AMD folk prefer ATI, Intel split?

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
for some reason it makes sense, to me anyway, intel and nv always used to be the best and the most expensive, and AMD and ATI were for the poor joe

Maybe that is true where you live but in the uk ati video cards have always been more expensive than nvidia and most amd owners I know (myself included) have nvidia hardware.

 

[VIAN]

I just buy whatever gets me the most for the money ATM. 7 months ago, that just happened to be 2500+/5900.

Unfortunately, 7 months ago, I was much less smarter, so I go the 2700 over the 2500. Uh, you live you learn and then get luvs.

I agree with Keys, asking "waddaya got" doesn't really mean anything. Currently, I have Intel/nVidia. The P4 was a faster gaming chip than the AthlonXP when I got the P4, and with my last upgrade it was much cheaper to stick with a faster P4 than it was to get a new A64, new mobo, and new RAM for a slight bump in performance. If it was up tp me, it would be A64 FX/6800UE, but now it's P4/6800GT (not that I'm complaining).

True that, even if we wanted to change to Intel/AMD we would have to spend much more money on a new mobo and stuff.

 

[RussianSensation]

What is there to expect?

Since the XP was such a good processor for the money many ppl bought it
Then XP produced mobile chips and ppl bought it for overclocking again
ATI started to dominate since 9700 so that's 2 years and still going
So it only makes sense that the majority of the users went for those 2 camps.
A64 only helps to secure the crown for AMD in this round once again.
But that is not to say that other alternatives could not offer a system just as fast if not faster.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5
I just buy whatever gets me the most for the money ATM.

That's a very good point! 1 year ago my P4 2.6 ghz overclocked destroyed 99% of all XPs at the time so Intel was a better deal until mobiles and A64 appeared. So I can't say that AMD is always the best choice, what matters more is the price and availability of products at the time. My last right was AMD/ATI though.

Of course the whole point regarding "value" is subjective in the first place. What if a person makes so much money that it makes no difference for them to buy a $100 or a $250 cpu and both are value processors for the $$$ for that person. Then he/she might as well go for a faster processor. So if at any time an Intel was faster, then you can't really classify those ppl as less informed, or less educated consumers because for them the price delta was a lot less important than the performance delta.

 

[RussianSensation]

DP

 

[MichaelZ]

meh

 

[bamacre]

I don't know why people make such a stink about AMD and gaming. I've looked at plenty of benchmarks and compare prices, and the difference is negligeable.

Intel beats AMD in some games, and AMD beats Intel in others. But in most cases, the scores are very, very close, especially when you consider price and performance. IMO, you are better off looking for a good deal at the time you are ready to buy, regardless of brand. You'll end up much better off than the guy sticking with the same brand every time.

In regards to graphics cards, ATI would rule the world if they could get their drivers straight. I owned Nvidia cards for a few years, and I had never had to use a program like driver cleaner. I have never owned a single piece of computer hardware that took so much work to install/upgrade drivers. Not to mention, they can also be unstable.

I now own an x800pro, simply because it was time for me to upgrade and Nvidia had nothing on the shelf to compete at the time. With Nvidia's peformance of it's new series of cards, ATI needs to get back off their ass and fix their drivers. Nvidia got caught with their pants down as the ATI 9000 series blew Nvidia's FX series away, and if ATI doesn't get their drivers straight, they just may find themselves in the position Nvidia was in 12 months ago.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't know why people make such a stink about AMD and gaming. I've looked at plenty of benchmarks and compare prices, and the difference is negligeable.

Intel beats AMD in some games, and AMD beats Intel in others. But in most cases, the scores are very, very close, especially when you consider price and performance.

Ummmm....OK. You might want to have a look at this:

Originally posted by: oldfart

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: oldfart

Originally posted by: Pete
A64 > P4. Whether it's worth it is another story, but A64s currently have P4s beat when it comes to gaming.

Usually by a very small margin. A couple of FPS or so in most games.
Anandtech
THG
Compare A64 3200+ and P4 3.2. Very little difference. UT is the only game with any advantage worth noting.

Oldfart, your tests are based on a 9800PRO. Pete's benchmarks were performed on a wide range of graphics cards, and the newer cards (X800XT, 6800U) performed significantly better on the A64 system. This makes sense since those cards are much more CPU limited.

Look at this.

The A64 scores 78FPS vs. 65FPS for the P4 in Far Cry at 1024x768 on a 6800U. That makes the A64 20% faster at equivalent rated speeds to the P4.

Yeah, you are right. It seems you need a new gen GPU to really see the difference. It is much more noticeable on a 6800/X800 class of card. Even so, once you increase the res beyond 10 x 7, it gets smaller down to a few fps @ 16 x 12. Still, A64 kicks some serious butt!

I challenge you to find me a game benchmark in that article where the P4 beats the A64 when paired with a 6800U/X800XT. Even in that 16x12 benchmark in Far Cry, the X800XT was 15% faster on an A64, and that's a very GPU-limited benchmark. If you think the P4 is as good as the A64 in gaming you're delusional. It's like saying that the A64 is as good as the P4 in video encoding.

IMO nVidia has had far more serious driver issues lately than ATi BTW.

 

[Shad0hawK]

i am AMD/Nvida, been with AMD since the k5 days, been with nvidia since they first came out with the TnT

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
yes.

uh uh.

you asked.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't know why people make such a stink about AMD and gaming. I've looked at plenty of benchmarks and compare prices, and the difference is negligeable.

Intel beats AMD in some games, and AMD beats Intel in others. But in most cases, the scores are very, very close, especially when you consider price and performance.

Ummmm....OK. You might want to have a look at this:

Originally posted by: oldfart

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: oldfart

Originally posted by: Pete
A64 > P4. Whether it's worth it is another story, but A64s currently have P4s beat when it comes to gaming.

Usually by a very small margin. A couple of FPS or so in most games.
Anandtech
THG
Compare A64 3200+ and P4 3.2. Very little difference. UT is the only game with any advantage worth noting.

Oldfart, your tests are based on a 9800PRO. Pete's benchmarks were performed on a wide range of graphics cards, and the newer cards (X800XT, 6800U) performed significantly better on the A64 system. This makes sense since those cards are much more CPU limited.

Look at this.

The A64 scores 78FPS vs. 65FPS for the P4 in Far Cry at 1024x768 on a 6800U. That makes the A64 20% faster at equivalent rated speeds to the P4.

Yeah, you are right. It seems you need a new gen GPU to really see the difference. It is much more noticeable on a 6800/X800 class of card. Even so, once you increase the res beyond 10 x 7, it gets smaller down to a few fps @ 16 x 12. Still, A64 kicks some serious butt!

I challenge you to find me a game benchmark in that article where the P4 beats the A64 when paired with a 6800U/X800XT. Even in that 16x12 benchmark in Far Cry, the X800XT was 15% faster on an A64, and that's a very GPU-limited benchmark. If you think the P4 is as good as the A64 in gaming you're delusional. It's like saying that the A64 is as good as the P4 in video encoding.

IMO nVidia has had far more serious driver issues lately than ATi BTW.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2038&p=5

Check out the performances of the Athlon 64 3200 and the Pentium 4 3.2ghz. Both beat each other out in different tests, but the differences (no matter who actually comes out on top), are very, very small. And these two cpu's are roughly the same price.

I will admit though that AMD beats out Intel on other gaming scenarios, especially OpenGL and even DX8.

I never said the Intel was better than AMD for gaming, I was just pointing out the differences are not as bad as some people make them out to be.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Check out the performances of the Athlon 64 3200 and the Pentium 4 3.2ghz. Both beat each other out in different tests, but the differences (no matter who actually comes out on top), are very, very small. And these two cpu's are roughly the same price.

I will admit though that AMD beats out Intel on other gaming scenarios, especially OpenGL and even DX8.

I never said the Intel was better than AMD for gaming, I was just pointing out the differences are not as bad as some people make them out to be.

WTF? Can you read? I said with a 6800U/X800XT. The link you just posted was to a test done on a 9800PRO. That videocard isn't even CPU-limited.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
yes.

uh uh.

you asked.

LOL, I did didn't I....

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't know why people make such a stink about AMD and gaming. I've looked at plenty of benchmarks and compare prices, and the difference is negligeable.

Intel beats AMD in some games, and AMD beats Intel in others. But in most cases, the scores are very, very close, especially when you consider price and performance.

Ummmm....OK. You might want to have a look at this:

Originally posted by: oldfart

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: oldfart

Originally posted by: Pete
A64 > P4. Whether it's worth it is another story, but A64s currently have P4s beat when it comes to gaming.

Usually by a very small margin. A couple of FPS or so in most games.
Anandtech
THG
Compare A64 3200+ and P4 3.2. Very little difference. UT is the only game with any advantage worth noting.

Oldfart, your tests are based on a 9800PRO. Pete's benchmarks were performed on a wide range of graphics cards, and the newer cards (X800XT, 6800U) performed significantly better on the A64 system. This makes sense since those cards are much more CPU limited.

Look at this.

The A64 scores 78FPS vs. 65FPS for the P4 in Far Cry at 1024x768 on a 6800U. That makes the A64 20% faster at equivalent rated speeds to the P4.

