• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Counterstrike source better card?

D

Dead_eye

n00b
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
22
I bought a BFG 6800 ultra OC.

I pretty much only play CS source. Will i notice a big difference if i went to ATI? I'm looking for the most fps possible. I play 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200 nothing lower.


thanks
 
IMO I dont think it would be worth the hassle, my 6800gt plays it at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf and I wouldn't see a reason why I would need to switch to ATI to get (maybe) a few FPS more

The x800's might be a bit faster, but you 6800ultra is fine. If you OC that thing enough, you could probably run it at 1600x1200 without any choppyness either
 
i play cs:s fine on my bfg 6800 ultra, old drivers and slower cpu be damned.
 
The Source engine is more CPU limited than anything. There isn't a huge performance difference between ATI and nVidia in Half-Life 2 or CS:S. It just simply isn't a very GPU demanding engine.
 
I read an article a few weeks ago that stated that the developers made HL2 and CS:S run better on ATI cards, which I think is kinda shady. I still don't see the point in switching cards only to get a few fps better.

Also what fps are you getting now, as I only play cs:s with my computer and get about 60-120 on good conditions and like 40 if grenades start exploding in my face, i've got the 9800xt and fairly satisfied with it, untill the X950 comes out of course..
 
Didnt doom3 developers make Doom3 run better on Nvidia cards? Isnt that also shady?

But ya, if ou really want the fastest damn FPS, get an X850XT and oc it to XTPe speeds.
 
Hate_Bot said:
Didnt doom3 developers make Doom3 run better on Nvidia cards? Isnt that also shady?

But ya, if ou really want the fastest damn FPS, get an X850XT and oc it to XTPe speeds.
Click to expand...
No, they made it run on OpenGL. nVidia dominates OpenGL and ATI gets thrashed. It's not a matter of cards for that game as much as it is what it runs on (gl instead of directx)
 
shadowbreaker513 said:
No, they made it run on OpenGL. nVidia dominates OpenGL and ATI gets thrashed. It's not a matter of cards for that game as much as it is what it runs on (gl instead of directx)
Click to expand...


Completely incorrect. No other OpenGL game has a bigger gap in performance between the 2 companies then Doom3. It most certainly was driver optimized for Nvidia cards and it uses that Ultrashadow II. Someone picked apart that game awhile ago and found that the developers pupously shortened the route for shaders under forceware. Now i dont really care much, but if you're going to talk about shady lets not forget who has the optimized games. Nvidia stamps their name and gets optimizations on as much as they can. ATI, doesnt. I dont see a problem with this, i see a problem with people looking through it.
 
exactly^. So dont give me any of that "OMG ATI Is Sneaky Homozesksuals, they Fooking OPTIMIZED (big words meke me smrt) Half-LiFe2@ for ATI OMG WTF HAX0RS!!!!"

ID Software did the exact same thing.
 
omg stop the phanboi war.......

ok to answer your question......yes ati will be a tiny bit faster in cs:s, but not enough to make you return your 6800ultra and get another card.......you maybe will get 2-7 fps more in cs:s...and that's it...

I also have a 6800ultra....I play cs:s at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200...no performance difference is noticable really....this is with 4xAA and 16xAF..that is how cpu limited the game is..you will not notice a difference at all....but if you only play cs:s....If I were you, I woul've bought a 6800GT and saved the 100 buks because all you play is cs:s...and with a 6800gt and ultra, you won't notice the difference at in cs:s....
 
yeah but that's half life 2....which is a bit more gpu limited than cs:s...
 
nvidia is better thatn ATI in open GL. But doom3 was optimized more for nvidia. But ATI does stick their stamp on games now too. Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, Half-life 2 had it EVERYWHERE! sid miers pirates had it. It's just marketing.
 
Shifra said:
Completely incorrect. No other OpenGL game has a bigger gap in performance between the 2 companies then Doom3. It most certainly was driver optimized for Nvidia cards and it uses that Ultrashadow II. Someone picked apart that game awhile ago and found that the developers pupously shortened the route for shaders under forceware. Now i dont really care much, but if you're going to talk about shady lets not forget who has the optimized games. Nvidia stamps their name and gets optimizations on as much as they can. ATI, doesnt. I dont see a problem with this, i see a problem with people looking through it.
Click to expand...

can i get a link please? the only link i was able to find about mentioned "optimizations" was this http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17497 which told a different story.
 
It wasn't necessarily Valves fault that nvidia cards take a performance hit in half-life. It has to do with ATi using 24bit precision and nvidia using 16/32 bit precision. Valve wanted at least 24bit precision for most of the game, which of course meant that nvidia cards had to use the 32 bit precision, this is why the FX cards played HL2 so horribly, because they simply didn't have the speed of the 6800 and couldn't handle the added load of 32bit precision.

Now you can argue that ATi could have used 16bit precision for nvidia and you wouldn't have seen a loss in image quality...but the fact is you would be able to see a loss of image quality if you looked for it, and then we would all be complaining about valve optimising for Nvidia by allowing them to use a lower precision.

The fact is the two cards are different, and developers have to chose whether they want to favor one card slightly while making the game, or do they want to write completely different code paths, doubling their time to make the game? Nvidia and ATi are in cutthroat competition right now, which means their hardware is sufficiently different that certain games will perform better on a piece of hardware because the developer chose to favor that architecture. The fact of the matter is that in the case of HL2 Valve actually did a pretty good job of making sure that the game could run on most videocards very well.
 
Erasmus354 said:
It wasn't necessarily Valves fault that nvidia cards take a performance hit in half-life. It has to do with ATi using 24bit precision and nvidia using 16/32 bit precision. Valve wanted at least 24bit precision for most of the game, which of course meant that nvidia cards had to use the 32 bit precision, this is why the FX cards played HL2 so horribly, because they simply didn't have the speed of the 6800 and couldn't handle the added load of 32bit precision.

Now you can argue that ATi could have used 16bit precision for nvidia and you wouldn't have seen a loss in image quality...but the fact is you would be able to see a loss of image quality if you looked for it, and then we would all be complaining about valve optimising for Nvidia by allowing them to use a lower precision.

The fact is the two cards are different, and developers have to chose whether they want to favor one card slightly while making the game, or do they want to write completely different code paths, doubling their time to make the game? Nvidia and ATi are in cutthroat competition right now, which means their hardware is sufficiently different that certain games will perform better on a piece of hardware because the developer chose to favor that architecture. The fact of the matter is that in the case of HL2 Valve actually did a pretty good job of making sure that the game could run on most videocards very well.
Click to expand...

THe problem is, ATI forced the cards to use 24 bit shaders which the FX series couldn't handle very well. IF you used a 3rd party program, you could force 16 bit shaders, change your "vendor ID" to "ATI" and half-life2 runs much friendlier for your "nVIdia" GeForceFX card. Also, if your card was a GeForceFX, directx 9 wasn't available, but you could force it by simply changing your vendor ID to ATI (and also in the game shortcut), coupled with forcing 16 bit shaders, the FX cards get very playable frame rates.

Yes, both companies use lousy and shady marketting strategies (Come on guys! Don't just look at game performance, my HL2 came with a coupon for the x800 XT and the 9600 XT came with a FREE HL2 !!) I personally dislike these strategies very much, as it is ONLY detrimental for gamers.

Back on topic: Personally, I wouldn't go buy another card if you already have the 6800 ultra. CS:S isn't a very demanding game period. It's multiplayer and they've got to make it very playable to the masses. It's very much less demanding than HL2.
 
Shifra said:
Completely incorrect. No other OpenGL game has a bigger gap in performance between the 2 companies then Doom3. It most certainly was driver optimized for Nvidia cards and it uses that Ultrashadow II. Someone picked apart that game awhile ago and found that the developers pupously shortened the route for shaders under forceware. Now i dont really care much, but if you're going to talk about shady lets not forget who has the optimized games. Nvidia stamps their name and gets optimizations on as much as they can. ATI, doesnt. I dont see a problem with this, i see a problem with people looking through it.
Click to expand...

How many OpenGL games have you saw benched? lol

nVidia continues to dominate in OpenGL and its not just DOOM 3. The reason its more obvious in DOOM 3 is because D3 is one of the few OpenGL games that is always used in video card reviews and its the most GPU intensive OpenGL game currently available.

Some of you always say ATI is faster in D3D and nVidia is only faster in DOOM 3. Well its not just DOOM 3. Its every OpenGL game ever produced and every OpenGL game that has yet to be released unless ATI improves their OpenGL performance.

ATI gets assraped in Linux performance because of OpenGL.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2096&p=11
 
Bah.. who cares, as long as the game runs smoothly.. ATI or NVidia get whats available.. :p
 
i run source solidly with a Ti4600 128MB card.

when i say solid, i never [and i mean never] dip below 40. My res. is 800x600 though =p
 
burningrave101 said:
How many OpenGL games have you saw benched? lol

nVidia continues to dominate in OpenGL and its not just DOOM 3. The reason its more obvious in DOOM 3 is because D3 is one of the few OpenGL games that is always used in video card reviews and its the most GPU intensive OpenGL game currently available.

Some of you always say ATI is faster in D3D and nVidia is only faster in DOOM 3. Well its not just DOOM 3. Its every OpenGL game ever produced and every OpenGL game that has yet to be released unless ATI improves their OpenGL performance.

ATI gets assraped in Linux performance because of OpenGL.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2096&p=11
Click to expand...

And Nvidia get assraped on D3D, whats your point?
 
Hate_Bot said:
And Nvidia get assraped on D3D, whats your point?
Click to expand...

Dude stop acting like a nOOb. You know as well as anyone else that nVidia and ATI are fairly even in D3D performance. ATI is faster in most of the D3D games, especially when AA + AF is enabled at higher resolutions but the performance difference is usually only a few fps that is rarely noticeable in-game. The 6800GT still easily beats the X800Pro and the 6800 Ultra and X800XT are fairly close in performance.

Now lets look at some linux benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2302&p=3

You can buy a 6800 Ultra for as cheap as $399 now. I havn't seen many X800XT or X800XT PE's available for that price.
 
Jasonx82 said:
Bah.. who cares, as long as the game runs smoothly.. ATI or NVidia get whats available.. :p
Click to expand...
Addendum from the peanut gallery... "what's available, and what you can afford".
 
What i find funny is that ati fan's seem to still believe that ID Software made a game for nvidia cards....that in itself is false...Nvidia made a CARD for Doom3....Doom3 uses the same path instructions for both ati and nVidia...sorry but ati blows ass in OpenGL...and when carmack makes a game using OpenGL. Alot of companys end up using that engine..i mean look at the quake 1,2,and 3 engines...there used in ALOT of other games...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top