Is it just me or is ATI always the speed leader now?

Sharky974

Identified Troll
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
396
Since the 9700 pro days?

I mean, the 8500 was said to be a good card, but in practice it was slower than Nvidia's competition.

Since then:

9700/9800 vs 5900, easy win for ATI.

X800 vs 6800, ATI win (they didn't get enough credit here, but were generally clearly faster, though not to the degree of 9700)

Now it gets tricky

X1800vs 7800

Ok X1800 was late. This gave NV the speed crown for 3+ months true enough. I also dont count 512 GTX as a true card at all, it was too unavailable.

So once again we probably have ATI with a slight edge if you compare the actual cards

X1900 vs 7900

Currently the X1900 is fastest, like when ATI was behind, it has been uncontested for about a month, but will probably be faster till the next major releases in fall.

It just seems Nvidia cant take the speed crown anymore doesn't it?

On the flipside, Nvidia has done much better at the mid-range segments in price performance. ATI for the most part needs help there and has for a long time...

This does also not take into account SLI. Talking single cards only. And ATI will need to get a 4 GPU solution out eventually too..

You can only argue Nvidia had the speedcrown twice. When R520 was delayed, and with 512 GTX which I dont believe counts. Both cases you had extenuating circumstances.

Since when has head up, Nvidia been faster with same gen cards than ATI? If I was a nvidia !!!!!! I would be discouraged in my company.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I'm not an nVidiot, and a lot of what you say is fairly accurate when you consider single GPU configurations, but one angle you entirely miss is multi GPU technology.

I am not going to argue cost. That gets debated ALL the time when CrossFire/SLI and debated, and it is a REAL consideration. I am looking at it from what's the fastest thing I can build in a high end PC, $4k+.

I own both ATI and nVidia hardware. My latest ATI hardware is the 9800XT, and my latest nVidia hardware dual SLI 8700 512 GTX.

I've only had this sig rig about 10 weeks now, and when I was considering hardware back in November, I had about $5k and wanted the fastest setup that was available then.

The most important point i want to make in this is that a single GPU, from either ATI or nVidia will probably NEVER AGAIN represent the fastest setup a consumer can buy. The bottom line in November 2005, two 7800 512's represented the FASTEST consumer graphics setup that was available. And nForce motherboards, even today are far more plentifull and mature than CrossFire motherboards. And yes 7800 512's were hard to find, but I've got two, so while you may dicsount them, it's a little hard for me to since they're sitting in my computer.

Bottom line, ATI and nVidia are very close. nVidia is ahead of ATI in the multi GPU areana. X1900 is the fastest single card right now. Dual SLI 7800 GTX represents the fastest, most stable graphics platform right now. CrossFire X1900 can be faster, but has more technical issues I believe right now.

I think that X1900 is great technology. It is overall the fastest single GPU right now. One X1900 overall is slowe than two 7800 512 GTX's and I would not trade and nForce 4 mobo for a CrossFire board for overall performance and stability.

I believe that this is as close to truth as there is. I want the best for my money. I look very hard and the hardware I spend monry one. And these are the facts as I see them. Unbiased. I simply want good stuff.

GPU's from ATI and nVidia are so powerful that is really makes little difference for most people. In today's games you have to run at over 1600x1200 max detail and 4AA before most can see the performance difference even with single cards.

At any rate, the GPU is just more complex these days. To say ATI or nVidia has an advantage over the other is far to simplistic. Both have strenghts, both have weeknesses, and neither dominates the other in much of a siginifcant way as of 03/01/2006.
 

Sharky974

Identified Troll
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
396
I agree with most of your post.

However I see SLI as overblown. I dont think I'll ever buy SLI. It's just something I wont do. I would have a hard time convincing myself to buy the highest end single card.

So I'm saying having the fastest single card is always FAR more important than SLI, and always will be IMO.

The amount of people with SLI/crossfire must be unfathomably small overall.

But yes, ATI needed to do it to catch up there, which they are. Now I'm sure Nvidia will try to leapfrog with 4 GPU solutions until ATI catches up. Even less people will find that relevant than two card SLI/crossfire, which isn't very relevant to begin with unless you're rich.
 

nemesis.ie

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
72
Once one enables 8x or better AA at high res (1600x1200+) the CF X1900s seem to be faster.

Lets face it, if you have two monster cards you would WANT to be running at high-res and high AA.
 

texuspete00

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
5,604
Err... must have been living under a rock. GTX 256 was king almost all of last year. Open your red eyes or put more kindly... yes it's just you and maybe some other hardcore ATi fans.


GTX256->x1900XT owner here.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,618
X800 vs 6800, ATI win (they didn't get enough credit here, but were generally clearly faster, though not to the degree of 9700)

not from everything i saw, the 6800 line was eating the x800 line in alot..? i owend both x800 Pro and XT and a 6800GT and the 6800 Gt when o/C'd to 6800 ultra speeds gave me more performance then my x800 XT.
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
Odd. My X800XT seems slightly faster than my friends offical 6800U.

Err... must have been living under a rock. GTX 256 was king almost all of last year. Open your red eyes or put more kindly... yes it's just you and maybe some other hardcore ATi fans.

He did talk about that.

Ok X1800 was late. This gave NV the speed crown for 3+ months true enough. I also dont count 512 GTX as a true card at all, it was too unavailable.

GTX256->x1900XT owner here.
Yeah...Lol good one, other than the fact that thats not true.
 

Majin

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
2,477
X1900XTX Is the Most Powerful Single Card you can buy. But it's not only powerful it allows you level of Image Quality (IQ) that we have not had todate.

7800GTX 256 Is the best selling card for nVidia because it's just so damn nice. New standards of IQ were introduced with this card, It had unmatched power and it held top spot for a very long time.

Dual Card solution goes to 7800GTX 512. While the 512 addition is almost imposible to find now, SLI with these cards is the fastest most stable you will be able to do.

ATI fell behind a bit in the race. No one likes the Xpress 200 chipset, cause it's not as proven as the NF4. The SLI solution, CrossFire is new and still has bugs to be worked out, also ATI made a few choices that didn't go over so well, Master Card, Dongle.

I have a strong feeling that ATI will pick up that ball and run the touch down in the next generation of Crossfire.

As for Single Cards It's going to take more than a raised mem and GPU clock on the 7900 to take the crown back from the X1900.

But let's all be happy that nVidia and ATI are working so hard to beat each other cause it give us (the consumer) price wars and development wars. Win Win for us.
 

Mayhs

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
2,999
well im not a fan of either company i just buy the quickest at the time...but what you said is pretty correct
 

$BangforThe$

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
1,672
I agree with everthing except the 6800 part I will put my wifes X800xtpe up against any stock 6800 series card. Other than that everthing looks right to me except maybe the fact that the X850xtpe wasn't mentioned . What was that up against? The OP was right since the (9700) ATI has held the single card lead 85% of the time since the 9700. But once you figure in SLI thats not the case.

Since the release of the X1900xt and CF ATI has finely got the Fastest dual card solution.

I personnelly am going to wait for conroe EE 1333bus 3.33GHz / Vista/ Best M/B at the time.(ati or Intel) and Xfire R600(R620).

I really doubt I will have to upgrade again to be a happy camper. 24" or 30" LCD
 

Cereal Killer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
272
$BangforThe$ said:
I agree with everthing except the 6800 part I will put my wifes X800xtpe up against any stock 6800 series card. Other than that everthing looks right to me except maybe the fact that the X850xtpe wasn't mentioned . What was that up against? The OP was right since the (9700) ATI has held the single card lead 85% of the time since the 9700. But once you figure in SLI thats not the case.

Since the release of the X1900xt and CF ATI has finely got the Fastest dual card solution.

I personnelly am going to wait for conroe EE 1333bus 3.33GHz / Vista/ Best M/B at the time.(ati or Intel) and Xfire R600(R620).

I really doubt I will have to upgrade again to be a happy camper. 24" or 30" LCD
the X850XT PE was up against the 6800 Ultra and the ATI card was a little faster.
 

contaminant

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
336
Indeed, I bought my X850XT PE when it was the fastest card on the market, competing with the 6800U. NV has really, IMO, really recovered the speed crown. That dreadful FX line was far behind. It's a close race now, and NV did get the 7800 out the door first, but ATi has shut it down twice now (X1800/X1900). I will like to see who is the leader for the first round of DX10 cards.
 

cyks

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
1,234
It is just you... always is a hard word to throw around carelessly.

Edit: Easy...
 

Krazy_Joe

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
472
ATI R600 will rule!! COMMING OUT NOV/DEC of 2006!!!!
65nm
64 Shader pipelines (Vec4+Scalar)
32 TMU's
32 ROPs
128 Shader Operations per Cycle
800MHz Core
102.4 billion shader ops/sec
512GFLOPs for the shaders
2 Billion triangles/sec
25.6 Gpixels/Gtexels/sec
256-bit 512MB 1.8GHz GDDR4 Memory
57.6 GB/sec Bandwidth (at 1.8GHz)
WGF2.0 Unified Shader
:eek: :eek: :eek:

I wouldnt mind having two of them with the new asus ati RD580 motherboard (ASUS A8R-32 MVP deluxe) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29995
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
Yeah those specs are 100% no doubt about it! :rolleyes:
Wait till the card comes out guys. Not that I wouldnt mind that leet card but still.
I think that this gens speed crown goes to Nvidia for the mere fact they had their card out longer and first.
 

$BangforThe$

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
1,672
Fidel I bet he is closer on those specs except Gddr 2500+ than everyone was on the NV 7900GTX . specs. I don't believe it will be 65n . I believe 80n
 

PRIME1

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
3,942
This thread would seem to invite flames. I will try to put this politely as not to start a whole flame war.

To say ATI is always ahead in speed is a generalization. To use the same broad net I can easily say and back up that ATI has been behind in....

Features, availability, warranties, stability, Linux support, OpenGL support, hard launches, card sales, etc.


Competition is good and we as consumers clearly benefit. May the war continue.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,618
PRIME1 said:
card sales, etc.[/b]

Competition is good and we as consumers clearly benefit. May the war continue.

card sales - i doubt it..... look into the mobile market, ATI owns about 72% of it, also the integrated market - server end - rage chip, still sold today - ATI is up there - and i was pretty sure above NVIDIA in total card sales - or perhaps tha is just GPU ?

and competion is great! you are right, it is a generalization, - i guess i fell for that, as NVIDIA has had their share of late | hard launches / lack of features / stability etc etc - but i guess thas your point :)

You can always find something another company did better @ some point between ATI NVIDIA / SiS / 3dFX etc
 

PRIME1

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
3,942
MrGuvernment said:
or perhaps tha is just GPU ?
That's why I said "card". Integrated & Mobile Intel has always been 1st and ATI is usually 2nd.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
2,629
{NG}Fidel said:
Odd. My X800XT seems slightly faster than my friends offical 6800U.



He did talk about that.




Yeah...Lol good one, other than the fact that thats not true.

That is an arrow, not a greater than sign
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,618
PRIME1 said:
That's why I said "card". Integrated & Mobile Intel has always been 1st and ATI is usually 2nd.

ahh, understood, i thought ATI had the mobile and server markets by the nuts!
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,785
dunno what u mean
NVidia took the lead and ATI just took it back its been a back and forth strugle since the laucnch of the 6800
 

texuspete00

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
5,604
{NG}Fidel said:
Yeah...Lol good one, other than the fact that thats not true.

Well other people have cleared that up.

As to your other points, I see he mentioned the GTX 512 and quickly discounted it as unavailable. He did not mention the GTX 256's unrivaled lead for quite awhile. I was glad to have the GTX 256 when not one or two but all of BF2, Quake4, FEAR, CoD2 yada yada were out. Not that long ago. I stand by everything I said. OP seems a big ATi fan, and it may look like that to most who are impartial.

You tried to pull the old "quote a guy in pieces" trick and failed quite badly. Even where you directly compare a quote of mine to the OP's it clearly says GTX 256 as opposed to 512. Ok, I guess in fairness it does say x1800 line was late so I suppose it was very gingerly implied. Simply put, no card had a better run in 2005. As we all know. It's a very odd time to say ATi has been on top as long back as we can remember.
 

phide

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,693
I never considered the battle between NV40 and R420 to be a clear victory for ATi in terms of performance. Both GPUs were astonishingly close in performance.

nVidia has been faster clock for clock since NV40, though I don't believe that really applies to the debate here.

But, as it stands for consumers, speed is only one part of the equation.
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
Odd. My X800XT seems slightly faster than my friends offical 6800U.

Quote:
"Err... must have been living under a rock. GTX 256 was king almost all of last year. Open your red eyes or put more kindly... yes it's just you and maybe some other hardcore ATi fans."


He did talk about that.

Quote:
"Ok X1800 was late. This gave NV the speed crown for 3+ months true enough. I also dont count 512 GTX as a true card at all, it was too unavailable."

Quote:
GTX256->x1900XT owner here.





Yeah...Lol good one, other than the fact that thats not true.

The yeah lol good one comment of mine was meant to express my opinion in GTX256 >X1900XT nothing else. You mentioned that the GTX was the king allmost all last year, a point I agree with you on. This round was Nvidias, if ATi had been earlier or even a month after Nvidia it would have been theirs. Anyway as I was saying I wanted to make sure you realized he did bring up the X1800s lateness even if it was downplayed.


You tried to pull the old "quote a guy in pieces" trick and failed quite badly
No your wrong, in fact I have all of your post in quotes in my orignal post. If I understand whats going on here its that the positions of my quote boxes is off so some sentences seem as if they are meant to go with a quote that simply isnt right.



you misunderstood, he had a 7800gtx and now has an x1900xt
I dont get what you mean? Just tell me what you guys think I said, I apoagize if my words confused anyone.
 

texuspete00

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
5,604
There was no greater than, it was an arrow. Extra space makes it more clear. "7800GTX -> x1900XT owner here." Meant to depict where I was, to what I got now.

