The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Everyone has their favourites, right?. Favourite food, favourite TV shows. You get the idea. But which compnay is your favourite? ATI or Nvidia?
As old as the Intel v AMD war, this new Graphics card 'skirmish' is great for us consumers because both companies are constantly releasing newer and faster card in an attempt to out do the others. But where do you stand? Who do you support? Do you stand with NVidia, or swear allegance to ATI?
Let me know what you think.
Oh an by the way, I'm for ATI all the way.
Radeon > GeForce
As old as the Intel v AMD war, this new Graphics card 'skirmish' is great for us consumers because both companies are constantly releasing newer and faster card in an attempt to out do the others. But where do you stand? Who do you support? Do you stand with NVidia, or swear allegance to ATI?
Let me know what you think.
Oh an by the way, I'm for ATI all the way.
Radeon > GeForce
Page:
béSSánt ©opy®ight™ wrote:
> my ATI still working fine no need for overclocking downloads...
>
> and what do they exactaly do?
> i thought overclocking was bad so downloading something that
> overclocks your graphic card is supposed to be good?
>
> explain...
Overclocking Graphics cards doesn't hold the same reputation as overclocking CPU's. Alot of the newer models have inbuilt security features which moniters the clock rate compared to heat.
Ati have an official program called Overdrive which automatically bunks the Clock rates sky high and lowers them if necessary. So really the manufacturers don't mind you overclocking it. As for damaging the card, as long as your carefull, you won't do it harm. Besides with the new features the Ati card (and no doubt NVidia, although I can't be sure) have installed the Card will shut down and boot to it's stock settings long before you can damage it.
Reasons for doing so? As tigamilla kindly explained, you can turn your card into the next model with 1/2 hours tweaking and at most, some additional cooling (depending on the card).
> my ATI still working fine no need for overclocking downloads...
>
> and what do they exactaly do?
> i thought overclocking was bad so downloading something that
> overclocks your graphic card is supposed to be good?
>
> explain...
Overclocking Graphics cards doesn't hold the same reputation as overclocking CPU's. Alot of the newer models have inbuilt security features which moniters the clock rate compared to heat.
Ati have an official program called Overdrive which automatically bunks the Clock rates sky high and lowers them if necessary. So really the manufacturers don't mind you overclocking it. As for damaging the card, as long as your carefull, you won't do it harm. Besides with the new features the Ati card (and no doubt NVidia, although I can't be sure) have installed the Card will shut down and boot to it's stock settings long before you can damage it.
Reasons for doing so? As tigamilla kindly explained, you can turn your card into the next model with 1/2 hours tweaking and at most, some additional cooling (depending on the card).
Let me explain:
The world constists of 2 major groups of people;
1-The content computer user
2-The Techy computer user who will hand pick computer components whenever he/she can to "hand build" a custom number crunching monster.
This second group has an uncontrollable desire to push the boundaries of technology to the absolute limit - one of the ways of doing this is to overclock - to make processors and memory run faster than they were designed to.
It is the MOST pleasurable thing in the world to watch your computer booting at a 30% clock speed boost - until it inevitably crashes 5 minutes later etc...
Same with graphics cards, but you must have a program that will alllow you to alter the memory/VPU clockspeeds
Overclocking can be fun and can result in genuine performance boosts eg its quite easy to overclock a standard Radeon to PRO levels - this saves you from having to upgrade etc...
Its been labelled as a bad practice because processor manufacturers hate it - its bad for business.
Its also the easiest way to frazzle your components -the faster they run the more heat they generate, graphics cards are especially vulnerable in this department.
The choice is yours
The world constists of 2 major groups of people;
1-The content computer user
2-The Techy computer user who will hand pick computer components whenever he/she can to "hand build" a custom number crunching monster.
This second group has an uncontrollable desire to push the boundaries of technology to the absolute limit - one of the ways of doing this is to overclock - to make processors and memory run faster than they were designed to.
It is the MOST pleasurable thing in the world to watch your computer booting at a 30% clock speed boost - until it inevitably crashes 5 minutes later etc...
Same with graphics cards, but you must have a program that will alllow you to alter the memory/VPU clockspeeds
Overclocking can be fun and can result in genuine performance boosts eg its quite easy to overclock a standard Radeon to PRO levels - this saves you from having to upgrade etc...
Its been labelled as a bad practice because processor manufacturers hate it - its bad for business.
Its also the easiest way to frazzle your components -the faster they run the more heat they generate, graphics cards are especially vulnerable in this department.
The choice is yours
my ATI still working fine no need for overclocking downloads...
and what do they exactaly do?
i thought overclocking was bad so downloading something that overclocks your graphic card is supposed to be good?
explain...
and what do they exactaly do?
i thought overclocking was bad so downloading something that overclocks your graphic card is supposed to be good?
explain...
Wise words indeed from mossmanfly1340/adrian.
Factual and well informed. Not something you see everyday on these forums.
Factual and well informed. Not something you see everyday on these forums.
For anyone interested in overclocking a Radeon check out RadLink
http://www28.brinkster.com/chrisww1942/
This must be the simplest tool for overclocking. It also contols all your AA settings and AF settings, truly a nice little program for <300kb, oh and it's free.
Check it out.
http://www28.brinkster.com/chrisww1942/
This must be the simplest tool for overclocking. It also contols all your AA settings and AF settings, truly a nice little program for <300kb, oh and it's free.
Check it out.
tigamilla wrote:
> I thought I could detect some Adrian-like technical expertise shining
> through that post...
>
> :-)
Yeah. 1st time in ages i've used that account. When I registered ages ago I didnt put an email just a username. The username is also the start of my email, so I only put the start of the email in.
> I thought I could detect some Adrian-like technical expertise shining
> through that post...
>
> :-)
Yeah. 1st time in ages i've used that account. When I registered ages ago I didnt put an email just a username. The username is also the start of my email, so I only put the start of the email in.
I thought I could detect some Adrian-like technical expertise shining through that post...
:-)
:-)
Silly me, posted on my very old account which I dont use :D.
Icarus wrote:
> tigamilla wrote:
>
> Reading reviews of the FX5900 Ultra - FX 5950 Ultra the ridiculous
> cooling designs required just added to the overall clumsiness of the
> cards, from double sized cards to liquid cooled exhaust sytems...
>
> I'm not clear on the 3D card front, but I assume you're talking about
> FX using a 32 bit Z buffer while ATI are using a 24 bit one, which
> Direct X natively supports? In which case, I'm not sure if ATI really
> is "better" than the FX in terms of hardware alone - it's
> the equivalent of clogging up the exhaust of a Ferrari.
Maybe so but hardware is only part of what determines performance. Software is what controls the card, so Nvidia has made a choice to go to 32Bit rather than 24Bit. In practise this has forced game developers to make specific Nvidia code to run the game at a decent rate.
In a free range situation then the Nvidia cards may be more powerful and may be the faster cards but in the current real world there not really, as you have put it "the exhaust is clogged up for the Nvidia". ATI are also suppose to have some of the best anti-aliasing which beats the Nvidia cards and helps it keep performance while doing 6x anti-aliasing.
Nvidia broke away from doing what direct X supports and this has had an effect on performance levels. You only have to look at what the tests for Halflife 2 show and the levels of performance you get with the ATI. People say "the games made for ATI" etc, but Valve actually spent more time customizing it for Nvidia to actually get any where near the performance of the ATI cards.
The next gen cards may be completely different and direct X 10 may come out with 32Bit and Nvidia have the experience and can offer a faster card than ATI. Currently I would say ATI are the winners at the moment. Nvidia cards are good but I think that this one difference has cost them the best card status at the moment. The previous 4 generations of Nvidia cards have been excellent and clearly the choice previously, but ATI are probably that choice at the moment.
> tigamilla wrote:
>
> Reading reviews of the FX5900 Ultra - FX 5950 Ultra the ridiculous
> cooling designs required just added to the overall clumsiness of the
> cards, from double sized cards to liquid cooled exhaust sytems...
>
> I'm not clear on the 3D card front, but I assume you're talking about
> FX using a 32 bit Z buffer while ATI are using a 24 bit one, which
> Direct X natively supports? In which case, I'm not sure if ATI really
> is "better" than the FX in terms of hardware alone - it's
> the equivalent of clogging up the exhaust of a Ferrari.
Maybe so but hardware is only part of what determines performance. Software is what controls the card, so Nvidia has made a choice to go to 32Bit rather than 24Bit. In practise this has forced game developers to make specific Nvidia code to run the game at a decent rate.
In a free range situation then the Nvidia cards may be more powerful and may be the faster cards but in the current real world there not really, as you have put it "the exhaust is clogged up for the Nvidia". ATI are also suppose to have some of the best anti-aliasing which beats the Nvidia cards and helps it keep performance while doing 6x anti-aliasing.
Nvidia broke away from doing what direct X supports and this has had an effect on performance levels. You only have to look at what the tests for Halflife 2 show and the levels of performance you get with the ATI. People say "the games made for ATI" etc, but Valve actually spent more time customizing it for Nvidia to actually get any where near the performance of the ATI cards.
The next gen cards may be completely different and direct X 10 may come out with 32Bit and Nvidia have the experience and can offer a faster card than ATI. Currently I would say ATI are the winners at the moment. Nvidia cards are good but I think that this one difference has cost them the best card status at the moment. The previous 4 generations of Nvidia cards have been excellent and clearly the choice previously, but ATI are probably that choice at the moment.
tigamilla wrote:
>
> Reading reviews of the FX5900 Ultra - FX 5950 Ultra the ridiculous
> cooling designs required just added to the overall clumsiness of the
> cards, from double sized cards to liquid cooled exhaust sytems...
I'm not clear on the 3D card front, but I assume you're talking about FX using a 32 bit Z buffer while ATI are using a 24 bit one, which Direct X natively supports? In which case, I'm not sure if ATI really is "better" than the FX in terms of hardware alone - it's the equivalent of clogging up the exhaust of a Ferrari.
>
> Reading reviews of the FX5900 Ultra - FX 5950 Ultra the ridiculous
> cooling designs required just added to the overall clumsiness of the
> cards, from double sized cards to liquid cooled exhaust sytems...
I'm not clear on the 3D card front, but I assume you're talking about FX using a 32 bit Z buffer while ATI are using a 24 bit one, which Direct X natively supports? In which case, I'm not sure if ATI really is "better" than the FX in terms of hardware alone - it's the equivalent of clogging up the exhaust of a Ferrari.
Page: