NVIDIA and ATI

[BoomAM]

Could you provide a couple, other than 3dmark (they said nVidia isn't cheating)?

Futuremark got threatened with a lawsuit, and so took a uturn on the matter. If they had sufficient money to take on nvidia in court, then we would still have the fact that nvidia cheated. There is no two ways about it. In this business, money owns, as proven by nvidia.

No, I don't. I believe it's faster in some situations/games, slower in others.

You make this claim, but in a few posts ago, you make out the 5800Ultra to be an all conquering card that cant be beaten.

I provided links to disprove your statement that it's NEVER faster.

In the links you provided, there was evidence that the 9700pro beats the 5800 quite badly in "heavy" situations, such as high res, and high AF/AA modes.

So do I, and I've had both.

As above. You made out the 5800Ultra to be all conquering, but youve just said that the 9700pro is the best card youve owned. Your contradicting yourself here arnt you? Youve claimed that the 5800Ultra is faster than the 9700pro, youve claimed that ATIs drivers suck, but you say that the 9700pro is the best card youve used, Is it just me who finds this a bit bewildering?

I could say the same, and would. The 5800 is a pretty good card, but the 9700Pro is a better card because it does everything the 5800 Ultra does, and offers some much better performance at some AA/AF settings. (like the ones BFG uses)

As above. Again.

Im not denying that the 5800Ultra is a fast card, all im saying is that its not as fast as you make out. The 9700pro is faster in 90% of situations, which to the majority of people here, 90% means faster, and rightly so.
The 5800Ultra is not slouch, in fact, i think it was a good idea for nvidia to try something different with their cards, although the cooling solution was laughable, but you have it set in your head that the 5800ultra is faster. Ive said the above multiple times, that i belive that the 5800Ultra is a good card, but everytime i do, you manage to take what ive said the wrong way, and think that ive slagged it off again.

Try this. Set up a Video Forum Poll. Titled, "which is better, 5800U or 9700P", then for the poll options have, 9700pro, 5800Ultra and view results. And i can bet you that at least 70-80% of people here would vote for the 9700pro. Now they cant all be wrong.
And thats not saying that the 5800Ultra is a crap card. Being the 5th fastest card out is not bad (FX5900Ultra, 9800pro 256mb, 9800pro, 9700pro, FX5800Ultra), considering that in the majority of games out and forthcoming games, that all the cards can hold more than respectable and playable frame rates.

Look at it like this. Do you like the performance and IQ out of your 5800Ultra? Im betting that you do, and thats all that should matter to you. Not the opinions of other people, be them right or wrong. Thats why i dont go off on one in every thread that i find here that slags off ATI. I only join in a thread like that to correct them of false information, which then escalates into a arguement, as has happened here.
And using the above rule, i dont give a flying sh1t if you think that the 5800ultra is faster or not, my 9700pro is amazing to me. And thats all that should matter to me. So lets just leave this arguement now, as its becoming more obvious with every post that neither of us is going to budge. We`re both too stubern.

 

[nRollo]

Futuremark got threatened with a lawsuit, and so took a uturn on the matter. If they had sufficient money to take on nvidia in court, then we would still have the fact that nvidia cheated

A. Please provide link(s) to a reputable source that says Futuremark was threatened with litigation?
B. No one can successfully sue anyone for publishing the truth, and even if they do, they have to prove damages.

You make this claim, but in a few posts ago, you make out the 5800Ultra to be an all conquering card that cant be beaten

If you review my posts on this board, all I've ever done is say it's about equal to the 9700Pro. (which kind of makes sense given the similar memory bandwidth, and greater fillrate in multitextured pixels, less in single?)

In the links you provided, there was evidence that the 9700pro beats the 5800 quite badly in "heavy" situations, such as high res, and high AF/AA modes

Where? I just looked at those links again and didn't see it? How about this? At up to 12X10, 4X/8X, the two are pretty close?

Your contradicting yourself here arnt you? Youve claimed that the 5800Ultra is faster than the 9700pro, youve claimed that ATIs drivers suck, but you say that the 9700pro is the best card youve used, Is it just me who finds this a bit bewildering?

I don't contradict myself, unless I admit I'm wrong, which I haven't.
Overall, the 9700Pro was the best card I've used. I bought a monitor that ended the rolling lines. Yes I had some driver issues, more than with nVidia, but the card's otherwise great performance offsets that. I've never claimed the 5800Ultra is "faster" in any generic sense as you imply, only that it's faster at some settings, slower at others, pretty close most of the time.

The 9700pro is faster in 90% of situations, which to the majority of people here, 90% means faster, and rightly so.

This is EXACTLY why I've posted on this subject. It's NOT faster 90% of the time. Add up the scores in the links I've posted, it's nowhere NEAR 90%. People like you see the 16X12 4X/8X benchmarks and say, "it's faster 90% of the time!". May be at those settings, and above, but the fact is those settings don't account for 90% of all settings, or even close. Also, for an fps player, the ratio is even smaller because you don't play most fps with the settings maxed out, or at least I never could with a P4 2.53/512 PC2700. It just wasn't fast enough.

as its becoming more obvious with every post that neither of us is going to budge. We`re both too stubern.

We may have to agree to disagree.

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: Rollo

You stated earlier that you could get your 9700 back and put $175 back in your pocket. If you are not all that crazy about the 5800, why dont you do that?

Wanted to try something new Old Fart, the 9700Pro had become too familiar. If I replace this anytime soon it will be with a 9800Pro or FX non Ultra, which I consider the sweet spots in the market now.

Wouldn't it still make more sense to get the 9700P back and get $175 to put toward the new card?

 

[Wurrmm]

Can't we all just put our differances aside, buy whatever GPU we have a shine for and all just.....get along????

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Wurrmm
Can't we all just put our differances aside, buy whatever GPU we have a shine for and all just.....get along????

NO, this thread brings me joy:evil:

 

[Wurrmm]

I guess getting along is not possible so here comes my flame. Those of you who seem to only care about a measly unnoticable 5% difference in performance or a little IQ difference here or there, then you all need to get a life.

 

[Cesar]

Originally posted by: Wurrmm
I guess getting along is not possible so here comes my flame. Those of you who seem to only care about a measly unnoticable 5% difference in performance or a little IQ difference here or there, then you all need to get a life.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!!

They simply don't get do they!

 

[gramboh]

I agree with Rollo about the AA/AF settings. FPS games are not playable (to me) with <75 fps, the mouse movement is just too choppy. This is enhanced if you have frames per second jumping around when there is lots of action on the screen. Ideally I prefer solid 100fps with minimal dips. Really high AA/AF seems like something only useful in older games, like CS (~5 year old engine? hehe). Also CS is by far the most widely played online FPS game out there, so any driver issues relating to it are of absolute critical importance (from the perspective of the market as a whole).

 

[nRollo]

FPS games are not playable (to me) with <75 fps, the mouse movement is just too choppy. This is enhanced if you have frames per second jumping around when there is lots of action on the screen

This is why I did not use the settings some here are advocating in UT2003, which is primarily what I play. (the settings I used are what BFG calls "butt ugly" and "under-utilized") I prefer smooth as well.

 

[Shamrock]

I think Rollo stated in an earlier post why he doesnt want the 9700 pro back...he also had the infamous "gray rolling lines" up his monitor. An issue ATI cant figure out, and THOUSANDS of people are having the prob.

 

[nRollo]

I think Rollo stated in an earlier post why he doesnt want the 9700 pro back...he also had the infamous "gray rolling lines" up his monitor.

You are correct, I don't want the 9700pro back. I was tired of it, I'm enjoying the change, even if it's with the world's most infamous video card.
Oh well. The longest I've had a VGA is 8 months, so it's a good bet I'll be changing in the near future.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Rollo

I think Rollo stated in an earlier post why he doesnt want the 9700 pro back...he also had the infamous "gray rolling lines" up his monitor.

