ATI vs Nvidia
- Thread starter Ryu
- Start date
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
gf4 mx is crap, so ati is the winner there.
Next time, post in the approporiate section, too.
Next time, post in the approporiate section, too.
riles9262
My dissident is here...
i would too, that card is one of the best, and a great value!
yep, cause the memory is slower on the 128mb cards...except for that asus one, which is clocked the same as the 64 mb versions and is oc'able to very high speeds. IF (and a big if i tells ya) i ever got a nvid product that would be the one...
riles9262
My dissident is here...
do get a 9100 instead. they are a renamed 8500le (which is better than a 9000) and have fullstream support added, which the 8500's did not have. one note, do not get a sapphire 9100 as their clock speeds are lower than other 9100's. to my knowledge, visiontek makes the best 9100. furthermore, the 9100's are cheaper than the 9000's, which is kinda baffling considering the 9000's perform worse in the majority of situations.
edit: that nvid mx 440 is a pos man. look at that graph above, and do some more research on it. furthermore, that mx does not support any of the 'new' shaders that the 9000/9100 do, as its a dx7 card :getlost:
edit: that nvid mx 440 is a pos man. look at that graph above, and do some more research on it. furthermore, that mx does not support any of the 'new' shaders that the 9000/9100 do, as its a dx7 card :getlost:
Last edited:
My card can only do 2X Anisotropic filtering and 4X Anti-aliasing which is low to say the least (if filtering is your 'thing'). Still, its better than my 8MB integrated SiS 530 I had on my old PC, and I don't play 3D games (apart from N64 emulators) so I don't need it as much as some. I'm surprised my card was even on the list at all.
Must point out that nVidia's are better supported by N64 graphics plugins, although ATi's are generally more powerful, so are good for PC gaming.
I'm sure you can afford better than the card I have, as it is a bit low-end. You can get a GeForce FX for £119 in a shop near me, and my card has fallen to £45.99.
Must point out that nVidia's are better supported by N64 graphics plugins, although ATi's are generally more powerful, so are good for PC gaming.
I'm sure you can afford better than the card I have, as it is a bit low-end. You can get a GeForce FX for £119 in a shop near me, and my card has fallen to £45.99.
riles9262
My dissident is here...
unfortunately for nvidia, i think that youre handcuffed for mainstream performance...the gf4mx's are very weak cards, and sadly, their next mainstream card, the gf fx 5200, is a disappointment. the best value for the money on the nvid side is definitely the gf4 4200 by asus, which overclocks to 4600 speeds. imo the gf fx's are pos'. i would have to recommend the 9100 for your budget (as i think the 4200's are a little outta your price range). no nvid card offers its performance for the money.
the 9100's also support up to 16x aniso (for very minimal performance hits) and up to 6x antialiasing, tho i would not recommend greater than 2x unless you got a very fast comp. i run 8x aniso and 2x quality antialiasing, and all my games look great.
the 9100's also support up to 16x aniso (for very minimal performance hits) and up to 6x antialiasing, tho i would not recommend greater than 2x unless you got a very fast comp. i run 8x aniso and 2x quality antialiasing, and all my games look great.
mightyrocket
Banned
My card is still in the list!!! :holiday: :holiday: :holiday: :holiday:
By the way, has anyone noticed that the geforce4 ti 4200 with 128 is slower than the one with 64 mb?
By the way, has anyone noticed that the geforce4 ti 4200 with 128 is slower than the one with 64 mb?
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Up until this point I have always hated ATI because their drivers are so shitty. But alas, everybody keeps insisting to me that they have improved. I would normaly go for an nvidia card, however, the r9000 happens to be the best card that I can possibly get for my laptop. (yes, you can change the video card on dell laptops (well, its not realy a "card" like your used to though, more like a triangle shape.) although they make you do it yourself. btw, the newest mobile nvidia cards wont work with my laptop) The next runner up is the GF4 go 440 which is about the same as that of a GF4 MX. It goes without saying, but I hate the MX series of cards, and I know from the benchmarks that this specific GF4MX doesn't realy get close to the mobile r9000. I also know from toms hardware that this card and the regular 9000 both have the exact same core (in essense, are the same "card"), only ATI selectively picks the chips that perform more reliably with lower voltage and puts them in the mobile version.
Benchmarks aside, does anybody have any personal experience with the mobile radeon 9000, or the regular 9000? What can anybody say about this card in terms of image quality, driver quality, etc? This thing is going to cost me $129. (either this card, or I don't upgrade from my gf2go at all)
Benchmarks aside, does anybody have any personal experience with the mobile radeon 9000, or the regular 9000? What can anybody say about this card in terms of image quality, driver quality, etc? This thing is going to cost me $129. (either this card, or I don't upgrade from my gf2go at all)
Last edited:
L
Lachp30
Guest
Blarg, put in an extra few dollars and go for directx9 compatability. It would really be worth it if you could stretch your buget to get a r9500 pro or no pro.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Lachp30 said:
That card doesn't even exist for laptops. The only card that is better than the r9000 for laptops is the QuadroFXGO, which believe me I would rather have, but its around $350. You will never see me spend more than $200 on a video card. (spending more than that is a waste of money for how long the card will last you)
L
Lachp30
Guest
AlphaWolf said:
Oh, my bad, I thought this guy was talking about his desktop. lol of course the r9500 doesnt exist for laptops.
lain: