Big-O Software

Which do you think is better?

I used to think 3Dfx was the best, but we all know where they ended up. Now I'm on the fence. I have ATI cards and I'm happy with them, but everybody is singing the praises of NVidia. I think my next card will be a NVidia just for comparison purposes.

Oooooo....this is tough. Each brand outdoes the other with each new card, so I couldn't say.


I've had two nVidia-based GPU's, and I'm very happy with them.

idk y but i like Nvidia

I'm not sure which I'd pick either.. but I've had only nVidia video cards.. and never had any problems.
The first video card I bought.. was the Riva TNT2 series that nVidia created like 5 years ago..
Now I got an outdated GeForce2mx 400 ..and it cant even run the latest 3DMark..

U MISSPELLED THE TITLE! jk. i choose nVidia cuz that was my 1st card. sadly when i built my computer i wasnt that knowledgeable about vid cards and i got a generic GeForce2 MX 32MB SDR. after like 8 months, it started 2 screw up. There were dark spots by dark colors (no not black spots but dark, like low brightness). i couldnt notice it in games but on my desktop it was noticeable. so i bought a GeForce2 MX 400 w/ 64 MB DDR from my friend and gave my crappy generic card 2 my other friend who had a TNT2. then after 3 months the generic card i gave my friend totally died. i think i got off the point but right now ill choose nVidia cuz my friends ATI card is buggy with games. dunno if its his comp, drivers, or the card itself. he reinstalled drivers and os many times. bugs in certain games win98se and xp.

Robpol86 wrote:U MISSPELLED THE TITLE! jk.

Ok...... ???

My vote goes to nVidia.

I use an ATI card in my Dell and I don't particularly like it. Part of this is that it's only a 16MB card, but I've also had other problems with it. It doesn't work with OpenGL too well, and I'm not really too fond of the card. Unfortunately, I've never used an nVidia card in my Dell so I can't really say which I like more.

The ATI Radeon 7500 graphics set in my iBook works just fine, but of course, I don't play many games on my laptop, and graphics-intense games seem to be what makes or breaks a graphic card.

Hmmm

Tough question indeed.

ATI has their 9700 pro, but on the otherhand, nVidia has the pending Geforce FX

The 9700 has 375 MHz of graphics core speed, while the Geforce FX has 500 MHz. Both have 128 Mb of DDR-VRAM. But, the major deciding factor are the bit numbers of the boards themselves. The 9700 has a 256 bit, while the Geforce FX has 128 Bit (big mistake on nvidia's part), putting the 9700's total throughput to 19.8 Gbps, while the Geforce Fx gets around 16 Gbps. Now, there are two sides to that argument. Both are DX9 compatible and both require the AGP 8x spec to run. So its really up to driver optimizations and what the game needs as far as graphics. If the game needs raw bandwidth, the 9700 pro is best, but if the game requires pure polygon fill speed, then the Geforce Fx would be best.

So in my opinion:

Its a draw.

I prefer ATI over Nvidia because they tend to be a bit more affordable (and I am a more reason driven person than "ohh look at me my card is faster than yours") and also because I do alot of art work and dual displays is a must

But that is my preference because of what I use them for. They do great in gaming as well (which is occasional for me) so it's the best for my money.

punkrawkseltz wrote:Hmmm

Tough question indeed.

ATI has their 9700 pro, but on the otherhand, nVidia has the pending Geforce FX

The 9700 has 375 MHz of graphics core speed, while the Geforce FX has 500 MHz. Both have 128 Mb of DDR-VRAM. But, the major deciding factor are the bit numbers of the boards themselves. The 9700 has a 256 bit, while the Geforce FX has 128 Bit (big mistake on nvidia's part), putting the 9700's total throughput to 19.8 Gbps, while the Geforce Fx gets around 16 Gbps. Now, there are two sides to that argument. Both are DX9 compatible and both require the AGP 8x spec to run. So its really up to driver optimizations and what the game needs as far as graphics. If the game needs raw bandwidth, the 9700 pro is best, but if the game requires pure polygon fill speed, then the Geforce Fx would be best.

So in my opinion:

Its a draw.

dont 4get the ATI 10000 commin out sumtime in march (1 4got the exact date). its said 2 b like 2x better than the fx, but then i heard that nvidia is releasing sumthing better than the 10k and fx sumtime this year

punkrawkseltz wrote:Both have 128 Mb of DDR-VRAM.

Radeon runs on DDR. GeFORCE FX runs on DDR2.

punkrawkseltz wrote:But, the major deciding factor are the bit numbers of the boards themselves. The 9700 has a 256 bit, while the Geforce FX has 128 Bit (big mistake on nvidia's part)

NVIDIA leaves it at 128-bit and clocks the memory faster, using DDR-II, of course. Also thats the Ram bit not the GPU Bit which are both 256.

punkrawkseltz wrote:If the game needs raw bandwidth, the 9700 pro is best, but if the game requires pure polygon fill speed, then the Geforce Fx would be best.

but when you goto high resolutions the 9700 just plain sucks compared to FX in games and 3D applications.

Robpol86 wrote:
dont 4get the ATI 10000 commin out sumtime in march (1 4got the exact date). its said 2 b like 2x better than the fx, but then i heard that nvidia is releasing sumthing better than the 10k and fx sumtime this year

Ive never heard of it... Is tehre a press release or something detailing any specs?

punkrawkseltz wrote:

Robpol86 wrote:
dont 4get the ATI 10000 commin out sumtime in march (1 4got the exact date). its said 2 b like 2x better than the fx, but then i heard that nvidia is releasing sumthing better than the 10k and fx sumtime this year

Ive never heard of it... Is tehre a press release or something detailing any specs?

ati isnt like nvidia. they can keep secrets. kinda. but so far theres no specs on the 10k. but there is alot of rumors about it. it was even in an issue of PC World. if ne1 has the subscription, its the Jan 2003 issue (the one about intels HT tech), pg 100, on the left in the orange column.