Nvidia or Ati wich one is the best?

[gandalf]

i´ve got graphics problems in NFS 4 (patched to work in XP) with some Nvidia drivers with my 6600GT and with an FX5200

not an patch problem, because with the 5200, same problems with the same game under win ME.

Some ATI features are nice and some other unnecesary

x1800 support HDR and AA, Nvidia not because of some support for HDR, nvidia uses FP32 and you can only use HDR or AA, ATI uses FP16 and you can use HDR AND AA, obiously with an important hit in performance.

but well....any emulator now uses HDR and SM3.0

 

[KingVendrSnatch]

Well... Crazy Taxi series don't work with ATi's latest drivers. Final Fantasy VII doesn't even run with hardware acceleration and VIII looks really bad even with it (looks better on my GeForce 2 MX than on my ATi X600).

Excluding X1800XT almost every other ATi card needs less power than an Nvidia of the same power range using default clock speeds.

Overscan simulation is not perfect yet (and supported only by Orkin's plugin so far) so an ATi card can be used to use the feauture correctly.

I haven't looked at the feautures of X1800 cards yet... PS 3.0 support is nice (at last)

The PC version of Crazy Taxi runs fine for me and Im using an ATI with the latest drivers.

Unless your talking about the DC version. Then I wouldnt know.

Cheers.

 

[PsyMan]

See? ATi's drivers are a mess. Crazy Taxi 3 doesn't work here (neither did with older 5.xx series drivers).
I don't say that Nvidia's drivers do not have problems... Just not as many as the ATi ones.

 

[KingVendrSnatch]

Just FYI I tested Crazy Taxi 3 and it worked fine as well..Its crazy..

Cheers.

 

[compres]

Saying ATI drivers are worse than nVidia's at the moment is just FUDing, those drivers have been perfect for me for more than 2 years now:

Radeons: 7200, 9800, and now x800

On all my games on the pc and all 3d accelerated software like emulators.

I have to agree though Linux support sucks, maybe I go with nVidia next time, just for this lone reason. Other than that they are flawless drivers IMHO(they are updating them monthly).

As for nVidia, they are faster in current games, but I wouldn't bet on new releases, as ATI's shader 3.0 implementation is far superior.

The only thing going on for ATI ATM is image quality, its a lot better than nVidia.

 

[BlueFalcon7]

if you read up the n64 and gamecube's graphics cards are by ATI so i would say ATI is better for emulation, however from what i have seen and heard, ATI is better than NVIDIA but ATI is more expensive and not that much better than NVIDIA and you get more for your money with NVIDIA

 

[gandalf]

not by ATI, ATI buyed the company that´s created the GPU for the GC.

and both companies have expensive and cheaps graphics cards.

the most expensive card it´s from nvidia now, the 7800GTX 512MB edition, the performance it´s great but the price it´s insane

stop saying that, both have great and bad cards....

 

[Solar]

overall the x1800 is only very VERY slightly better than the 7800, but the 7800 is over £100 cheaper, so its much better value for money
the 512 7800 isnt that much better at all, but it is better and way too pricey and will soon come down another £100 when ATI release the 512 x1800, which is what is going to keep nvidia in the lead (but it will prolly change when Nvidia start mass producing the ps3 gfx chip, its going to slow them down a bit thats for sure)

i could go into more detail as to why each one is what it is but after reading through this thread a half of you wouldnt understand properley what the other half and me actualy "really" know about these cards

 

[GCFreak]

Personally, I would go for NVIDIA. NVIDIA has SLi, While ATi hasn't inplemented (is that how you spell it?) it yet. I'm not saying ATi is dumb, but NVIDIA been using SM3.0 from GeForce 6, while ATi just installed it on they're graphics cards now. So naturally, Shader performance is better on NVIDIA-based Video cards.

 

[gandalf]

more lol

shader model 3 in both companies are bad implemented.
Nvidia choiced the "Slow method" for SM3 (bad), and ATI choiced the "Faster Method" (nice), but ATI misses an non necesary DX9.0c feature, i don´t remember the name now.

But the SM3 from Nvidia still it´s BAD implemented, worse than ATI.

and SM3 it´s not really necesary for games atm.

naturally, Linux/Open GL support is better with nvidia cards and drivers

 

[Duffman]

Personally, I would go for NVIDIA. NVIDIA has SLi, While ATi hasn't inplemented (is that how you spell it?) it yet. I'm not saying ATi is dumb, but NVIDIA been using SM3.0 from GeForce 6, while ATi just installed it on they're graphics cards now. So naturally, Shader performance is better on NVIDIA-based Video cards.

ATi has Crossfire which is the same thing as SLi and does an even better job at it as well.

 

[gamerk316]

My old comp (1.6GHZ) runs with a NVIDIA 5500 (256MB), and i've never had a single problem with it.

I'll never buy an ati card; every time i buy a new game, the readme file contains a list of what doesn't work with ati cards...

 

[gandalf]

lol

what games?



those games that said "the way it´s meant to be player"?

 

[gandalf]

lol

what games?



those games that said "the way it´s meant to be player"?

 

[soniclink2]

sorry for posting so late now i have a list of models from markets, and i need you to help me select the good ones

the games that i want to play are beside others: sonic adventure 2 dc, need for speed underground, lego star wars (don't have pixel shader), zelda oot n64....

here's the list of graphic cards:

- msi 9250 ati 128 mb tv out
- msi fx5200-td-128mb tv out
- msi fx5500-td-128mb tv out
- msi ati radeon 95500 256mb tv out
- ati radeon nx6200-256mb pci-e