You are correct, I don't want the 9700pro back. I was tired of it, I'm enjoying the change, even if it's with the world's most infamous video card.
Oh well. The longest I've had a VGA is 8 months, so it's a good bet I'll be changing in the near future.

Seriously man, stop calling it VGA. It isn't 640x480.

 

[BoomAM]

Just so im clear:
VGA = 640x480
SVGA = 800x600
XGA = 1024x768
UXGA = 1280x1024
??? = 1600x1200
??? = 2048x1536

 

[Schadenfroh]

extended ultra super vga?

 

[EumSpliffum]

I've been sifting through the reviews and the comments thus far on the battles between ATI and nVidia. I'm personally a big fan of nVidia myself and their accomplishments over the years... The visual quality of ALL nVidia-based video boards is bare none the best to date. As far as ATI quality and performance goes, I'd have to say it's impressive considering they are rookies to the 3D market, but I'd say as far as crisp graphics go, nVidia has them beat. My buddy has had two ATI cards, and All-in-Wonder (haha!) and a Radeon 9500 (currently). The 9500 runs pretty damned good I must say, but comparing the visuals with my best buddies GeForce4 is night and day. I'd say my GF2 is on-par with the 9500... honestly. I'm completely unbiased at this point for I'm shopping for a new video card. My biggest concern is hardware/firmware support. nVidia has their sh*t together with their drivers and until just recently, ATI has been in the sewers with their hardware support.

Through all the rubble, the light at the end of the tunnel is unclear. There's no real benchtest like doing your own. Visual quality is my primary concern. FSAA is a must and the 5900 outdoes the 9800 in every FSAA test so far that I've seen... and the results become a greater distinction at higher resolutions. Not only wll I be upgrading my video card, but I'm making the jump from a 17" to a 19" monitor and I'm going to want to enjoy taking full advantage of the higher resolutions and higher refresh rates. So, what I'm getting at here is, how does everyone else feel about the topics I've mentioned as far as visual quality and FSAA performance is concerned?

Also... I heard rumor that id software was working with ATI's new architecture in developing DOOM III, is this true? Bump/Mip-mapping?? Also, the new per-pixel lighting technologies being used in both DOOM 3 and Half-Life 2 and the future of games as well... which one would handle these operations better?

Sorry for the lengthy post.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention in my debate with visual quality is the fact that it does NOT matter if you get 100+ fps let alone over 200... it simply does NOT matter. The human eye can only process 60fps anyway. For those of you that wish to attack me for that comment, there are a few exceptions where some individuals can distinguish between 60 and 70 fps--whoopdididoo!

 

[EumSpliffum]

Oversized slot??? Why are some of the FX boards utilizing an oversized slot? Potentially occupying a PCI slot...? About half of the boards I've checked out are oversized? Why are some and some are not?

 

[Regs]

EDIT: I also forgot to mention in my debate with visual quality is the fact that it does NOT matter if you get 100+ fps let alone over 200... it simply does NOT matter. The human eye can only process 60fps anyway. For those of you that wish to attack me for that comment, there are a few exceptions where some individuals can distinguish between 60 and 70 fps--whoopdididoo!

Well this is good, considering my 9800 is pushing 60-70 FPS in unreal other then this 200 FPS crap. Along with Doom 3 running 30 FPS @ 4x/8x . You may get 200 FPS with all the settings set to 0 , but then there is no real point in buying a 9800pro or 5900ultra without having eye candy enabled.

*On a side note, I'm hoping the demo + cat drivers were the cause of the low framerates in Doom 3. Even though 30 FPS in that type of game isn't bad at all.

However people will argue, including Anand himself, that the human eye could see passed 60 FPS. However I will not touch that since that is highly volatile flame bate :/ .

