• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

ATi What happened?

The only thing ATi was being stomped on was availability. Otherwise performance was pretty much even between the x800s and the 6800s.
Click to expand...

The only card that came close to matching the 6800gt was the X850, the only one to come close to the ULTRA, was the X850 Xt-PE which is more expensive than the 6800 ultra. nVidia's initial release included their fastest card, the Ultra, and that initial card stomped every ATI card until they got around to releasing the x850 XT PE (not very good in my opinion)
Oh, and 6800s in SLI, (im pretty sure, they may be closer than i think, but if i remember correctly...) stomp x850-XT-PEs in Crossfire mode.

As for the whole Intel v AMD is compairable to ATI v nVidia.. no its not.. nVidia is barely 12 years old, and has only really been a major player since 97. ATI was founded shortly after Intel, around the same time as AMD (Amd only a year after intel, with intel in '68, AMD in '69[no wonder they are so good.. :D ], as an OEM company making 2d Chips for companies like IBM. Intel and AMD where on the same playing field the entire time they where companies.. initially making RAM, then moving to processors, Intel with the 4004, and AMD followed, reverse engineering intels chips to make copys and sell them, shortly after entering into a contract with Intel to sell as a second manufacturer (IBM had policies requiring them to buy from two companies.. odd.. not really sure about all of that.) nVidia, on the other hand, came around in '93, and has been making Graphics cards since they where founded.. The fact that they are so young should garner them some respect, as in very few years, they have beaten a long standing company multiple times (first with the GF4, then 6x00 and 7x00), and came out with the First useable multi-card solution (i dont think anyone would argue that 3dfx's was a joke).
Again, stop compairing intel/amd with ATI/nVidia. ATI IS NOT THE UNDERDOG. if anyone is the underdog in that race, its nvidia. ATI has more man power, (2500 people versus 2100 people), so, in theory, they should be doing much better than they are, but they have been constantly plagued with problems, things that a newbie company should be dealing with, not a 36 year old one.

/rant off

sorry about the rant.. im getting tired of the comparison.
 
RaphaelVinceti said:
The only card that came close to matching the 6800gt was the X850, the only one to come close to the ULTRA, was the X850 Xt-PE which is more expensive than the 6800 ultra. nVidia's initial release included their fastest card, the Ultra, and that initial card stomped every ATI card until they got around to releasing the x850 XT PE (not very good in my opinion)
Oh, and 6800s in SLI, (im pretty sure, they may be closer than i think, but if i remember correctly...) stomp x850-XT-PEs in Crossfire mode.

As for the whole Intel v AMD is compairable to ATI v nVidia.. no its not.. nVidia is barely 12 years old, and has only really been a major player since 97. ATI was founded shortly after Intel, around the same time as AMD (Amd only a year after intel, with intel in '68, AMD in '69[no wonder they are so good.. :D ], as an OEM company making 2d Chips for companies like IBM. Intel and AMD where on the same playing field the entire time they where companies.. initially making RAM, then moving to processors, Intel with the 4004, and AMD followed, reverse engineering intels chips to make copys and sell them, shortly after entering into a contract with Intel to sell as a second manufacturer (IBM had policies requiring them to buy from two companies.. odd.. not really sure about all of that.) nVidia, on the other hand, came around in '93, and has been making Graphics cards since they where founded.. The fact that they are so young should garner them some respect, as in very few years, they have beaten a long standing company multiple times (first with the GF4, then 6x00 and 7x00), and came out with the First useable multi-card solution (i dont think anyone would argue that 3dfx's was a joke).
Again, stop compairing intel/amd with ATI/nVidia. ATI IS NOT THE UNDERDOG. if anyone is the underdog in that race, its nvidia. ATI has more man power, (2500 people versus 2100 people), so, in theory, they should be doing much better than they are, but they have been constantly plagued with problems, things that a newbie company should be dealing with, not a 36 year old one.

/rant off

sorry about the rant.. im getting tired of the comparison.
Click to expand...


Nice.
:D
 
Brent_Justice said:
What problems are you having in Civ 4 ?
Click to expand...
basically a lot of people had problems where the game wouldnt start....

i tried the game in my 5 computers, 3 with ati card, and 2 with nvidia cards, and i couldnt replicate the problem until i noticed that before the game you get a pop up a la fear, that ask to install directx, however unlike fear you arent obligated to install it, (fear will cancel the install) if you dont install it, you get the error.....
 
RaphaelVinceti said:
The only card that came close to matching the 6800gt was the X850, the only one to come close to the ULTRA, was the X850 Xt-PE which is more expensive than the 6800 ultra. nVidia's initial release included their fastest card, the Ultra, and that initial card stomped every ATI card until they got around to releasing the x850 XT PE (not very good in my opinion)
Oh, and 6800s in SLI, (im pretty sure, they may be closer than i think, but if i remember correctly...) stomp x850-XT-PEs in Crossfire mode.

As for the whole Intel v AMD is compairable to ATI v nVidia.. no its not.. nVidia is barely 12 years old, and has only really been a major player since 97. ATI was founded shortly after Intel, around the same time as AMD (Amd only a year after intel, with intel in '68, AMD in '69[no wonder they are so good.. :D ], as an OEM company making 2d Chips for companies like IBM. Intel and AMD where on the same playing field the entire time they where companies.. initially making RAM, then moving to processors, Intel with the 4004, and AMD followed, reverse engineering intels chips to make copys and sell them, shortly after entering into a contract with Intel to sell as a second manufacturer (IBM had policies requiring them to buy from two companies.. odd.. not really sure about all of that.) nVidia, on the other hand, came around in '93, and has been making Graphics cards since they where founded.. The fact that they are so young should garner them some respect, as in very few years, they have beaten a long standing company multiple times (first with the GF4, then 6x00 and 7x00), and came out with the First useable multi-card solution (i dont think anyone would argue that 3dfx's was a joke).
Again, stop compairing intel/amd with ATI/nVidia. ATI IS NOT THE UNDERDOG. if anyone is the underdog in that race, its nvidia. ATI has more man power, (2500 people versus 2100 people), so, in theory, they should be doing much better than they are, but they have been constantly plagued with problems, things that a newbie company should be dealing with, not a 36 year old one.

/rant off

sorry about the rant.. im getting tired of the comparison.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? the x800xtpe was on the same page as the 6800ultra. Like Rofflecopter said it was there availablity that sucked. But the Ultra wasn't exactly that easy to find either. It was just EASIER.

And in the enthusiast market...YES ATI is the underdog. :rolleyes: How many Intel cards have you RUSHED out to buy. Or better yet...rushed out of a integrated motherboard.
I don't even understand your thinking of 3dfx solution as a joke. There's a reason for such a card to still have such a loyal fan base now. It was the first time to really have 1024x768 gaming.
 
thelostrican said:
basically a lot of people had problems where the game wouldnt start....

i tried the game in my 5 computers, 3 with ati card, and 2 with nvidia cards, and i couldnt replicate the problem until i noticed that before the game you get a pop up a la fear, that ask to install directx, however unlike fear you arent obligated to install it, (fear will cancel the install) if you dont install it, you get the error.....
Click to expand...

There is a certain DLL that Civ4 needs in DirectX 9 that you must install in order to run Civ4.

If you bypassed the option to install the DirectX update when you first installed Civ4 you can go back to the first Civ4 CD and look inside and there will be a DirectX folder, go in there and install DirectX it will update DirectX with the DLL you need to run Civ4.

That isn't an ATI problem, that is the game needing a certain DLL in DX to run.

I've had no problems with Civ4 on an X850 XT-PE.
 
RoffleCopter said:
The only thing ATi was being stomped on was availability. Otherwise performance was pretty much even between the x800s and the 6800s.
Click to expand...
They were also getting stomped on features.....SM3.0, HDR, SLI, Purevideo, etc.
 
PRIME1 said:
They were also getting stomped on features.....SM3.0, HDR, SLI, Purevideo, etc.
Click to expand...

SM3.0 - Wasn't an issue. Still isn't an issue.
HDR - Yea a few games came out, but still really isn't an issue.
SLI - Yep.
Purevideo - sure
ect. - nope :D
 
PRIME1 said:
OpenGL, Linux drivers, HDTV support, YEP.
Click to expand...
ATI's HDTV support has gotten much better but yeah it really sucked until the previous driver release, I am still hearing people are having problems with their HDTV over DVI though.
 
