Any benchmarks showing all new ATI vs Nvidia cards?

Morphes

Morphes

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
4,337
yo Hard ocp sux0rs in comparrison with THG, i mean the articles [H] does do are great but they dont have enough in ammount or good video card reviews side by side
 
Originally posted by Morphes
yo Hard ocp sux0rs in comparrison with THG, i mean the articles [H] does do are great but they dont have enough in ammount or good video card reviews side by side
Click to expand...

all our video card reviews have cards compared in them
 
Originally posted by @trapine
Toms biased ware lmao:rolleyes: Turn on aa and af then benchmark them as aa and af is what you buy a high end card for in the first place.Not mega clock speeds with shit loads of jaggies.
Been there and done that and the 9800np and 9600xt and 9700pro wipe the floor with the fx range of cards when AA and AF are enabled;)
Click to expand...

LOL, pull yourself out of the fad, man. You got some catching up to do.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5900_xt_review/page12.asp
 
Originally posted by obs
I doubt the ATI fanboys will ever come to grips or admit that NVIDIA can actually do some things as good or better than their beloved ATI.
Click to expand...

hahahahaha

you are joking right? Talk to the people that had an nvidia card and then switched over to ATI. Ask them WHY they did that.

Nvidia f*cked up big time with their FX cards. MAYBE they'll make a decent card with the NV40, who knows. But for now, Radeons are better overall cards.
 
Originally posted by Lith26
hahahahaha

you are joking right? Talk to the people that had an nvidia card and then switched over to ATI. Ask them WHY they did that.

Nvidia f*cked up big time with their FX cards. MAYBE they'll make a decent card with the NV40, who knows. But for now, Radeons are better overall cards.
Click to expand...
Not even going to bother to post links. Go to Anandtech, Hothardware, Firingsquad, and read a few reviews and IQ comparisons of the 5900NU or 5900SE. Then go price them vs. ATI.
 
Originally posted by Dojo | Warlord
http://www.nordichardware.com/revie...2003/Last_2003/

AA and AF enabled. :D
Click to expand...

Yup :). And at a higher resolution too.

That's what most people have been saying. The FX cards are great cards if you plan to run 1024x768 or slightly higher with minimal AA/AF settings on DX 8/8.1 games.

You start getting into the higher resolutions and higher AF/AA settings, as well as benching newer games that use more and more PS (and higher PS versions), the ATI cards start to pull away.

Mind you, the price for a lot of higher end FX cards have come down in price a LOT. Their price/performance is hard to beat :).

It really boils down to this.

If you want a good cheap card to play most games now, an FX looks like a pretty decent deal.

Cheers,

Mr. Pain
 
The Nv cards have certainly improved since the last round or two of driver enhancements, and their prices have fallen dramatically. BUT it would appear that every time a new game comes out, you are going to have some seriously low frames until they can rush another driver optimazation out. I'm not saying this to bash NV at all, it's a fact. They went a different direction with the way they handle DX9 calls, and for each and every game that releases, they are going to have to write opts to make it work correctly, or at least speedily. /me shrugs. Dunno. I kinda like the idea that my ATI card is just going to WORK w/out having to wait for someone to write a patch to make it do so.
 
Originally posted by caitiff
The Nv cards have certainly improved since the last round or two of driver enhancements, and their prices have fallen dramatically. BUT it would appear that every time a new game comes out, you are going to have some seriously low frames until they can rush another driver optimazation out. I'm not saying this to bash NV at all, it's a fact. They went a different direction with the way they handle DX9 calls, and for each and every game that releases, they are going to have to write opts to make it work correctly, or at least speedily. /me shrugs. Dunno. I kinda like the idea that my ATI card is just going to WORK w/out having to wait for someone to write a patch to make it do so.
Click to expand...
Not quite. ATI needs to rush to release a new driver so the game works (see CoD). Not trying to bash ATI at all, but that's a fact.
 
Depending on what reviews you read my FX5900SE is very comparable to a 9700Pro, and with Call of Duty factored in its about $100 cheaper.
 
If you dumbies would look at the new VGA roundup on tomshardware you would see the ATI cards won almost every benchmark. Tom's is only as bias as the rest of you fangirls make them to be because you only wanna believe when your brand is on top and its bias when their not. Nvidia's new drivers have really turned things around for them and they compete really well against ATI cards now. Nvidia owns the mid-range market for performance at this moment with the 5900SE and 5900 non ultra.
 
Originally posted by obs
Not quite. ATI needs to rush to release a new driver so the game works (see CoD). Not trying to bash ATI at all, but that's a fact.
Click to expand...

Another fact is that I have had 0 problems with any of the games I play. I believe me, my list is compromised of about 20 games (recent and old) that I have installed and am activley playing.

Here's the thing about drivers. Every driver release from either camp is going to work on most system, and not on a select few. That's the joys of owning a computer.

Systems A, B & C might work with driver X, in game Y, but System D might have issues because of some such conflict or another.

Both ATI and Nvdia have their driver woes. That's why we see new driver releases. The good thing is that ATI is releasing new drivers with bug fixes AND new features.

Cheers,

Mr. Pain
 
my two unwanted cents:

nvidia rulez in the sheer speed market and ati is more for the if you want the frillies on during games with still decent FPS.
 
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/xt59/index9.htm

EDIT: I linked to the last page of the review (conclusion). Read (or skim) all of the other pages to see the whole story

This compares the FX5950 to the 9800XT. Honestly, the cards are neck and neck in most of the tests, although the XT comes out a little bit on top.

I'd say go with what's cheaper.

I myself am debating whether to get a BFG FX5900 for $184 or a Radeon 9800 Pro for $240.
 
actually nvidia seems to being doing fairly well here,Midrange the 5900 se definately makes me think why bother with the 5700 ultra, the 9600 pro does great for price, on the lowend I dont like either company, I feel that the 9200/5200 are pretty sorry cards, but a slight edge for ati for the 9200 and at the same time an edge for nvidia if you pick up an older 4200. Highend it appears the the 5950 and 9800 xt's are a waste of time, the rest of the 9800 and 5900 series depend on what games you really prefer. I look forward to the next generation from both, I have $250 saved up with another $100 to $150 on its way, it should be an interesting time to upgrade, even if agp is going to be phased out.
 
Originally posted by caitiff
The Nv cards have certainly improved since the last round or two of driver enhancements, and their prices have fallen dramatically. BUT it would appear that every time a new game comes out, you are going to have some seriously low frames until they can rush another driver optimazation out. I'm not saying this to bash NV at all, it's a fact. They went a different direction with the way they handle DX9 calls, and for each and every game that releases, they are going to have to write opts to make it work correctly, or at least speedily. /me shrugs. Dunno. I kinda like the idea that my ATI card is just going to WORK w/out having to wait for someone to write a patch to make it do so.
Click to expand...

exactly my thoughts. I think people that buy nvidia cards right now just cuz of they'll save 50 bucks, will probably find themselves having to buy another card sooner than they think. In 3-4 months we should see some nice DX9 games (HL2 for sure and maybe some others) and we all know how the current NV3x technology from nvidia performs in DX9. I would just hate it if I had to wait for nvidia to optimize drivers for my card just so I can play a DX9 game at decent speeds.

Also, alot of people are forgetting that nvidia does have inferior 2D/3D quality, (especially 2D quality). I know a lot of people that spend a good 75% of their time in windows and only 25% playing games. So 2D quality is quite important. As for 3D, the games might run fine, but the quality of the overall picture is not as good as the ATI. If someone claims otherwise, I beg to differ. I've seen both radeons and geforce cards side by side, and nvidia quality just isn't there. The speed might be there in most of the DX8 benchmarks, but I'm also really sceptical HOW they get that speed and how that hardware will perform on DX9 games.

I think most people will be comfortable with a radeon for now until Nvidia comes up with the NV40 (and hopefuly they'll learned something from the whole NV3x fiasco). At least they won't have to worry about switching their cards any time soon and won't be that dependable on nvidia drivers.

If, however someone needs a decent card right now and know they'll upgrade in less then 6 months again, then definitely go with the cheaper solution and save some cash.
 
So show me some comparisons of NVIDIA's "inferior" 2D quality. All recent NVIDIA video cards (as in Geforce3 and up) have 2D on par with ATI. And most of the 2d quality issues of the past were the result of board makers using inferior parts, not the chip NVIDIA makes. This has been fixed for quite some time now.
 
Most of these threads tend to degenerate into flame wars.

Lets just leave it at "You get what card your percieve to be the best for you". Most people on here have 1/2 a brain. Use it when making your decision to buy a card. There's a ton of info out there. Get informed, then get the card :)


Cheers,

Mr. Pain

-- edited for spelling
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
If you dumbies would look at the new VGA roundup on tomshardware you would see the ATI cards won almost every benchmark. Tom's is only as bias as the rest of you fangirls make them to be because you only wanna believe when your brand is on top and its bias when their not. Nvidia's new drivers have really turned things around for them and they compete really well against ATI cards now. Nvidia owns the mid-range market for performance at this moment with the 5900SE and 5900 non ultra.
Click to expand...

After some of the crap Tom's has pulled in the past (card A runs with AA/AF, card B does not. Card B has more FPS, therefore card B is faster, even though A was running 4xAA...) I will NEVER trust a review there again, no matter WHAT the result. Period, end of story. He's proven to be an untrustworthy SOB who doesn't deserve our time.
 
Originally posted by obs
So show me some comparisons of NVIDIA's "inferior" 2D quality. All recent NVIDIA video cards (as in Geforce3 and up) have 2D on par with ATI. And most of the 2d quality issues of the past were the result of board makers using inferior parts, not the chip NVIDIA makes. This has been fixed for quite some time now.
Click to expand...

Hence why there was a mod on GF3 cards to remove the RF filters to increase quality in basic 2d apps?