 

[Rogodin2]

"As far as ATI quality and performance goes, I'd have to say it's impressive considering they are rookies to the 3D market, but I'd say as far as crisp graphics go, nVidia has them beat. My buddy has had two ATI cards, and All-in-Wonder (haha!) and a Radeon 9500 (currently). The 9500 runs pretty damned good I must say, but comparing the visuals with my best buddies GeForce4 is night and day. I'd say my GF2 is on-par with the 9500"

forgot the name of the quoted.

my response to that above-

Ati has been around longer than nvidia, so by definition of the term "rookie" it is only attibutable to nvidia.

And with your little comparison between buddies cards-were they running the same monitors with the same resolution, same refresh rate, with the same ingame detail settings, and equivalent IQ d3d and open gl settings?

Most of us in this forum have long histories of vga ownership and therefore don't take kindly to smoke being puffed up our azzes (which your post is)-so please refrain from making a fool of yourself in the future and keep your pseudo observations to yourself.

rogo

 

[EumSpliffum]

I'm unsure of what you are getting at with your response Regs...

Rogogin2... since yer such a "balla" to technicalities you may want to reread my post--for you left out a key element.
I CLEARLY stated that ATI was a rookie to 3D! They are masters of making 2D cards, better than the best, I will give them that much.

As far as my "pseudo observations" go, I'm no rookie myself when it comes to computers pal. I'm currently 20 years of age and I've been around computers since I was 3. That being said does not make me any kind of professional but I do know a thing or two. Though I only did moderate testing between these cards and others (not mentioned) I used my box and his as a control. Swapping the cards showed enough proof of the visual enhancements the GeForce4 had over the 9500. Both being clean and crisp, I had the same concensous with my friends that the GF4 did indeed look more appealing and seemed to have better T&L support. I mearly stated a comment that you too offense to for whatever reason. And you only mentioned OpenGL... why? We did software, D3D, and OpenGL.

So, your purpose of your post is too--pointless.


EDIT: The DOOM III alpha IS NOT a polished product and the code IS NOT enhanced.
Expect to see greater frames when the it's finished.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: EumSpliffum
The visual quality of ALL nVidia-based video boards is bare none the best to date.

Its known throughout the industry that Matrox have the best image quality bar none. Then ATI. Then nVidia. Argue against this all you want, but its a well known fact.

As far as ATI quality and performance goes, I'd have to say it's impressive considering they are rookies to the 3D market, but I'd say as far as crisp graphics go, nVidia has them beat.

ATI are not rookies. In fact they are a more well established company than nVidia. Considering ATI rookies to the 3d market, is like saying Intel only started making cpus in january. Just because you havnt heard of them/havnt used their products, doesnt make them rookies.

I'd say my GF2 is on-par with the 9500... honestly. I'm completely unbiased at this point for I'm shopping for a new video card. My biggest concern is hardware/firmware support. nVidia has their sh*t together with their drivers and until just recently, ATI has been in the sewers with their hardware support

Your GF2 on par with the 9500. Ha thats a laugh. nVidias image quality has been suspect on all of their cards below the GF4 range. Recently, nVidia has made several major cockups on their part with their drivers and their hardware. ATIs hardware support is exactely the same as nVidias. They boths support the latest vertex and pixel shader lanuguages. And software wise, they both support OpenGL, both support Direct3D, both support software rendering. ATIs drivers have been excellent since the release of the Catalyst Suite.

FSAA is a must and the 5900 outdoes the 9800 in every FSAA test so far that I've seen... and the results become a greater distinction at higher resolutions.

The 5900Ultra is a good card, but its AA image quality is suspect. ATIs AA methods produce far better looking results. But nVidias AF looks better than ATIs

Also... I heard rumor that id software was working with ATI's new architecture in developing DOOM III, is this true? Bump/Mip-mapping?? Also, the new per-pixel lighting technologies being used in both DOOM 3 and Half-Life 2 and the future of games as well... which one would handle these operations better?