RaphaelVinceti said:
The only card that came close to matching the 6800gt was the X850, the only one to come close to the ULTRA, was the X850 Xt-PE which is more expensive than the 6800 ultra. nVidia's initial release included their fastest card, the Ultra, and that initial card stomped every ATI card until they got around to releasing the x850 XT PE (not very good in my opinion)
Oh, and 6800s in SLI, (im pretty sure, they may be closer than i think, but if i remember correctly...) stomp x850-XT-PEs in Crossfire mode.

As for the whole Intel v AMD is compairable to ATI v nVidia.. no its not.. nVidia is barely 12 years old, and has only really been a major player since 97. ATI was founded shortly after Intel, around the same time as AMD (Amd only a year after intel, with intel in '68, AMD in '69[no wonder they are so good.. :D ], as an OEM company making 2d Chips for companies like IBM. Intel and AMD where on the same playing field the entire time they where companies.. initially making RAM, then moving to processors, Intel with the 4004, and AMD followed, reverse engineering intels chips to make copys and sell them, shortly after entering into a contract with Intel to sell as a second manufacturer (IBM had policies requiring them to buy from two companies.. odd.. not really sure about all of that.) nVidia, on the other hand, came around in '93, and has been making Graphics cards since they where founded.. The fact that they are so young should garner them some respect, as in very few years, they have beaten a long standing company multiple times (first with the GF4, then 6x00 and 7x00), and came out with the First useable multi-card solution (i dont think anyone would argue that 3dfx's was a joke).
Again, stop compairing intel/amd with ATI/nVidia. ATI IS NOT THE UNDERDOG. if anyone is the underdog in that race, its nvidia. ATI has more man power, (2500 people versus 2100 people), so, in theory, they should be doing much better than they are, but they have been constantly plagued with problems, things that a newbie company should be dealing with, not a 36 year old one.

/rant off

sorry about the rant.. im getting tired of the comparison.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I could care less about Nvidia vs ATI and I have owned great cards from both companies. It is important to be factual if you are ranting, though, and I have seen a lot of people in this thread incorrectly state that the 6800 ultra was a match for the x800xt. When the x800xt pe and 6800 Ultra were both new, the x800 was the dominant card (except in OpenGL, but the only truly demanding GL game was Doom 3):

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDE=

Quote from that review:

"The Radeon X800XT Platinum Edition goes even further and burns through these games like a hot knife through butter, besting NVIDIA’s 6800Ultra by an easily noticeable real-world margin. If the flagship is what you want, be assured the ATI Radeon X800XT Platinum Edition was the top performer allowing us to play today’s demanding games at higher resolution and quality settings than any 3D graphics accelerator we have ever experienced."

SLI changes things, of course, and availability of the xt pe was also an issue (though many people seem to forget that the 6800 ultra was also really hard to find.) None of this changes the fact that ATI had the fastest single card of the last generation with the x800xt pe. The x850xt was just icing on the cake.
 
name I agree with everything you said except for one thing. The 6800Ultra was found everywhere. I can't remember a time I went to BB, Compusa or any website and didn't see it on the shelf. However the X800XT PE was super hard to find. PE supposedly called platinum eddition shortly became known to the gaming public as Phantom Eddition. Same went for the X850XT PE until recent. Many people went with the 6800U OC because it was just a few fps behind the X800XT and you could at least find it.
 
Ok. I was beat on the XT-PE vs the 6800 ultra.. like i said.. i might have gotten numbers switched around. Though, SLI is a big thing with some people, and the feature set on the ULTRA does stop the Xt-PE
 
That's why ATI is coming out with crossfire, and unlike nVidia's slution, the crossfire will be able to play all games unlike the preset and profile system with SLi...although I hear SLI2 is going to be around...
 
Endurancevm said:
That's why ATI is coming out with crossfire, and unlike nVidia's slution, the crossfire will be able to play all games unlike the preset and profile system with SLi...although I hear SLI2 is going to be around...
Click to expand...
Actually Crossfire also uses profiles.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/ati-crossfire/index.x?pg=20

Unfortunately, the default SuperTiling mode doesn't scale well at all, in our experience, so the prospect of CrossFire "just working" with any application whatsoever seems a little bit far-fetched.
Click to expand...
 
That's why ATI is coming out with crossfire, and unlike nVidia's slution, the crossfire will be able to play all games unlike the preset and profile system with SLi...although I hear SLI2 is going to be around...
Click to expand...

