Viewing Thread:
"ATI or Nvidia"

Well it has come to this I'm looking at a Geforce 4ti 4200 128mb, a Geforce 4ti 4800 and a ATI radeon 9500 and 9700, the latter i have heard are more powerful than all the Geforce 4's and have seen that it can handle FSAA alot better than the Geforce 4's.
But also i have heard of some problems with some games using an ATI plus problems with their drivers..... this is all confusing for me which would you pick?

The GTS has been the best for me atm... (201/343)

The FX seems a waste of time.... even a geforce 4 ti4200 wouldnt be too bad, the ATI is good for its power and FSAA but its drivers arent so good.

Graphics cards I have or have owned - voodoo 3000, geforce2 32ddr gts, gf4ti4200 128ddr 8x and gfti4600 128ddr 4x. Geforce rock because of stabillity and there unified drivers are way ahead of ati's

But consider a few things before going for a FX such as do you have a free slot for the power cable onbaord the mobo and a free pci slot adjacent to the agp port. The card isnt exactly quiet either as one of the developers of the new doom 3 game has actually made demos of the niose levels of the card in comparison to older ones.

Lastly, will your computer be able to handle the bandwidth? look at your system and if it isnt top spec chances are you will already be topping out the bandwidth of your system with a gf4ti card and will get next to no improvement for buying the new cards although they do perform some neat tricks to get around bandwidth probs in general. The ati chipset is also about to get replaced and as someone mentioned earlier ati are far better at full antialiasing for those who dont know its basically edge smoothing which goes a long way to making graphics look good.

So stick with nvidia for stabillity and neat tricks or wait till ati bring out the new chipset very soon or go for lower spec to match your comps performance, as cilla says the chioce is yours.

I've got a Radeon 9000pro, works fine for Counter-Strike and thats all I want :)

Miserableman wrote:
> Apparantly modern ATI's have better 2D
> performance than modern Nvidia's, so my Windows yours, heh.
>
> Maybe.


Depends on the make of card you have. Eg. a Leadtek nVidia would have very good 2D performance as they have good filters.

But my Voodoo 5 powering my second monitor gives better 2D performance than you all :D

§n][pe® wrote:
> Depends what you have cos...... i have had a voodoo 3, geforce 2 mx400
> and geforce gts and the gts has been by far the best, anything better
> and i dont mind but ATI is a no no...


I've got a GeForce 3 Ti550 running at 268/587 (stock is 240/500).

I have a Radeon 8500 which was uber cheap. No problems to report as yet with the drivers, although it seems altogether less compatible with old software (I am too drunk at present to remember exactly what gave me this impression). Apparantly modern ATI's have better 2D performance than modern Nvidia's, so my Windows > yours, heh.

Maybe.

Depends what you have cos...... i have had a voodoo 3, geforce 2 mx400 and geforce gts and the gts has been by far the best, anything better and i dont mind but ATI is a no no...

Good man.

I have a problem looming. I want to buy a new graphics card soon, but I don't think a 4800 is cutting edge enough, but I won't buy an ATI. This just leaves the FX, but although I have some faith I'm not sure if it's enough. Any suggestions/advice?

Ta.

I kind of DO hate ATI never tried them but i heard some stuff.
4800 it is then.