Does anyone else have a bias for ATI?

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

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

You didn't really answer anything at all with this post, did you.

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.

letsee you believe *everything* AMD says ...
well, then ...

did you notice the article's date ?

Tuesday 8th August 2006

that's a *hundred years* in "GPU-Life"

give it another "200 years" ... by 09 we won't even see "ati" ... except in really *tiny* red letters ...

... as a "footnote"

something for "the boys" to proudly point to

:roll:

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
*snip* I believe it is the same with the R600 - it might not be winning the benchmarks now, but when DX10 games come around, ATI's decisions will pay off.

Haha, okay, so you know for a fact that "ATI's" (AMD's) decisions "will pay off" because an unreleased card will perform much better in unreleased games. You know this how?

Also, you completely invalidate your own point by saying that on one hand nVidia was stupid to include SM3 in the 6800 series because it was useless on games that were out when the card was released, yet AMD is brilliant because they sacrificed DX9 performance (all games out now and the majority for the foreseeable future) in favor of DX10 performance (no games now, few on the immediate horizon).

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: apoppin
letsee you believe *everything* AMD says ...
well, then ...

did you notice the article's date ?

Tuesday 8th August 2006

that's a *hundred years* in "GPU-Life"

Yes I did notice the date, and it was the latest article on the subject I can find. Feel free to point me in the direction of a newer article where AMD say something to the contrary.

As for believing everything AMD says, no I bloody well don't. I do however believe this because, unless we're living in parallel universes, ATI products are still coming out and probably will for a while to come.

It will probably not last forever, but ATI is still here. Does that hurt you? Is that why you're so adamant?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Extelleron
*snip* I believe it is the same with the R600 - it might not be winning the benchmarks now, but when DX10 games come around, ATI's decisions will pay off.

Haha, okay, so you know for a fact that "ATI's" (AMD's) decisions "will pay off" because an unreleased card will perform much better in unreleased games. You know this how?

Also, you completely invalidate your own point by saying that on one hand nVidia was stupid to include SM3 in the 6800 series because it was useless on games that were out when the card was released, yet AMD is brilliant because they sacrificed DX9 performance (all games out now and the majority for the foreseeable future) in favor of DX10 performance (no games now, few on the immediate horizon).

Yet the funny thing is, the X850XT is still a better card today despite lack of SM3. The fact is, SM3 is a feature that never really mattered all that much. The fact that ATI didn't include it on the X800/X850 series is irrelevant.

 

[Laminator]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
I've also seen, historically, that ATI's cards have done much better against their nVidia counterparts in the long run. For example, the X1800XT vs 7800GTX, even 512MB version. At launch, everybody talked about how fast the 7800GTX 512MB was; in the games of 2005, it blew the X1800XT away. However, looking at modern games like Oblivion, the opposite is true. The X1800XT is faster than the 7800GTX 512MB. This is why I choose ATI over nVidia. ATI makes graphics cards that perform well in CURRENT games, and FUTURE games. nVidia focuses on CURRENT performance to win benchmarks, and doesn't give a hoot about performance the year later. ATI cards are, for the most part, going to last you longer than equivelant nVidia cards. I believe it is the same with the R600 - it might not be winning the benchmarks now, but when DX10 games come around, ATI's decisions will pay off.

Brand loyalty is retarded. You take what is best at the time (This is more of a general comment; I see you have an 8800GTS in your rig). You do make a good point about ATI's ability to produce cards whose architecture is much more compatible with the next generation than nVidia, though. The GeForce FX was nVidia's own stupidity but the pixel shaders on the R5XX cards are raping nVidia's GeForce 7 in Rainbow Six: Vegas, Need for Speed: Carbon, and Splinter Cell: Double Agent.

For the last two generations, ATI's high-end offerings were slightly faster than those of nVidia's but their mid-range cards were not so good. The X600 XT was pathetic. The X700 Pro was okay but not enough to take it back from the 6600GT, and the whole X1600/X1650 series was a joke with the exception of the X1650 XT, which was too late to the party. ATI may see a comeback with the current generation seeing as the 8600GTS is a big disappointment except when it comes to video decoding.