So in my frist post my only point was it's an odd time for this OP's post. 2005 was Nv's. The GTX256 was the most influential card, with the biggest power jump over existing cards when it was released and the most longevity, the King's reign if you will, of 2005. Discussing my recent and current graphics card was simply the "I am not a !!!!!!" disclaimer. I have a x1900XT right now because it had the fps in CoD2 and FEAR that I was looking for. Nv enjoyed a few months uncontested with the GTX256. A luxury neither afforded at the end of the year.

:)
 

BurntToast

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
3,677
9700/9800 vs 5900, easy win for ATI.

At first that was the case. But no longer is it the case, since most games seem to be optimized for Nvidia hardware. Quake 4, BF2, UT2K4 for example.
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
There was no greater than, it was an arrow. Extra space makes it more clear. "7800GTX -> x1900XT owner here." Meant to depict where I was, to what I got now.

I hear you 100% and I do think this thread is kind of petty, nothing usefull being discussed here. I thought it was greater than though and I hope you understand why I said what I said.
 

stelleg151

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
444
BurntToast said:
At first that was the case. But no longer is it the case, since most games seem to be optimized for Nvidia hardware. Quake 4, BF2, UT2K4 for example.

I think claiming that all of those games are optimized for nVidia hardware is misleading. Just because nVidia pays the game companies to show an nVidia ad at the begining doesnt mean its "optimized" for nVidia. Its like saying all the games that have an Intel ad starting up but still run better on AMD are "optimized" for intel, but they arent.
 

Rhitick

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
89
stelleg151 said:
I think claiming that all of those games are optimized for nVidia hardware is misleading. Just because nVidia pays the game companies to show an nVidia ad at the begining doesnt mean its "optimized" for nVidia. Its like saying all the games that have an Intel ad starting up but still run better on AMD are "optimized" for intel, but they arent.


From what I've heard they are (the Intel AMD thing) or it was at least attempted and it didn't work out all that great.

Some companies don't use the proper switches when they compile so it's semi in favor of Intel. But again AMD still kicks their butt :p
 

GVX

Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
610
Sharky974 said:
X800 vs 6800, ATI win (they didn't get enough credit here, but were generally clearly faster, though not to the degree of 9700)
.
.
.
Ok X1800 was late. This gave NV the speed crown for 3+ months true enough. I also dont count 512 GTX as a true card at all, it was too unavailable.
This is somewhat unfair. The X800XT had exactly the same availability problems that the 7800GTX 512 is having right now. Discounting the 7800GTX 512 from being a "true card" should imply that the X800XT gets discounted as well (thus the 6800 would be the winner).

Admittedly, ATI has generally held the performance crown at the very top of the line up over the past few years, but they have suffered a ton of availability problems. I mean, sure either ATI or Nvidia could whip together some card that does 10 TFLOPs and stick it on display at their HQ then claim that they will have the performance crown for the next decade, but it doesn't do us one bit of good.
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
X800XT? What are you talking about? X800XTPE had Availability problems but I have always been able to find an X800XT, Hell I got my X800XT only a couple days after the card came to market at a price only slightly higher than MSRP.
Even still the X850 Refresh made up for it fast enough. The 7800GTX 512 refresh will in a sense be the 7900GTX (According to Rumours). Either way its not the same situation.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,618
BurntToast said:
At first that was the case. But no longer is it the case, since most games seem to be optimized for Nvidia hardware. Quake 4, BF2, UT2K4 for example.


the 9700 and 9800 will still kick the FX line in the ass in the end...... especially once u get up in AA/AF and higher res, as where ATI has usually taken the lead.

the FX 5900 amd 5950 ultra cards were the only ones worth mentioning for the FX line, and ATI still pulled ahead - "optimized"or no with an NVIDIA logo.
 

$BangforThe$

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
1,672
stelleg151 said:
I think claiming that all of those games are optimized for nVidia hardware is misleading. Just because nVidia pays the game companies to show an nVidia ad at the begining doesnt mean its "optimized" for nVidia. Its like saying all the games that have an Intel ad starting up but still run better on AMD are "optimized" for intel, but they arent.

Normally I would agree but I have to admitt. That In the game BHD I gad a TI 4600 in my rig. I could glide through smoke .With my 9700pro I lagged threw smoke.
With my ti 4600 on many maps I could see threw the walls and also run threw them . Never happened ever with ATI cards. BHD is a nvidia sponsered game . YA THE WAY IT'S MEANT TO BE PLAYED
 

Standpoint

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
1,366
I think that for high end ATI can outperform. But when you take into consideration the cost of various cards, which many of us either have to or just do, then nvidia tends to come out ahead for performance vs. cost. For example, the nvidia 6600GT was only $150 when I got it, and there was nothing that could compare for that price in ATI land. Granted it may have only cost $50 - $100 at the time (x800-850) more for an equivalent, but to some that makes all the difference.
 
Top