia, from the time NV bought out 3dfx. ATI have produced very good card, however nvidia always seems to be the 1st for everything with ATI catching up 6 months later, like wow, lets do that too!

ATI was the first to develop a half-way decent DirectX9 card. They have had far superior image quality (anti-aliasing AND anisotropic filtering) for many years. The X1800 series could do HDR+AA over a year before nVidia could with the 8800. The X1800 was the first high-end GPU to be manufactured on a 90nm process. With every generation of high-end parts.... the 9800XT, X800XT PE, X1800XT, X1900XTX, then X1950XTX... ATI has had the highest performing video card on the market.

The only area I can think of for "playing catchup" is Shader Model 3... the X800/X850 didn't have it, but they didn't need it. SM 3.0 is only becoming necessary today, and by now the vast majority of people have retired their 6xxx or X8xx series cards.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
This site is one big ATI fanboy jamboree.

i wonder why?

ATi is *GONE*

swallowed up ...

it's AMD graphics - now

get used to it
:Q

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Wreckage
This site is one big ATI fanboy jamboree.

i wonder why?

ATi is *GONE*

swallowed up ...

it's AMD graphics - now

get used to it
:Q

Meh, I still like the ATI name better. I honestly can't imagine a graphics card with the green AMD logo on it. It'll be interesting to see whether AMD will market the HD series as an "ATI" or "AMD" graphics card, and what the box will look like.

 

[Chaotic42]

I tend to prefer nvidia. I don't know why. I have a Radeon 9700 that was very good to me, but maybe it's that my first video card was a Riva 128. Maybe it's just the fact that I don't like the color red.

I'd gladly buy an ATI card if it were a better choice. Except for once (the 9700), nvidia has been a better choice every time that I've gone to buy a video card.

 

[Dean]

I'm running a 7900gs right now and I'm like meh!

The hardware is good, but the drivers leave a lot to be desired. I much prefer the ATI drivers. Who would have thunk it?

 

[SolMiester]

Nv lead ati right up to the 9600xt and 9800 series, had dual cards, SM3.....ATI has crap driver al the way up to then!

I could give a toss about 90nm man process and use a projector to watch movies, & dont care HDR+AA.

Dont agree with your superior image quality except for the 7xxx series which nv brought out.

the 800/1800/1900 & 1950 were all catch up cards anyway coming out after nvidia had brought out their cards so they always had more time.....as I said, always playing catch-up!

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Nv lead ati right up to the 9600xt and 9800 series, had dual cards, SM3.....ATI has crap driver al the way up to then!

I could give a toss about 90nm man process and use a projector to watch movies, & dont care HDR+AA.

Dont agree with your superior image quality except for the 7xxx series which nv brought out.

the 800/1800/1900 & 1950 were all catch up cards anyway coming out after nvidia had brought out their cards so they always had more time.....as I said, always playing catch-up!

IIRC Nvidia lost the lead as soon as the mighty 9700Pro was released...all Nvidia had at the time was the old Ti4600 and they were crap compared to the 9700pro, it pretty much remained that way until the GF 6 series was released.

as for the OP well, I couldn't care less about fanboyism...I use what ever I can afford at the time and what ever offers the best performance...same goes for CPU's...I don't really care as long as I get a decent bang for my buck.

I like to have a mixture of setup's it gives me plenty of experience with different hardware combinations and I can make fair comparisions between different models and brands.

I have no real brand loyalties...except one...I nearly always use Gigabyte hardware (I have a few rigs that use Epox, Asus and Asrock hardware as well)....I've never had any major issues with them..although lately I have switched to other brands primary because of Gigabyte's reluctance to make high end AGP stuff...but now that I finally have an upgrade path to PCI-E, I'll be switching back to Gigabyte hardware shortly.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Nv lead ati right up to the 9600xt and 9800 series, had dual cards, SM3.....ATI has crap driver al the way up to then!

I could give a toss about 90nm man process and use a projector to watch movies, & dont care HDR+AA.

Dont agree with your superior image quality except for the 7xxx series which nv brought out.

the 800/1800/1900 & 1950 were all catch up cards anyway coming out after nvidia had brought out their cards so they always had more time.....as I said, always playing catch-up!

Image quality... you should care about it, what's the purpose of buying a high-end card that can't make a game look good? I don't know about you, but I don't buy a $400-500 card to see jagged edges and shimmering.

And those cards were not "catch-up cards". The X800 series launched in May 2004, a half a month after nVidia launched the 6800 series. The X850 series launched in late 2004/early 2005 and nVidia had nothing really to compete (besides 6800 Ultra 512MB, but who bought it?). The X1800 series was late to market, but still only 4 months after nVidia launched the 7800, and it provided more than enough extra performance and features to justify that. The X1900 was launched in January 2006, BEFORE nVidia launched the 7900 series. The X1950 series was launched in the summer of 2006, and nVidia launched no new cards to compete with it. Well, they had the 7950GX2 but that's not the same market IMO.

