A Realistic look at Todays/Yesterdays Video Cards.

[HDTVMan]

Lets face a few facts.

Both Companies video cards can play all of todays video games without any problems.

The difference today is how high a resolution and how much eye candy you want.

Obviously you dont really need to play at 2048xwhatever. Why are they testing at this resolution? Because most lower resolutions dont show much of a difference. After all what is the diffrerence between 200FPS and 300FPS? Nothing you cant see the difference. Most monitors dont go even above 1600x1200?

800x600 is a perfectly acceptible resolution especially on 19" monitors and even the Radeon 9700 can do that in todays games fluidly.

Performance is almost extinct. Instead its all going to eye candy and marketing gimmicks. This is why high resolutions are the battlegrounds because at low resolutions its pretty level.

Losing one round in doesnt mean you lose and go bankrupt. There is competition in the middle to low end where most sales actually occur.

Because you dont have the top of the line card doesnt mean disaster. Its dissapointing that ATI doesnt have a competitor to 7800. But more sub $200.00 cards are selling than anything else.

What is hurting ATI is middle and lower ground where the 6600GT is the top seller and its approaching the Lower price range of just around $100.00. ($130 currently) 6800 owns the middle with some sales going to x800. But more people prefer the option of possibly doing SLI and Smartshader 3.0. Top end with the least sales is going to NVIDIA obviously. ATI really needs a lower and middle lineup refresh. Having the top card will not make or break ATI. They simply need Smart Shader 3.0 and the possiblity of SLI in middle and lower grounds.

But I state again. BOTH Nvidia and ATI make a great video card that can play any game today at lower resolutions. You will not die if you cant play at 2048x1600 especially on 19" of monitor. Unless you have Bionic Eyes.

The problem is simple without competition Prices are High. Lets hope ATI can put some pressure on the middle and lower sectors soon and hope they do something on the high end even if its 6 months from now.

I am more dissapointed ATI hasnt delivered next gen chip more than a 7800 killer. I own equal amounts of both cards from ATI and NVIDIA. I have no favorites.

Now Game On.

 

[dug777]

i like what you say...but this will degenerate into a flame war, and you've been around long enough to know that a title like that is inflammatory mate...perhaps a title like 'the current state of play in the graphics arena'?

 

[vision33r]

You are commenting based on an "armchair" method of looking at the 2 companies.

What is losing? Do you folks think ATI or Nvidia won because one has an edge on the faster GPU? C'mon that is geek stuff.

What matters is who is winning financially and running the better business model.

There is proof that Nvidia is winning the market because they were able to release new products this year while keeping the operating expenses the same. Meaning they have more productive workers. Look below:

Nvidia Earnings Report

ATI has to shoot themselves because they are not doing well the past 1 1/2 or so because they have not put out a real new product that has garnered attention and their operating expenses are higher due to development cost related to the R5xx series.

See this report..

Nvidia vs ATI

And see this report why ATI is really hurting as they are posting losing profits.

+ATI Losing Quarter after Quarter

Now I personally don't care who has the faster card overall but who has the better business plan, marketing strategy, better staff, and finally the products..

It does look like ATI is bleeding for a long time and if the R5xx series doesn't take off, they could be a target of acquisition.

 

[HDTVMan]

Your right.
Unfortunately a handfull will take this as a flame war. Let me change the title to something less dramatic for those who feel they must take a stand for ATI or NVIDIA.

 

[Genx87]

800x600 is a perfectly acceptible resolution especially on 19" monitors and even the Radeon 9700 can do that in todays games fluidly.

Huh? I can barely stand 1280X1024. 800X600 brings me visions of Quake.
800X600 is not acceptible unless you are running SLI Voodoo2's on a 15" CRT.

As for ATI, they will be ok or should be. But their business model IMO has never been terribly good. While Nvidia will bring out an entire lineup based around the same arch. ATI piece meals it with a highend new feature card and a middle to low end that are months late or of a different arch. How many times can they regurgitate the 2001 8500 anyways? What are we upto, the 9200 now?

 

[rgreen83]

Originally posted by: Genx87

800x600 is a perfectly acceptible resolution especially on 19" monitors and even the Radeon 9700 can do that in todays games fluidly.

Huh? I can barely stand 1280X1024. 800X600 brings me visions of Quake.
800X600 is not acceptible unless you are running SLI Voodoo2's on a 15" CRT.

As for ATI, they will be ok or should be. But their business model IMO has never been terribly good. While Nvidia will bring out an entire lineup based around the same arch. ATI piece meals it with a highend new feature card and a middle to low end that are months late or of a different arch. How many times can they regurgitate the 2001 8500 anyways? What are we upto, the 9200 now?

about as many times as nvidia can regurgitate the mx 400, i mean mx420, i mean mx440 with 8x agp!, i mean mx 4000!

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don't like to play at 800x600 and all graphic options set to low.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Obviously you dont really need to play at 2048xwhatever

Speak for yourself.

 

[Acanthus]

800x600 looks terrible on a 19" CRT, but the idea of what you said is correct. It more or less comes down to eye candy with the exception of a few titles.

 

[HDTVMan]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I don't like to play at 800x600 and all graphic options set to low.

I mainly use a radeon 9500 unlocked to be a 9700.