Oh, yeah - the X1800 XT 512MB is slower than the 7800GTX 512MB except in Oblivion.

EDIT: Instead of bickering we should be collectively thanking the market for having two dominant players compete against one another, resulting in awesomely fast and low-priced video cards. Remember the GeForce2, GeForce3, and GeForce4? Every generation yielded a 0% (GeForce3 versus GeForce2 Ultra in older games) to 33% or so increase in performance. Now we are seeing ~100% increases since the GeForce 6 series came out, and expect the mid-range card of the new generation to be on par with the best card of the previous generation. The refreshes yield another large bundle of performance. It's a good time to be a graphics whore.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Laminator

Originally posted by: Extelleron
I've also seen, historically, that ATI's cards have done much better against their nVidia counterparts in the long run. For example, the X1800XT vs 7800GTX, even 512MB version. At launch, everybody talked about how fast the 7800GTX 512MB was; in the games of 2005, it blew the X1800XT away. However, looking at modern games like Oblivion, the opposite is true. The X1800XT is faster than the 7800GTX 512MB. This is why I choose ATI over nVidia. ATI makes graphics cards that perform well in CURRENT games, and FUTURE games. nVidia focuses on CURRENT performance to win benchmarks, and doesn't give a hoot about performance the year later. ATI cards are, for the most part, going to last you longer than equivelant nVidia cards. I believe it is the same with the R600 - it might not be winning the benchmarks now, but when DX10 games come around, ATI's decisions will pay off.

Brand loyalty is retarded. You take what is best at the time (This is more of a general comment; I see you have an 8800GTS in your rig). You do make a good point about ATI's ability to produce cards whose architecture is much more compatible with the next generation than nVidia, though. The GeForce FX was nVidia's own stupidity but the pixel shaders on the R5XX cards are raping nVidia's GeForce 7 in Rainbow Six: Vegas, Need for Speed: Carbon, and Splinter Cell: Double Agent.

For the last two generations, ATI's high-end offerings were slightly faster than those of nVidia's but their mid-range cards were not so good. The X600 XT was pathetic. The X700 Pro was okay but not enough to take it back from the 6600GT, and the whole X1600/X1650 series was a joke with the exception of the X1650 XT, which was too late to the party. ATI may see a comeback with the current generation seeing as the 8600GTS is a big disappointment except when it comes to video decoding.

Oh, yeah - the X1800 XT 512MB is slower than the 7800GTX 512MB except in Oblivion.

THat is the one biggest weakness of ATI and the biggest strength of nVidia, historically at least, nVidia has produced better mid-range solutions. ATI produced a great card in the R9600 series, and like the rest of the Radeon 9xxx series it crushed the FX cards in just about everything. However, with the next generation, nVidia came out with the 6600GT which is perhaps the best midrange card of all time. ATI had nothing to compete at first until they launched X800 based parts like the X800GT. With the X1000 series, ATI repeated this again... the X1600 series was pathetic performance wise and, like before, nVidia came out with the 7600GT which was great for the price. ATI has some excellent mid-range cards though... the X1950 Pro is a great card at a great sub $200 price.

This generation I'm not so sure about nVidia's midrange dominance. The 8600 series is really not so great.... the 7600GT was faster than the 6800U so I expected the 8600GTS to be around the speed of a 7900GT or GTX. ATI has the opportunity to finally win the midrange battle if their R600 based cards in the $100 to $250 price range are good.

 

[apoppin]

The fact is, SM3 is a feature that never really mattered all that much.

only not to ATi fans ... and only then in the beginning ... after FC implemented it - it mattered

everyone else loved it ... even AMD does ... now

and there are some new games the x850xt cannot play

 

[Laminator]

I'm jealous of people who are buying "mid-range" cards at the current moment. For less than $150, you can get an X1950 Pro or a 7900GS. I had to scrounge on eBay to get my card for less than $300 after it sold out in days on NewEgg.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Laminator
I'm jealous of people who are buying "mid-range" cards at the current moment. For less than $150, you can get an X1950 Pro or a 7900GS. I had to scrounge on eBay to get my card for less than $300 after it sold out in days on NewEgg.

i paid $250 fior my current card

at first i was miffed that it wasn't that much faster than my x850xt ...
--then my CRT died and i got a 14x9 WS ... upgraded the CPU and added RAM

and i am now very glad i have my x1950p - totally sufficient for all my new games ...
and still not 'overkill' for my current rig
:thumbsup:

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: apoppin

The fact is, SM3 is a feature that never really mattered all that much.

only not to ATi fans ... and only then in the beginning ... after FC implemented it - it mattered

everyone else loved it ... even AMD does ... now

and there are some new games the x850xt cannot play

I know of Rainbow Six Vegas, but that's more because of a bad port than anything else.

The other problem with ATI (other than the lack of good midrange cards) is their marketing. ATI's marketing has been terrible over the past few years, nVidia has their name plastered on a large number of new games... I don't see ATI anywhere (only on a few games have I seen the ATI logo). If the average joe sees "NVIDIA - THE WAY ITS MEANT TO BE PLAYED" on the game he buys, he'll probably buy an nVidia card. ATI needs better marketing, it doesn't matter how good their cards are if no one knows about them.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Extelleron
*snip* I believe it is the same with the R600 - it might not be winning the benchmarks now, but when DX10 games come around, ATI's decisions will pay off.

Haha, okay, so you know for a fact that "ATI's" (AMD's) decisions "will pay off" because an unreleased card will perform much better in unreleased games. You know this how?

Also, you completely invalidate your own point by saying that on one hand nVidia was stupid to include SM3 in the 6800 series because it was useless on games that were out when the card was released, yet AMD is brilliant because they sacrificed DX9 performance (all games out now and the majority for the foreseeable future) in favor of DX10 performance (no games now, few on the immediate horizon).

Yet the funny thing is, the X850XT is still a better card today despite lack of SM3. The fact is, SM3 is a feature that never really mattered all that much. The fact that ATI didn't include it on the X800/X850 series is irrelevant.

Hmm, well, the funny thing is the X850XT was launched Dec. 1, 2004 and the 6800 Ultra was launched April 15, 2004 - over 7 months earlier - yet there are games being released today that the 6800 Ultra can play and the X850XT can't even boot up. Interesting.

 

[apoppin]

to be *fair*

in 98% of current games that the x850 DOES run, it is generally faster then the 6800u

in a way, the x850xt is proving to be a better value

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Extelleron
*snip* I believe it is the same with the R600 - it might not be winning the benchmarks now, but when DX10 games come around, ATI's decisions will pay off.

Haha, okay, so you know for a fact that "ATI's" (AMD's) decisions "will pay off" because an unreleased card will perform much better in unreleased games. You know this how?

Also, you completely invalidate your own point by saying that on one hand nVidia was stupid to include SM3 in the 6800 series because it was useless on games that were out when the card was released, yet AMD is brilliant because they sacrificed DX9 performance (all games out now and the majority for the foreseeable future) in favor of DX10 performance (no games now, few on the immediate horizon).

Yet the funny thing is, the X850XT is still a better card today despite lack of SM3. The fact is, SM3 is a feature that never really mattered all that much. The fact that ATI didn't include it on the X800/X850 series is irrelevant.

Hmm, well, the funny thing is the X850XT was launched Dec. 1, 2004 and the 6800 Ultra was launched April 15, 2004 - over 7 months earlier - yet there are games being released today that the 6800 Ultra can play and the X850XT can't even boot up. Interesting.

If you consider a port like Rainbow Six Vegas to be a "PC game." Good luck playing it on a 6800 Ultra.

And the X800XT PE was launched 2 weeks after the 6800 Ultra... it's still faster. The X850XT is just even more faster.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

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.