Someone doesnt know what he is talking about, SLI not being able to play all games is completely false. They have always been able to play all games.. thats what the customizable profile system was for. and the newest driver for SLI added in Global settings, allowing for a single profile to be used to any game that doesnt already have a profile. Crossfire isnt actually better than SLI, they will probably end up evening out.
 
Lord_Exodia said:
name I agree with everything you said except for one thing. The 6800Ultra was found everywhere. I can't remember a time I went to BB, Compusa or any website and didn't see it on the shelf. However the X800XT PE was super hard to find. PE supposedly called platinum eddition shortly became known to the gaming public as Phantom Eddition. Same went for the X850XT PE until recent. Many people went with the 6800U OC because it was just a few fps behind the X800XT and you could at least find it.
Click to expand...

Granted, the Nvidia cards were available in quantity and at MSRP long before the x800xt pe ever was. However, both the Nvidia 6800 Ultra and x800xt pe were technically "paper launches," and both cards were hard to find for a reasonable price for months after their release. Here are a couple articles that mention it:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040727-4039.html
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1459&Itemid=0

Couple of quotes from those articles and the [H] article I referenced in my post above:

"As we had pointed out earlier in our reports titled, "No More Paper Launches from ATI and NVIDIA" and "NVIDIA G70 Launch and Shipping Dates Confirmed" it’s refreshing to see that NVIDIA didn’t intend to do another paper launch. Due to the heat both NVIDIA and ATI had received with their 6800, X800 and X850 series, NVIDIA has thankfully listened to its customers and learned its lesson."

"You may recall that NVIDIA launched its new NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra in early April. The X800 XT PE was simply a marketing trump on NVIDIA, who itself released its new flagship card too early, likely to steal thunder from ATI. The 6800 Ultra is also practically impossible to come by in the retail chain, unless you buy it with a complete system from the likes of Alienware. There's a few places that claim to have cards, but they also want twice the MSRP for them, too."

"NVIDIA is today launching an even higher clocked Ultra, no doubt in response to the X800XT-PE. We have yet to even see a retail 6800Ultra for any of the partners so currently I would consider these a non-issue."

(This last quote remind me of what people are saying these days about the x1800xt. How many reviews of that card have ended with, "it's an awesome card, but price and availability are an issue...")
 
name said:
Granted, the Nvidia cards were available in quantity and at MSRP long before the x800xt pe ever was. However, both the Nvidia 6800 Ultra and x800xt pe were "paper launches," and both cards were hard to find for a reasonable price for months after their release. Here are a couple articles that mention it:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040727-4039.html
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1459&Itemid=0

Couple of quotes from those articles and the [H] article I references in my post above:

"As we had pointed out earlier in our reports titled, "No More Paper Launches from ATI and NVIDIA" and "NVIDIA G70 Launch and Shipping Dates Confirmed" it’s refreshing to see that NVIDIA didn’t intend to do another paper launch. Due to the heat both NVIDIA and ATI had received with their 6800, X800 and X850 series, NVIDIA has thankfully listened to its customers and learned its lesson."

"You may recall that NVIDIA launched its new NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra in early April. The X800 XT PE was simply a marketing trump on NVIDIA, who itself released its new flagship card too early, likely to steal thunder from ATI. The 6800 Ultra is also practically impossible to come by in the retail chain, unless you buy it with a complete system from the likes of Alienware. There's a few places that claim to have cards, but they also want twice the MSRP for them, too."

"NVIDIA is today launching an even higher clocked Ultra, no doubt in response to the X800XT-PE. We have yet to even see a retail 6800Ultra for any of the partners so currently I would consider these a non-issue."
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree....i saw Ultra's on the shelf of BB a few days after launch of the ultra...

Also i have YET to this day see any X850XTPE at any compussr or BB or CC....And i live in missouri....i see ultra's, GT's, NU's, Shit i saw today at BB the GS....all i see at BB is some X800, X700, and maybe if lucky a X850XT thats not in stock...
 
[RIP]Zeus said:
I would have to disagree....i saw Ultra's on the shelf of BB a few days after launch of the ultra...

Also i have YET to this day see any X850XTPE at any compussr or BB or CC....And i live in missouri....i see ultra's, GT's, NU's, Shit i saw today at BB the GS....all i see at BB is some X800, X700, and maybe if lucky a X850XT thats not in stock...
Click to expand...

Oh well, maybe my BB just sucks (but, then again, don't they all?) I just seem to remember the early days of the last generation (x800, 6800) being sort of shaky for both Nvidia and ATI. I ended up buying an ATI card, but they definitely made me wait for it - I would say they were "more" guilty last gen. We will see how the R520 works out for them.
 
If i remember correctly, ATI was shakey with a vaporware/paper launch, and nVidia actually had a hard launch, will product sent to everyone who had it in their inventory as going to have it at launch.
 
RaphaelVinceti said:
If i remember correctly, ATI was shakey with a vaporware/paper launch, and nVidia actually had a hard launch, will product sent to everyone who had it in their inventory as going to have it at launch.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I remember paper launch accusations flying in both directions last gen. Lots of the recent articles on the 7800 talk about how sweet it is that Nvidia avoided "another" paper launch - referencing the early days of the 6800. Look to my earlier posts for links that mention 6800 shortages. There was a big fiasco in the FX generation, too, but I skipped those cards anyway (ti4600 forever!)

I think the difference was that Nvidia had some product at the 6800 launch, but stock quickly ran low and stayed that way for a few months; ATI had practically nothing at the x800 launch, and faced shortages for even longer than Nvidia (especially with the "phantom edition.") Both companies sort of shafted the consumer, but Nvidia recovered halfway through the 6800 generation and maintained with the 7800. ATI still seems to be having trouble...

This is just availability though - when either company finally put out the cards, they were great cards. I love my phantom edition.
 
Lord_Exodia said:
name I agree with everything you said except for one thing. The 6800Ultra was found everywhere. I can't remember a time I went to BB, Compusa or any website and didn't see it on the shelf. However the X800XT PE was super hard to find. PE supposedly called platinum eddition shortly became known to the gaming public as Phantom Eddition. Same went for the X850XT PE until recent. Many people went with the 6800U OC because it was just a few fps behind the X800XT and you could at least find it.
Click to expand...

I saw it in the store once and then never again.
hence owning a 6800gt (caved in) second computer anyway
 
Netrat33 said:
OpenGL...well Nvidia always had that
Linux ...who cares (flame on)
Ok :)
Click to expand...
Yep.... OpenGL who?

Linux is nothing to real gamers.
 
[RIP]Zeus said:
I would have to disagree....i saw Ultra's on the shelf of BB a few days after launch of the ultra...

Also i have YET to this day see any X850XTPE at any compussr or BB or CC....And i live in missouri....i see ultra's, GT's, NU's, Shit i saw today at BB the GS....all i see at BB is some X800, X700, and maybe if lucky a X850XT thats not in stock...
Click to expand...

I got my x800xtPE from BB a few days after launch. Doesn't prove anything. Still hard to find. And I still don't see 6800ultras in my BB and CC stores around here.
 
awdark said:
I classify ati in the same category as intel though... nice stuff but cant afford it. Nvidia stuff usually drops to reasonable prices and typically offer most for the money so I end up going to nvidia and never being satisfied with the outcome.
Click to expand...
correct me if im wrong, but IMO.......and this is just my opinion people

i think maybe the reason nvida cards are so cheap is because they have so many makers of their card.....and does nvidia even have their own brand like BBA? im not to sure on this so....

but it sounds logical no? when something is mass produced it can be cheaper?

theres only what 4 manufacturers of ati cards? sapphire, bba, and connect3d, and powercolor........only 2 of those mf'ers uses ati's ramdac.......sapphire and bba.......

i could be wrong but please do correct me if i am


soulsaver
 
name said:
I could be wrong, but I remember paper launch accusations flying in both directions last gen. Lots of the recent articles on the 7800 talk about how sweet it is that Nvidia avoided "another" paper launch - referencing the early days of the 6800. Look to my earlier posts for links that mention 6800 shortages. There was a big fiasco in the FX generation, too, but I skipped those cards anyway (ti4600 forever!)

I think the difference was that Nvidia had some product at the 6800 launch, but stock quickly ran low and stayed that way for a few months; ATI had practically nothing at the x800 launch, and faced shortages for even longer than Nvidia (especially with the "phantom edition.") Both companies sort of shafted the consumer, but Nvidia recovered halfway through the 6800 generation and maintained with the 7800. ATI still seems to be having trouble...