I can play half life 2 at 1024x768 with full details. There is nothing unsatisfying about the game play and visuals. Even if I were forced to play at 800x600 it would still be great. I can play Doom 3 and BF2 at 800x600. Both are still perfectly great on this card. While its sitting next another machine that can play at 1280x1024 it doesnt look that much better to have to spend 230.00. After all my monitor is better than the one that is able to run at 1280x1024.

I think lower resolutions is more a mental barrier. 800x600 doesnt mean they look like Doom 1. But it seems people believe it does.

Graphics options to low is an eye candy setting and you might want to consider upgrading because it would seem your running something less than a 9700.

 

[rbV5]

I think lower resolutions is more a mental barrier. 800x600 doesnt mean they look like Doom 1. But it seems people believe it does.

Its a mental barrier like HDTV vs Broadcast NTSC or 30fps vs 100fps.

I prefer higher resolutions for gaming and HDTV because I'm used to a higher standard. If you are used to low resolution gaming, experience only low framerates or watching broadcast NTSC, you probably don't see what the fuss is all about.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

i have been playing at 1600x1200@85hz for a few years now and todays games make that hard with my 9800 pro.

i cant stand to play at lower reolutions but i do if i have to.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: rbV5

I think lower resolutions is more a mental barrier. 800x600 doesnt mean they look like Doom 1. But it seems people believe it does.

Its a mental barrier like HDTV vs Broadcast NTSC or 30fps vs 100fps.

I prefer higher resolutions for gaming and HDTV because I'm used to a higher standard. If you are used to low resolution gaming, experience only low framerates or watching broadcast NTSC, you probably don't see what the fuss is all about.

I can't stand playing at low resolutions. They look li ke sh!t on my monitor, Dell 2005FPW X2, soon to be 2405FPW X2. Like in WoW, low detail makes the edges so... rough and fine detail then becomes blurry.

 

[xtknight]

Unfortunately, since my LCD doesn't have perfect scaling (and never will), I am limited to 1280x1024 resolution. It was just since I got my Gaming Rig (Athlon 64 and GeForce 6800) that I started playing at 1280x1024. A year before, I was playing Quake 2 at 640x480 on Video Rig in sig and old CRT, and it's definitely bearable. Old games just ask for low resolutions, you know? I also played Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory at 800x600, and it was just fine. I can enjoy a game at 800x600 even nowadays. But I play at 1280x1024 in Battlefield 2 because I CAN. If I still used my Radeon 9500 PRO, I'd be just as happy playing at 800x600 however.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Obviously you dont really need to play at 2048xwhatever

Speak for yourself.

The only thing you need to survive is water, food, and oxygen.

 

[Zebo]

800x600 is a perfectly acceptible resolution especially on 19" monitors and even the Radeon 9700 can do that in todays games fluidly.

I like you man but you should edit this comment. Not true at all.

Why are they testing at this resolution?

To sell video cards.



Check out xbitlabs -- they probably do the best Video card reviews IMHO, offering 10x7, 12x10, 16x12 and 20x16 for all users and monitor types to find the video card they'll be satisfied with.

Sure if you have a 12x10 native LCD alls you need is about a 6800U for playable in most things. but move up to a 16x12 (like a dell 2001 requires) and things get rocky.

 

[CP5670]

But I state again. BOTH Nvidia and ATI make a great video card that can play any game today at lower resolutions. You will not die if you cant play at 2048x1600 especially on 19" of monitor.

I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously nobody has to play at 2048x1536 - 320x240 is probably acceptable if you are used to that - but games certainly look better that way. I personally am willing to buy newer cards to play at higher resolutions even though I can play anything out there at consistently above 60fps at 640x480.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: HDTVMan

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I don't like to play at 800x600 and all graphic options set to low.

I mainly use a radeon 9500 unlocked to be a 9700.

I can play half life 2 at 1024x768 with full details. There is nothing unsatisfying about the game play and visuals. Even if I were forced to play at 800x600 it would still be great. I can play Doom 3 and BF2 at 800x600. Both are still perfectly great on this card. While its sitting next another machine that can play at 1280x1024 it doesnt look that much better to have to spend 230.00. After all my monitor is better than the one that is able to run at 1280x1024.

I think lower resolutions is more a mental barrier. 800x600 doesnt mean they look like Doom 1. But it seems people believe it does.

Graphics options to low is an eye candy setting and you might want to consider upgrading because it would seem your running something less than a 9700.

I used to believe that until I started playing at 1600X1200. Now anything less than 1600X1200 looks pixelated to me.

 

[Deinonych]

I agree with you (OP) for the most part. The only thing I disagree with is your statement that 800x600 is an acceptable resolution. Personally, I find 800x600 to be to low. For me, the bare minimum playable resolution is 1024x768. You lose too much screen real estate with anything lower, IMO. YMMV.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The only thing you need to survive is water, food, and oxygen.

And I say yet again, speak for yourself

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: HDTVMan
800x600 is a perfectly acceptible resolution especially on 19" monitors and even the Radeon 9700 can do that in todays games fluidly.

 

[ArchAngel777]

800 X 600 can look awesome, depending on the game. I also agree, that resolution is somewhat overhyped. Don't get me wrong, the picture is better, but that much? For me, that answer is no. For other who are very picky, 800 X 600 will never work for them.

I waiting for my 30" LCD 1280 X 768 monitor-tv to arrive... I have already seen it in action, and it looks beautiful for me.