ID softwares first test card for Doom3 was indeed an ATI one. A 8500 to be exact. The first running version of doom3 was ran on a 9700pro. But this does not mean that ID favour either company. ID are staying neutral in this matter. They will be optimising for all video card types.
The Pixel and Vertex shader performance of the latest couple of ATI and nVidia cards are both very good, however, ATIs seems faster, just. Plus the ability for infinite shaders on ATIs 9600/9800 series means that them particular cards can handle longer shader routines.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention in my debate with visual quality is the fact that it does NOT matter if you get 100+ fps let alone over 200... it simply does NOT matter. The human eye can only process 60fps anyway. For those of you that wish to attack me for that comment, there are a few exceptions where some individuals can distinguish between 60 and 70 fps--whoopdididoo!

There is alot of people who will dissagree with you here.

For all of the above, it seems that you have gotten alot wrong. I suggest that you get your facts before you critisise something that you obviously know little about.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: EumSpliffum
I CLEARLY stated that ATI was a rookie to 3D! They are masters of making 2D cards, better than the best, I will give them that much.

You are getting mixed up. Matrox are the master of image quality and 2D. ATI and nVidia entered the 3D market at the same time. They are both as experianced as each other.

[/quote]As far as my "pseudo observations" go, I'm no rookie myself when it comes to computers pal. I'm currently 20 years of age and I've been around computers since I was 3. That being said does not make me any kind of professional but I do know a thing or two.[/quote]
Ive been around cars since i was 2, does that make it so i know how to strip one down and rebuild it? Just cos youve been around them for a while doesnt make you any kind of expert in anyway. The chances are that until your were 13-14, you were just playing games on them. Age doesnt not matter. If you are good enough, then you are old enough.

Swapping the cards showed enough proof of the visual enhancements the GeForce4 had over the 9500. Both being clean and crisp, I had the same concensous with my friends that the GF4 did indeed look more appealing and seemed to have better T&L support.

You have know idea what you are on about do you? The T&L support of both cards are near indentical, the only thing that sets them apart, is the internal working and speed at which they do things. In a technical sence, the 9500s T&L capibilites are far in excess of the GF4s.

And you only mentioned OpenGL... why? We did software, D3D, and OpenGL.

Cos belive it or not, OpenGL is a major rendering standard.

EDIT: The DOOM III alpha IS NOT a polished product and the code IS NOT enhanced.
Expect to see greater frames when the it's finished.

Do NOT mention the alpha here please. The moderators will come sniffing around. You have been warned.

 

[EumSpliffum]

BOOM AM... I'm not sure how you can say MY PERSONAL OPINIONS can be WRONG. Thats just ludicris.

First and foremost I'd like to own up to my error and agree with you that I was wrong about the ATI/Matrox deal. I did indeed confuse my thoughts on that.
As far as getting most of what I said wrong... I don't think so. You cannot tell someone that their opinion is wrong or bad--I do believe we learned this in kindergarden.

Second, you claim ATI ran DOOM3 faster? I've checked 3 hardware sites and ATI got beaten by at least 8-10 frames in every test... using all varieties of visual factors.

Third, they way you quoted me took out some of the importance of what I was trying to say. I felt that the visual quality of the 9500 was up to par with my GF2. However, which I did not state, the performance between the two was a bit different. The 9500 ran the same quality but at higher frame rates. So instead of judging promptly as you did on a matter in which you are uncertain, you should ASK, before you ASS-U-ME.

Furthermore, you took my comment about my age and experience with computers... I did not go into detail about my pasts with computers. But, since you seem curious I'll elaborate. I've built well over a dozen computers from the ground up doing my own research on what works well with each other. I'm no techie eXpert as some here "claim" but I know my sh*t (for lack of a better word). Don't take this as my gloating, simply stating.

You are right about OpenGL being a MAJOR API, but it seems nVidia is concentrating a lot on enhancing D3D performance.

Guess what... DOOM III ALPHA LEAK!!! DOOM III ALPHA LEAK!!! DOOM III ALPHA LEAK!!! DOOM III ALPHA LEAK!!!
What does it matter? We're all "adults" here, I was referring to a previous comment. And another to that, 30fps with a 2GHz+ machine with over 512MB DDR (up to over a GIG) etc. etc... witht he best video cards on the market is not "pretty good" LOL... it's an alpha leak (no code optimization).

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: EumSpliffum
Second, you claim ATI ran DOOM3 faster? I've checked 3 hardware sites and ATI got beaten by at least 8-10 frames in every test... using all varieties of visual factors.

I never said ATI cards ran it(doom3) faster. If you bothered reading my post correctly, i said that vertex and pixel shader operations are usually faster on ATIs latest cards, compared to nVidias.

Third, they way you quoted me took out some of the importance of what I was trying to say. I felt that the visual quality of the 9500 was up to par with my GF2. However, which I did not state, the performance between the two was a bit different. The 9500 ran the same quality but at higher frame rates. So instead of judging promptly as you did on a matter in which you are uncertain, you should ASK, before you ASS-U-ME.

You said that the GF2 had better quality than the 9500. There isnt another way to interprit this. So try being clearer on the matter.

Furthermore, you took my comment about my age and experience with computers... I did not go into detail about my pasts with computers. But, since you seem curious I'll elaborate. I've built well over a dozen computers from the ground up doing my own research on what works well with each other. I'm no techie eXpert as some here "claim" but I know my sh*t (for lack of a better word). Don't take this as my gloating, simply stating.

1) It isnt exactely hard to build a PC. Most connectors only fit in one way.
2) Reading up in particular parts, while commendable, is not exactely hard either.
3) Im not questioning your abilites in computing, but you seem to make out that you know far more than what you actually do. Alot of the things that you have commented on, are for moment, beyond your understanding. But within a few weeks here, hopefully you will understand things a bit better.

You are right about OpenGL being a MAJOR API, but it seems nVidia is concentrating a lot on enhancing D3D performance.

OpenGL has been stuck on v1.4 for a while now, there is very little more optimising any company can do, until OpenGL2 gets released.

Guess what... DOOM III ALPHA LEAK!!! DOOM III ALPHA LEAK!!! DOOM III ALPHA LEAK!!! DOOM III ALPHA LEAK!!!
What does it matter? We're all "adults" here, I was referring to a previous comment. And another to that, 30fps with a 2GHz+ machine with over 512MB DDR (up to over a GIG) etc. etc... witht he best video cards on the market is not "pretty good" LOL... it's an alpha leak (no code optimization).

As i have said, DO NOT MENTION THE ALPHA. You in your n00bness havnt realised the full set of rules about mentioning the Doom3 Alpha. I have been warned several times about the mentioning the alpha in the same vain as you. I am only warning you, as moderators can, and will take your account off you if nessessary.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But some opinions are just idiotic.
You have claimed that the IQ on a GF4 is better than a 9500. It is a well known fact that compared to any ATI card, none of nVidias cards that pre-date the FX`s have IQ even comparible to ATIs cards. You are going against a Industry fact. Not opinion.
You also claim that the T&L on a GF4 is better than a 9500. How does that work out?
For a start the T&L unit on a 9500 is significanty more capible than a GF4s, Its also a completly different generation of T&L unit. As above, Industry fact, not opinion.

 

[nRollo]

Seriously man, stop calling it VGA. It isn't 640x480.

Sorry, guess I'm dating myself.
http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/S.Weijgers/FreeVGA/glossary.htm

VGA -- acronym for Video Graphics Array, which is the term for IBM's successor to the EGA graphics chipset. This term is also used when describing register compatible functions of other chipsets such as SVGA chipsets.

 

[Regs]

Well of course Doom 3 ran faster on the 5900 Ultra. The Cat drivers still have a few bugs for a game that has not even come out yet. Let John optimize the game for the use of Cat drivers and for a retail version of the game to come out. Then you will see how fast that 10 FPS advantage gets lost.