The only time ATI has really been behind is with the R600. The X1800 was a few months behind, but nothing major especially since nVidia only launched the 7800GTX in June and the 7800GT in August. They didn't have a full 7xxx series product line until March 2006.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Nv lead ati right up to the 9600xt and 9800 series, had dual cards, SM3.....ATI has crap driver al the way up to then!

I could give a toss about 90nm man process and use a projector to watch movies, & dont care HDR+AA.

Dont agree with your superior image quality except for the 7xxx series which nv brought out.

the 800/1800/1900 & 1950 were all catch up cards anyway coming out after nvidia had brought out their cards so they always had more time.....as I said, always playing catch-up!

Image quality... you should care about it, what's the purpose of buying a high-end card that can't make a game look good? I don't know about you, but I don't buy a $400-500 card to see jagged edges and shimmering.

And those cards were not "catch-up cards". The X800 series launched in May 2004, a half a month after nVidia launched the 6800 series. The X850 series launched in late 2004/early 2005 and nVidia had nothing really to compete (besides 6800 Ultra 512MB, but who bought it?). The X1800 series was late to market, but still only 4 months after nVidia launched the 7800, and it provided more than enough extra performance and features to justify that. The X1900 was launched in January 2006, BEFORE nVidia launched the 7900 series. The X1950 series was launched in the summer of 2006, and nVidia launched no new cards to compete with it. Well, they had the 7950GX2 but that's not the same market IMO.

The only time ATI has really been behind is with the R600. The X1800 was a few months behind, but nothing major especially since nVidia only launched the 7800GTX in June and the 7800GT in August. They didn't have a full 7xxx series product line until March 2006.

ATI's been launching after Nvidia alot since the Radeon 9800's. The Radeon X800's were alright, but they were lacking in feature set, compared to Nvidia new Shader Model 3.0 cards as well, the X800's also had ATI's "trylinear" filtering, the same optimization used on the 9600 Series. The only time in the past while where ATI was first was the X1900's. Nvidia didn't need mainstream 7 Series SKU as fast due to Shader Model 3.0 capable 6 Series holding the for for the moment. And regarding the X1950 XTX that was matched with the 7950 GX2, they are both in the same category, relatively speaking. It doesn't matter if the 7950 GX2 is 2 PCB with 2 GPU, it's still Single PCI-E motherboard slot.

Nvidia also introduced SLI which meant they didn't need a refresh as X850 XT PE can't match a pair of 6800 Ultra's in SLI. So while the Single card absolute performance ignoring programability was X850 XT PE, overall performance remained with Nvidia. ATI Crossfire didn't come till a long time after.

AF quality wasn't too bad between the X800 and 6800, it's the 7 Series, that ATI had a major edge.

ATI and Nvidia are pretty even with regard to AA quality up to 4x, 6x is a better usable mode in current games compared to Nvidia 8x which is much higher workload as it incorporates SSAA. Nvidia has better Transparency AA though with SSAA though in the 7 Generation.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Nv lead ati right up to the 9600xt and 9800 series, had dual cards, SM3.....ATI has crap driver al the way up to then!

I could give a toss about 90nm man process and use a projector to watch movies, & dont care HDR+AA.

Dont agree with your superior image quality except for the 7xxx series which nv brought out.

the 800/1800/1900 & 1950 were all catch up cards anyway coming out after nvidia had brought out their cards so they always had more time.....as I said, always playing catch-up!

Image quality... you should care about it, what's the purpose of buying a high-end card that can't make a game look good? I don't know about you, but I don't buy a $400-500 card to see jagged edges and shimmering.

And those cards were not "catch-up cards". The X800 series launched in May 2004, a half a month after nVidia launched the 6800 series. The X850 series launched in late 2004/early 2005 and nVidia had nothing really to compete (besides 6800 Ultra 512MB, but who bought it?). The X1800 series was late to market, but still only 4 months after nVidia launched the 7800, and it provided more than enough extra performance and features to justify that. The X1900 was launched in January 2006, BEFORE nVidia launched the 7900 series. The X1950 series was launched in the summer of 2006, and nVidia launched no new cards to compete with it. Well, they had the 7950GX2 but that's not the same market IMO.

The only time ATI has really been behind is with the R600. The X1800 was a few months behind, but nothing major especially since nVidia only launched the 7800GTX in June and the 7800GT in August. They didn't have a full 7xxx series product line until March 2006.

Well mate, i dont agree with your accessment at all, but everyone is due their opinions!