Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Given similar Price/Performance between ATI/Nvidia offerings, I'll go with the ATI. Mostly nowadays because I just know what to expect from my previous experience with ATI. Started out not liking Nvidia due to 3dfx/Nvidia wars, but for a few years now that kinda bias has withered to nothing.
I'm still not sure why you go on like this.Originally posted by: apoppin
it's pretty clear ... it's AMD graphics
and i used to like ATi ... before they vanished from the face of the earth
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!
Did I not just say this? ATI are still there, and their products are still ATI branded.Originally posted by: apoppin
AMD ... with a little subdivision still called 'ATi'
Originally posted by: Matt2
HDR+AA has turned out to be the biggest non-factor I've seen in a while.
I mean how many games did we actually get to enjoy HDR+AA with? Two? (Not counting Far Cry because it was freakin 3 years old before HDR+AA became a reality)
The rise of Deferred Shading has taken that advantage completely away from all cards, so unless you are an Oblivion and Serious Sam 2 die hard, the point is now completely moot.
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Did I not just say this? ATI are still there, and their products are still ATI branded.Originally posted by: apoppin
AMD ... with a little subdivision still called 'ATi'
To be honest, I think you're only saying that to bait ATI fanboys.
It'd be especially easy to bait ATI fanboys if it were true.Originally posted by: apoppin
i am saying the truth to bait someone ?
I didn't deny that ATI was swallowed up by AMD, what I do deny is that they have "vanished" as I think you put it. ATI are still around as an active brand with a range of products, and it will be for as long as AMD see fit.Originally posted by: apoppin
ATi is swallowed up ...
You've seen the HD2900 boxes and are saying they're a green AMD box?Originally posted by: apoppin
in every way that is "practical" ... ATi IS no more ... - except as 3 little red letters on a big green AMD box
Originally posted by: MDE
Downloading TV shows is a gray area between "piracy" and fair use.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?
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.
Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
It'd be especially easy to bait ATI fanboys if it were true.Originally posted by: apoppin
i am saying the truth to bait someone ?
I didn't deny that ATI was swallowed up by AMD, what I do deny is that they have "vanished" as I think you put it. ATI are still around as an active brand with a range of products, and it will be for as long as AMD see fit.Originally posted by: apoppin
ATi is swallowed up ...
AMD will very likely decide to scrap the ATI brand and product line at some point, but not yet.
You've seen the HD2900 boxes and are saying they're a green AMD box?Originally posted by: apoppin
in every way that is "practical" ... ATi IS no more ... - except as 3 little red letters on a big green AMD box
P.S. The last part was sheer curiosity more than anything else.
You didn't really answer anything at all with this post, did you.Originally posted by: apoppin
AMD is "green" ... that's all
--it "ate" the little red company
:roll:
if the existence of a red *3 letter symbol* is enough for you as "proof" ATi exists ... well then, it is fine by me
i am 'over' it
Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
You didn't really answer anything at all with this post, did you.Originally posted by: apoppin
AMD is "green" ... that's all
--it "ate" the little red company
:roll:
if the existence of a red *3 letter symbol* is enough for you as "proof" ATi exists ... well then, it is fine by me
i am 'over' it
Here is an article for you to read and ponder over: -
"AMD has no plans to drop the ATi brand name or ATi's product brands. The ATi name will live on at AMD as our leading consumer brand, and so will the Radeon brand and other ATi product brands. AMD's executive management knows very well the power and value of branding, and ATi's branding is some of the most valued in the global technology industry. As such, we plan to keep it. Period."
That's the bottom line on this subject.
I'm "used"Originally posted by: TecHNooB
Are you asking to be attacked by a barrage of smilies? Get out while you can!!
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: 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.
The X800 series cards had a feature set that was right for the games of 2004 and 2005, and that's what their purpose was. They provided performance that was (with the exception of OpenGL games) superior to that of the 6800 series and were pretty amazing cards. The lack of SM3 didn't begin to matter until around 2006, and even then, I don't think you're going to find a 6800 Ultra playing Oblivion with HDR at maximum settings. SM3 on the 6xxx series is one of those features that was too ahead of its time to be useful... by the time games used SM3, the 6 series could no longer offer good enough performance to utilize tose features.
As for the lack of a dual-card solution, it doesn't matter that 6800 Ultra SLI can beat a single X850XT PE. Two 6800 Ultra's are going to run you $800-900, and a single X850XT PE is around half of that price. I've always seen dual-card solutions as a waste of money and 6800 Ultra SLI is no exception. I don't think there were any games available back then that a X850XT PE couldn't max out at 1600x1200 4x/16x, so there wasn't much need for more performance anyway.
That's why I also don't view the 7950GX2 as a competitor to the X1950XTX. Sure, performance wise, it competes pretty well. However, the 7950GX2 is an SLI solution, whether or not it is disguised as a single card. As an SLI solution, it depends on drivers for performance. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to have to depend on nVidia SLI drivers for my performance, especially now in Vista.
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: 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.
The X800 series cards had a feature set that was right for the games of 2004 and 2005, and that's what their purpose was. They provided performance that was (with the exception of OpenGL games) superior to that of the 6800 series and were pretty amazing cards. The lack of SM3 didn't begin to matter until around 2006, and even then, I don't think you're going to find a 6800 Ultra playing Oblivion with HDR at maximum settings. SM3 on the 6xxx series is one of those features that was too ahead of its time to be useful... by the time games used SM3, the 6 series could no longer offer good enough performance to utilize tose features.
As for the lack of a dual-card solution, it doesn't matter that 6800 Ultra SLI can beat a single X850XT PE. Two 6800 Ultra's are going to run you $800-900, and a single X850XT PE is around half of that price. I've always seen dual-card solutions as a waste of money and 6800 Ultra SLI is no exception. I don't think there were any games available back then that a X850XT PE couldn't max out at 1600x1200 4x/16x, so there wasn't much need for more performance anyway.
That's why I also don't view the 7950GX2 as a competitor to the X1950XTX. Sure, performance wise, it competes pretty well. However, the 7950GX2 is an SLI solution, whether or not it is disguised as a single card. As an SLI solution, it depends on drivers for performance. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to have to depend on nVidia SLI drivers for my performance, especially now in Vista.
You pay top dollar for the best performance possible, 6800 Ultra SLI was no exception, and the 6800 Ultra SLI beat the X850 XT PE by quite a margin, not just a little, so a higher entrance fee is justified. There is always a need for more performance, if you have extra performance the thing is you can crank up the image quality settings. A 8800 GTX SLI system could be used even today, as a 6800 Ultra SLI system back then, there is always a use for extra performance. Gaming doesn't stop at 16x12, you can get monitors capable 17x13 and 19x14 as well as 20x15 even back then. It's never ever enough.
Contrary to belief it does, as having the overall crown was more important to Nvidia then having the crown through a Single Card. Shader Model 3.0 allow the Nvidia's card to have a better lifespan before needing to be replaced. It wasn't as crucial to bring out newer mainstream SKU's because the older SKU supported all the necessary features.
Like I said it doesn't matter if it requires SLI driver to perform, as by the time 7950 GX2 came into existence, most game supported SLI. The only issue was if you needed 2 Cards in the motherboard as 7950GX2 SLI performance leaves much to be desired.
Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
I'm "used"Originally posted by: TecHNooB
Are you asking to be attacked by a barrage of smilies? Get out while you can!!
:roll:...
to apoppin's "smileys."
...