This is just availability though - when either company finally put out the cards, they were great cards. I love my phantom edition.
Click to expand...

Actually It was Public Policy for the longest time for manufacturers to release a card months before they were available. Most of the time most companies had to design their cards themselves and it wasn't till about the Geforce2 that the reference design use really pick up speed. The X800/6800 series was the worst yet because their wasn't much on either side for 6 months or so. But this gen changes everything, the fact is one company has done three consecutive hard launches in a row and counting, instead of using the "well this is how we've allways done it" excuse ATI should and is expected to follow the same path, they haven't and should be flamed for it.
 
Netrat33 said:
I got my x800xtPE from BB a few days after launch. Doesn't prove anything. Still hard to find. And I still don't see 6800ultras in my BB and CC stores around here.
Click to expand...
yeah......

ive seen the x700 pro, x800xl, x850xt pe, x800xt, and 7800gt, 6800 nu/gt/ultra in our best buy's

/shrug

soulsaver
 
Yes, Nvidia DOES NOT make their own cards. I don't think this is the only reason they are cheaper. Card price comes from cost to built + markup by Partner. If it costs BFG 280.00 for a 7800GTX GPU 100.00 for the RAM that's 380.00 They package etc.. and charge 480.00. ATI makes their own cards but also have partners. I think this plays a role but it's very small. Maybe $5 each card difference.
 
Topweasel said:
Actually It was Public Policy for the longest time for manufacturers to release a card months before they were available. Most of the time most companies had to design their cards themselves and it wasn't till about the Geforce2 that the reference design use really pick up speed. The X800/6800 series was the worst yet because their wasn't much on either side for 6 months or so. But this gen changes everything, the fact is one company has done three consecutive hard launches in a row and counting, instead of using the "well this is how we've allways done it" excuse ATI should and is expected to follow the same path, they haven't and should be flamed for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was one of my two original points: both Nvidia and ATI had problems with availability last generation. I understand that companies announce and "launch" products before they actually hit shelves. However, during this process, they usually set a date for street availability that may or may not differ from the "launch date." The problem was that the 6800 and x800 cards were not readily available on or soon after the announced street date, and nowhere near MSRP. I do agree that Nvidia has set a new standard with the hard launched 7800s and that this has changed consumer's expecations when it comes to launch vs availability.

The other point was that the x800xt pe is almost always faster than the 6800 ultra (again, see my posts on page 3 of this thread for linkage.)
 
Well as it comes down to it...nvidia hasn't had a paper launch since the 6x00 days...

Look at the 7800's....They where launched ON TIME....the new 6800GS launched ON TIME...


ati on the other hand...has had no Hard launches...the x1800xl was a week late...

x1300/x1600 arn't out yet... the x1800xt was a month late... minus the 3 months it was late...lol

Now there still is no master cards for the x1800's yet...the x850 master cards are out...but in rare supply..and are fucking expensive...

Shit you can BUY GT, GTX, and GS's RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!....and they are in large supply...Where are the x1600's???? What about crossfire edition cards? Also what about the Xpress200 boards? i have at work some Xpress200 NON crossfire Hp machines...and they are the MOST flaky POS i have ever seen or played with....i have to RETURN 20 of these boxes as i do not want them to be deployed for there buggyness...so now i gotta spend time and effort into finding a VIA or NF4 machine....i'm sorry. but imo i think ati is fucking you "the fans" over...
 
sitheris said:
Running a game server doesn't require a video card.
Click to expand...


Some do.....not all, but some do....And it doesn't have to be the greatest...but it never hurts :D
 
Brent_Justice said:
There is a certain DLL that Civ4 needs in DirectX 9 that you must install in order to run Civ4.

If you bypassed the option to install the DirectX update when you first installed Civ4 you can go back to the first Civ4 CD and look inside and there will be a DirectX folder, go in there and install DirectX it will update DirectX with the DLL you need to run Civ4.

That isn't an ATI problem, that is the game needing a certain DLL in DX to run.

I've had no problems with Civ4 on an X850 XT-PE.
Click to expand...
exactly, believe it or not a lot of people had problems with this and blamed ati......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top