Right.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
Hence why there was a mod on GF3 cards to remove the RF filters to increase quality in basic 2d apps?

Right.
Click to expand...
Some GF3 cards. Any somewhat recent NVIDIA card this isn't a problem. Notice how you don't see any mods trying to increase GF4 or FX series 2D IQ. Come back when you can show me some proof that the newer NVIDIA cards have inferior 2D IQ.
 
I'm not saying it's true anymore, I think they're both decently equal, although ATi has better AF quality (as shown by Anand earlier last year). I was pointing out a fallicy in your previous statement.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
I'm not saying it's true anymore, I think they're both decently equal, although ATi has better AF quality (as shown by Anand earlier last year). I was pointing out a fallicy in your previous statement.
Click to expand...
The same Anand now says NVIDIA has better AF.
 
Originally posted by obs
So show me some comparisons of NVIDIA's "inferior" 2D quality. All recent NVIDIA video cards (as in Geforce3 and up) have 2D on par with ATI. And most of the 2d quality issues of the past were the result of board makers using inferior parts, not the chip NVIDIA makes. This has been fixed for quite some time now.
Click to expand...

sure, I'll give you an example.

I had a MSI GeForce 4 ti4200 128MB before I bought the 9600pro. Both of those cards were tested on my sony 19" monitor. Using the GF4, the text looked fuzzier than on the radeon 9600pro. This wasn't even at really high rez. All I use is 1280x960 at 85Hz or 100hz. The Radeon displayed noticably clearer text especially when the font size was small. Now, neither of those 2 cards has perfect 2D quality, but the Radeon was better, no question about it.

I think the 2D graphics award will have to go to Matrox, which has done exceptionally well hen it comes it 2D graphics.

Mind you, the sony monitor is not a cheap monitor and MSI makes pretty decent gf cards. So there's no way you can say that the monitor or the gf card had cheap components and therefore resulted in crappy results.

I've seen the same thing with the FX cards as well. I guess nvidia doesn't really care that much about 2D quality. Not as much as some other companies.

Like I said, a lot of people do care about it, since they spend quite a bit of time with windows or any other application that doesn't require any 3d acceleration at all.
 
Originally posted by Lith26
sure, I'll give you an example.

I had a MSI GeForce 4 ti4200 128MB before I bought the 9600pro. Both of those cards were tested on my sony 19" monitor. Using the GF4, the text looked fuzzier than on the radeon 9600pro. This wasn't even at really high rez. All I use is 1280x960 at 85Hz or 100hz. The Radeon displayed noticably clearer text especially when the font size was small. Now, neither of those 2 cards has perfect 2D quality, but the Radeon was better, no question about it.

I think the 2D graphics award will have to go to Matrox, which has done exceptionally well hen it comes it 2D graphics.

Mind you, the sony monitor is not a cheap monitor and MSI makes pretty decent gf cards. So there's no way you can say that the monitor or the gf card had cheap components and therefore resulted in crappy results.

I've seen the same thing with the FX cards as well. I guess nvidia doesn't really care that much about 2D quality. Not as much as some other companies.

Like I said, a lot of people do care about it, since they spend quite a bit of time with windows or any other application that doesn't require any 3d acceleration at all.
Click to expand...
And I don't care much about your opinon which is all that is. Where's the proof?
 
Originally posted by obs
And I don't care much about your opinon which is all that is. Where's the proof?
Click to expand...

I just gave you the proof. I showed it to some of my friends as well, just so I could actually prove it to them. Cuz they never believed me either. If you don't believe me, that's fine. But I know what my experience was with ATI, Matrox and Nvidia cards was.

edit: I don't think I'm the only one on this either. Browse through some of the matrox, ati and nvidia forums and you can find the comparisons for 2D quality/colors etc...
 
The proof is in our eyes. I run mine on a NEC FP2141SB-BK (ask Titan about it), and I can tell you now that the Nvidia cards have much more fuzzy text than the ATi cards.

I'm not going to argue AF with you, it would appear that Nvidia might have finally gotten some part of their act together...
 
u guys like getting off topic dont ya? my question was answered in the first 3 posts man
 
I'm not going to swap cards out to test these cards on the same system, but my FX5900SE on a 19" Orion CRT is soooo much cleaner and clearer than my roomates 9600Pro on a 17" Dell CRT that its ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by Nexu
I'm not going to swap cards out to test these cards on the same system, but my FX5900SE on a 19" Orion CRT is soooo much cleaner and clearer than my roomates 9600Pro on a 17" Dell CRT that its ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I don't wanna seem anal here, but you have to test the cards on the same exact monitor. Your 19" is probably better than his 17" anyways.
It would be nice if you have access to a nice 19"+ Trinitron monitor to test those 2 cards out.
 
Yeah and my ferrari is faster than my brothers mini you tard lmfao oh and it revs harder:rolleyes:

I'm not going to swap cards out to test these cards on the same system, but my FX5900SE on a 19" Orion CRT is soooo much cleaner and clearer than my roomates 9600Pro on a 17" Dell CRT that its ridiculous
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top