Well, considering Oblivion is arguably the biggest (and best) game of 2006, I think the fact that HDR + AA could be used there makes it important. In other games, it's just the lazy developers fault that AA cannot be enabled. That's one thing I can't stand... I have a high-end card and I want to use it, I don't want a game where I can't enable AA.

Like I said, unless you are an Oblivion die hard, HDR+AA means nothing anymore.

The only time you're going to see HDR+AA in new games is if you get to force SSAA. Then again, you could have seen HDR+AA on GeForce 6 and 7-Series cards using SSAA.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Extelleron

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.

Well, considering Oblivion is arguably the biggest (and best) game of 2006, I think the fact that HDR + AA could be used there makes it important. In other games, it's just the lazy developers fault that AA cannot be enabled. That's one thing I can't stand... I have a high-end card and I want to use it, I don't want a game where I can't enable AA.

Like I said, unless you are an Oblivion die hard, HDR+AA means nothing anymore.

The only time you're going to see HDR+AA in new games is if you get to force SSAA. Then again, you could have seen HDR+AA on GeForce 6 and 7-Series cards using SSAA.

Modern PC games that are done RIGHT will work with HDR+AA. It's the crappy console ports like GRAW and Vegas that don't work.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Extelleron

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.

Well, considering Oblivion is arguably the biggest (and best) game of 2006, I think the fact that HDR + AA could be used there makes it important. In other games, it's just the lazy developers fault that AA cannot be enabled. That's one thing I can't stand... I have a high-end card and I want to use it, I don't want a game where I can't enable AA.

Like I said, unless you are an Oblivion die hard, HDR+AA means nothing anymore.

The only time you're going to see HDR+AA in new games is if you get to force SSAA. Then again, you could have seen HDR+AA on GeForce 6 and 7-Series cards using SSAA.

Modern PC games that are done RIGHT will work with HDR+AA. It's the crappy console ports like GRAW and Vegas that don't work.

No, it's the shading technique that causes multisample AA to not function.

What about STALKER? STALKER is not a "crappy port" and MSAA is broken. The AA slider in the game only tries to apply SSAA.

 

[CP5670]

It doesn't have anything to do with HDR. MSAA doesn't work in those games at all. Although I have been hearing something about the latest 8800 driver allowing you to force it on in some of those games.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: CP5670
It doesn't have anything to do with HDR. MSAA doesn't work in those games at all. Although I have been hearing something about the latest 8800 driver allowing you to force it on in some of those games.

Good catch, I knew that, I just got so used to typing "HDR" before anything about AA.

Deferred shading seems to be the technique of choice by developers thus far. It has nothing to do with "laziness".

As for Nvidia enabling MSAA through their drivers, sounds good, wonder when AMD will follow suit.

 

[nemesismk2]

Yes I will only purchase ATI products because I didn't like Nvidia's Viral Marketing Scam!

 

[secretanchitman]

i just dont really like ati's drivers, thats all. their cards are great, ill admit that (x1800/x1900/x1950 crap was stupid of them though - i hated how they had so many refreshes in a short amount of time).

but my favorite cards were all from nvidia. geforce2 mx, geforce3, geforce 6600GT AGP, geforce 7900GT, and now my geforce 8800GTS 320MB which is probably my favorite card of all time now.

 

[Ackmed]

Yes I have a bias for ATi. Everyone has a bias for either ATi, or NV. Not everyone will admit to it however. Some people proclaim to be 100% neutral, which is a lie.

I like Pepsi over Coke, McDonalds over Burger King, Nike over Rebook, AMD over Intel, Ford over Chevy. Does that mean I dont buy other brands? Nope. A 8oz. bottle Coke is hard to beat. A Whopper is still very good. And my first car was a Cadillac, a GM product.

