Viewing Thread:
"ATI or NVidia?"

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

Also the ATI cards seem to generate so much less heat than the FX series - a sign of efficiency.R

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...

My Radeon 9600 has been running at 423/423 and 414/423 for ages now, and (touch wood) has not overheated (its got no on-board fan).

So in terms of design and performance ATI have my vote this round.

cipro wrote:
> I got my Radeon 9600 pro because as 3D cards go, it was fairly cheap
> and stood a better chance at running Half-Life 2 than the Nvidia
> cards.

I agree, thats the card I own and it's a good all round performer in my games.

I think if I to choose between ATI and nVidea, i'd go the ATI route.

"What could well be ATI's final AGP 8x graphics chip, codenamed 'R420', is due to go into volume production next March.

So claim Taiwanese industry sources, cited by local news site DigiTimes.

The R420 will be manufactured by TSMC at 130nm using low-k dielectric insulation. The chip itself will contain 160 million transistors - almost 22 per cent more than Intel's 'Prescott', surprisingly - and supports G-DDR 3.

It's been expected for some time that R420 would ship in Q1 2004. Though, like Nvidia's upcoming NV40, initial forecasts put it release ahead of Christmas 2003.

Earlier this month ATI President and COO Dave Orton said the company would support 32-bit pixel shader precision "pretty soon", and it's widely held that he was referring to the launch of R420. ® "

The Register. So yeah, they are shifting production sizes. What amazed me was how there were so many more transistors than a P4.

adrian wrote:
> Radeon 9800 XT seems to push the limits of the design, so will have
> to move on to the lower chipset rate of the 9600 series to get any
> faster.

What I mean is that the 9800 uses the 0.15 micro process while the 9600 uses the 0.13 micro process. The 0.15 seems to have as much pushed out of it with the 9800 XT. So its likly ATI will start 0.13 micro process with its new top range models.

Currently I own a 9800 Pro so I would vote ATI. Nvidia have been the top card maker for quite a few years and nobody can say that the old cards were crap as they were the best. I think that Nvidia got too big and decided to move away from the standard, ie running DX9 as 32bit instead of 24bit. Its left them with cards that need games optimised for the FX cards.

ATI seem to have done what Nvidia did all those years ago, stick to the standards and make the hardware powerful. The fact that Nvidia have also been caught cheating in tests by using optimised drivers etc isnt good, as the new tests show a reduction in performance where as the ATIs kept the same performance.

I think that its a good thing that there are two companies that are fighting to have the best graphics cards. Its bringing new levels of performance and hopefully cheaper prices. With new generations of graphics cards coming out who knows who will be king of the hill. Radeon 9800 XT seems to push the limits of the design, so will have to move on to the lower chipset rate of the 9600 series to get any faster. Will Nvidia scrape the FX chipset and design something new?

i got ATI radeon 128mb for a reason so...

I VOTE ATI as my favorite. simple

I've always been a fan of ATI, even in the dark days. Don't know why.

Certainly ATI currently are the fastest and the best value for money, probably will be for the next year or two as well.

In my old system, I had a Geforce2 MX 32mb, which performed really well for the money - didn't run games at full whack, but still had enough grunt for me to enjoy my games.

In my current system, I originally opted for a Geforce FX 5600, having been so impressed with my old MX. Worst decision I ever made. Couple of months down the line, I whacked in a 9800 pro, and never looked back! :)

I got my Radeon 9600 pro because as 3D cards go, it was fairly cheap and stood a better chance at running Half-Life 2 than the Nvidia cards.

Wise words Safedisc.

It's all too easy to develop a predilection for a certain brand or company, and that usually gives you a biased judgement.