Yeah, you are right. It seems you need a new gen GPU to really see the difference. It is much more noticeable on a 6800/X800 class of card. Even so, once you increase the res beyond 10 x 7, it gets smaller down to a few fps @ 16 x 12. Still, A64 kicks some serious butt!

I challenge you to find me a game benchmark in that article where the P4 beats the A64 when paired with a 6800U/X800XT. Even in that 16x12 benchmark in Far Cry, the X800XT was 15% faster on an A64, and that's a very GPU-limited benchmark. If you think the P4 is as good as the A64 in gaming you're delusional. It's like saying that the A64 is as good as the P4 in video encoding.

IMO nVidia has had far more serious driver issues lately than ATi BTW.

Yes, the A64 is faster with the new gen cards. I said that already. My point is @ high res gaming its not that big a difference.

Far Cry 16 x 12 is a massive 9 FPS faster with an A64 X800XT. 1 whole FPS with A64/6800U 2 FPS 6800 GT, 2 FPS X800P. Not enough to really notice in actual gameplay.

 

[borntodie]

For those of us that have been around longer it usually was Intel and 3Dfx as the winning combo. AMD and Nvidia started to really turn the tables around the same time. Personally, AMD and Nvidia will always be the combo I prefer for the sake of nostalgia, although Intel & Nvidia and AMD & ATI would seem like better combos if you just look at the last couple of years.

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
its kinda wierd...ive always seen it like this
INTEL and Nvidia always paired
AMD and ATI always paired

for some reason it makes sense, to me anyway, intel and nv always used to be the best and the most expensive, and AMD and ATI were for the poor joe

now AMD and ATI have products that mop the floor with the competition while maintaining that edge with nice prices....well AMD at least, i see nvidias 6800gt is a tad cheaper than ati x800pro

the best should be paired with the best....in my eyes AMD have the best processor for gaming, and ati have the best GPU for gaming

Intel rock at stuff like Divx'ing and encoding and media and i think Nvidia are pretty handy with the workstation cards the quadro's blitz atis fireGL's

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: bamacre
Check out the performances of the Athlon 64 3200 and the Pentium 4 3.2ghz. Both beat each other out in different tests, but the differences (no matter who actually comes out on top), are very, very small. And these two cpu's are roughly the same price.

I will admit though that AMD beats out Intel on other gaming scenarios, especially OpenGL and even DX8.

I never said the Intel was better than AMD for gaming, I was just pointing out the differences are not as bad as some people make them out to be.

WTF? Can you read? I said with a 6800U/X800XT. The link you just posted was to a test done on a 9800PRO. That videocard isn't even CPU-limited.

Oh, I can read. I just thought your "challenge" was irrelevent considering the amount of people that actually own an X800 or 6800 series card. You don't have to get hostile, in fact, I'm not really disagreeing with you on anything.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Well, consider that the nforce chipset is for AMD, I'm glad to see tho that nvidia has maintained neutral in its chipset venture, meaning that ATI cards and nvidia cards both work well on nforce.

 

[bamacre]

Actually, I wonder if Nvidia is trying to steal a few customers by making chipsets for AMD cpu's. I'm sure they know very well that AMD users prefer ATI cards.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

I'm sure they know very well that AMD users prefer ATI cards.

That's because ATI cards have been superior for the past couple years. I don't think it's a trend; look at all the people snatching up 6800 GTs with AMD processors. (though that probably has more to do with the $300 deals than the inherent superiority of the card).

 

[SneakyStuff]

Let the better man win, competition is the only thing that makes these cards affordable. Think about what it would be like with no ATI, or no nVidia.

 

[tart666]

ah, the poll results are making sense now, there's no correlation between CPU and GPU... the ATI/NV ratio is the same between AMD and intel camps, it was all a fluke

 

[imported_theEman]

Hmmm, weird. My Intel computers all have nVidia cards and my AMD system has an ATI card. I never even thought about it, I just bought good cards. Weird... ATI rocks though.

 

[BFG10K]

I don't care as I always decouple system parts from each other and buy whatever suits my needs.

 

[GZFant]

although I am too poor to have new generation hardware..........if I had money it would be AMD/Nvidia.
*puts on flame suit* It is kinda like Celica and Supra.......

Celica being ATi and Supra being Nvidia.....

The supra was stopped for ridiculous reasons although it was always the better performer and more reliable and celica remained because it wasn't incredible but wasn't terrible either.
For me that is the way it has always been although this analogy isn't 100% accurate it is a good indication of how I feel.

My .02cents

If I wanted visual quality I would go with Matrox/If I wanted gaming power I would go Nvidia

 

[howdyduty]

AMD all the way paired with BFG