Just because you has a bias, or prefer one brand to another, doesnt alienate you to the rest of them. Ive owned more NV cards, than ATi cards. More NV mobos, than ATi mobos. I buy whatever I think will work best for my needs, at the given time. But I still root for ATi. Mostly because they're the underdog. And without a strong competitor, NV will not keep the peddle to the metal, and produce as good as cards. And prices wont drop. As you can see in the case of the 8800GTX.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Yes I have a bias for ATi. Everyone has a bias for either ATi, or NV. Not everyone will admit to it however. Some people proclaim to be 100% neutral, which is a lie.

I like Pepsi over Coke, McDonalds over Burger King, Nike over Rebook, AMD over Intel, Ford over Chevy. Does that mean I dont buy other brands? Nope. A 8oz. bottle Coke is hard to beat. A Whopper is still very good. And my first car was a Cadillac, a GM product.

Just because you has a bias, or prefer one brand to another, doesnt alienate you to the rest of them. Ive owned more NV cards, than ATi cards. More NV mobos, than ATi mobos. I buy whatever I think will work best for my needs, at the given time. But I still root for ATi. Mostly because they're the underdog. And without a strong competitor, NV will not keep the peddle to the metal, and produce as good as cards. And prices wont drop. As you can see in the case of the 8800GTX.

I like ATI and I do have a bias towards them. If you looked at my buying history which consist of 3/5 Nvidia, 1/5th S3 back in the day with the savage cards and 1/5th ATI.

In fact the only ATI cards I owned was a 9800pro, x850pro, 1800xl, 1900xt. Much much less then Nvidia's. The reason why I dislike Nvidia is due mainly its reference with noobs. Most idiots say I have a Nvidia 5500 and it is awesome. It is PCIE too! GRRR that makes me mad, the marketing machine of Nvidia also drives me nuts.

I have the same hate for Dell

 

[coolpurplefan]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Yes I have a bias for ATi. Everyone has a bias for either ATi, or NV. Not everyone will admit to it however. Some people proclaim to be 100% neutral, which is a lie.

I like Pepsi over Coke, McDonalds over Burger King, Nike over Rebook, AMD over Intel, Ford over Chevy. Does that mean I dont buy other brands? Nope. A 8oz. bottle Coke is hard to beat. A Whopper is still very good. And my first car was a Cadillac, a GM product.

Just because you has a bias, or prefer one brand to another, doesnt alienate you to the rest of them. Ive owned more NV cards, than ATi cards. More NV mobos, than ATi mobos. I buy whatever I think will work best for my needs, at the given time. But I still root for ATi. Mostly because they're the underdog. And without a strong competitor, NV will not keep the peddle to the metal, and produce as good as cards. And prices wont drop. As you can see in the case of the 8800GTX.

You totally make me laugh. I like Coke over Pepsi, Burger King over McDonalds, Reebok over Nike, and presently I would choose Intel over AMD although I'll admit I still have a bias for AMD since I'm so "used to it".

I like rooting for the underdog too. And, yes parlty because of competition. It almost worries me that AMD might not be able to catch up to Intel and Nvidia in the next few months.

But, the bottom line is not really benchmarks. The real bottom line for most people is, will they buy an AMD for $200 for similar performance than an Intel chip for $300? Or, would they buy an ATI for $200 for similar performance rather than a Nvidia for $300? I believe it's all about capturing the market in the mid-range for price/performance. AMD did well to lower the price of the 5600+ for example to compete with Intel even it doesn't match it perfectly. And has done well with the X1950 Pro. That's what we need for competition. And I hope we'll continue to have that kind of competition at least in the next few months. This seems like a critical time for AMD since they took on so much debt to buy ATI. They better deliver in the next few months or it's going to cost them. I can understand their delay on the R600 because if they came out with bad drivers, boy that would suck.

 

[rmed64]

I have no bias towards any of them.

Whichever company has the best product at a given price point (bang for the buck), is the product I will buy.

It just so happens Nvidia has been better since the 6 series with performance/bang for the buck in mid range cards, so I have bought more cards from them.

 

[mooncancook]

If a NVidia card and an ATi card is roughly the same in performance, features, and price, I'll choose an ATi over NVidia. so I guess I'm kind of bias.