video card technical differences

[blight]

i think the best for all of us would be if both were about as good because if one dies prices might go up
i'm sure both produce good cards but ATi's linux drivers are said to suck (slow, extensions not implemented, whatever) compared to nvidias driver which has really good performance

 

[Hacktarux]

Blight is right, i'm more interesting in video card capabilities especially the ogl ones. I would like to have the cheapest possible video card but with all the newest functions. I don't mind if it's slow as long as it can still run complex games correctly at 640*480 and simpler ones at a higher resolution it's enough. For example i absolutely need shaders and great multitexturing abilities. I wouldn't mind having a gf fx 5200 even if it's slower at high resolutions but if i'm losing some important functions with this card, i prefer buying a more expensive card...

 

[Malcolm]

Hack.::.
of your choices above I'd have to go with the G4 Ti 4200. The reasoning behind this is ATi's linux drivers suck and the opensources ones are kinda crappy and don't utilize everything that a Radeon can do.

Also NVidia is a big supporter of Linux and because NVidia has sided with Gentoo Linux the Linux NVidia drivers are going to be developed and released at a faster rate now.

Now about emulation.

In my GF2MX I can play about 70% of the PSX games out there at decent FPS and I can play every N64 game out there but a varrying speeds (example: perfect dark/goldeneye).

Also the TI card is relatively cheap compaired to the 9200 and 9600.

About the Rad 7000; yea it costs like nothing but you're getting what you piad for. I have a 7500 equiv card in my laptop and my FPS in *ANYTHING* (even in GLXgears) is amazingly slow. In a 200*200 window I was getting under 200 FPS with glxgears. In Windows I was barely pulling a 55 FPS in Zelda OoT and I was getting 70FPS in Mario.

For Linux I'd choose the TI card, for Windows it choose the Radeon 9200.

 

[Tagrineth]

doom: i wouldn't be too sure... i've read that the fx is the first card to have a GPU which can run "real" programs, not just gl or dx... maybe it's like with p4 and athlon - code is not optimized enough/cpu is not used in the right way... however dx and gl are the main interfaces for 3d graphics and i think such a new thing like "real" programs on the gpu needs some new interface/programming language... also it has 128 bit internal floating-point size for at least colors and maybe also math (not sure)... dunno about ati's cards.

Um... wha?

You mean PIXEL and VERTEX programmes, which GeForce3 and Radeon 8500 could run already.

And there isn't that much that NV3x can do that R3x0 can't... especially not at speed. And R3x0 runs 128-bit precision where it's really necessary, while using 96-bit internally for most operations - there's very little difference, and FP24 is the minimum spec for 'DX9 compatibility'. Oh, and did I mention that NV3x is REALLY slow in FP32?

And whoever it was saying 'DX compatibility is meaningless' - DX compatibility tiers carry over to OpenGL. Or do you think that a GeForce3 is going to be able to run complex shaders as well as an NV3x or R3x0 just because it's OpenGL instead of Direct3D? 'Vertex Shaders 1.1' compared to 'Vertex Shaders 2.0' does in fact carry a lot of meaning in functionality, and a VS1.1 card won't be able to do most VS2.0 functions, whether they're called from OpenGL or Direct3D.


And finally, to the point: Hactarux, considering Linux is your OS, I'd suggest the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra... as people have said, ATi's Linux drivers are teh suck, and the FX5200 is embarrassingly slow, even if you aren't too worried about speed. Especially when running fragment programmes.

Wait. I just recommended an FX to someone... ::shudders::

 

[Doomulation]

A ti-card will do! They basically have everything you need for now. The newer cards wouldn't give much more than that beuty. The gf4 t4200 is the best buy in this case imo.

 

[Tagrineth]

Doom. He said he wants FEATURES. The GF4Ti line won't do anything past PS1.3 and VS1.1. Yes, the GF4Ti is the fastest DX8.1 line available, but notice that he said he'd rather have functionality than speed?

 

[blight]

tagrineth: no, i do not mean vertex shaders. not just for vertex and pixel shaders but for most things in opengl/dx i think it's meaningless for the card wether it's dx or gl - the card can do it and theres the gl/dx API specs so there has to be an interface between gl/dx and the card written which is known as the graphics driver so there is nothing like dx or gl compatibility if you see it like that. (well... there are some parts for sure where architectures differ between gl/dx..) so to use the card you need this driver and since hack uses linux it is meaningless if a driver has a direct3d windows interface to some feature - he needs a card with drivers which support most features for linux/gl (glx drivers - in fact gl has nothing to do with linux but the xserver uses the gl driver, the driver kernel is loaded into the kernel like i said)

 

[gokuss4]

id recommend a 5600, try for the 5600 ultra. here's a list starting from worst to best performance, starting from 5200

GF FX 5200
Xabre 600
Radeon 9000 Pro
GF FX 5200 Ultra
GF3 Ti200
Radeon 9500
Parhelia
GF FX 5600
Radeon 9100
Radeon 8500LE
GF3
GF3 Ti500
Radeon 8500
GF4 Ti4200
Radeon 9600 Pro
GF FX 5600 Ultra
GF4 Ti4400
Radeon 9500 Pro
GF4 Ti4800 SE
GF4 Ti4600
Radeon 9700
GF FX 5800
Radeon 9700 Pro
Radeon 9800
GF FX 5800 Ultra
Radeon 9800 Pro
Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB
GF FX 5900 Ultra

got this from http://users.erols.com/chare/video.htm

 

[Doomulation]

Doom. He said he wants FEATURES. The GF4Ti line won't do anything past PS1.3 and VS1.1. Yes, the GF4Ti is the fastest DX8.1 line available, but notice that he said he'd rather have functionality than speed?

Well my my, Taringeth. How much more features does the fx card have than the ti? It would still be a waste, though imo.
No one really uses anything more than a ti card today anyway.

 

[blight]

How much more features does the fx card have than the ti?

In GL/DX terms: It has new vertex and pixel shaders which only high quality apps (new games) will use and a very new feature: missing palettized texture support like mentioned earlier.

 

[Tagrineth]

tagrineth: no, i do not mean vertex shaders. not just for vertex and pixel shaders but for most things in opengl/dx i think it's meaningless for the card wether it's dx or gl - the card can do it and theres the gl/dx API specs so there has to be an interface between gl/dx and the card written which is known as the graphics driver so there is nothing like dx or gl compatibility if you see it like that. (well... there are some parts for sure where architectures differ between gl/dx..) so to use the card you need this driver and since hack uses linux it is meaningless if a driver has a direct3d windows interface to some feature - he needs a card with drivers which support most features for linux/gl (glx drivers - in fact gl has nothing to do with linux but the xserver uses the gl driver, the driver kernel is loaded into the kernel like i said)

Blight, I was replying to your saying 'run "real" programs', which it can't. Only on fragments and vertices, which older cards could do too, but to a lesser extent.

And I can't think of anything that requires palettised textures anymore, except a select few older games (Final Fantasy VII and VIII, Metal Gear Solid - it's mainly the PS1 ports, and you can emulate them using 32-bit textures anyway).