ATI=Low End Raw Performance, nVidia=High End Raw Performance?

[xgi]

I would like to know thich manufacturer (ATI or nVidia) has the most raw performance in the low, mid, and high end section of the GPU market..

 

[Schadenfroh]

for the sub $100 market, nvidia wins with the Geforce4 TI4200 128mb (one of the greatest cards every built), for the $170, nvidia wins with the 5900XT, for the $200 market, ATI wins with the 9800 pro, for the $300 market, nvidia wins with the 6800 (does ATI have a product at the $300 price point?), for the $400, nvidia wins with the 6800GT, for the $500, ATI wins with the X800XT PE.

 

[xgi]

how about the DX90-only card section?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

That list is the same even with dx9 in the picture.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
for the sub $100 market, nvidia wins with the Geforce4 TI4200 128mb (one of the greatest cards every built), for the $170, nvidia wins with the 5900XT, for the $200 market, ATI wins with the 9800 pro, for the $300 market, nvidia wins with the 6800 (does ATI have a product at the $300 price point?), for the $400, nvidia wins with the 6800GT, for the $500, ATI wins with the X800XT PE.

I agree with all of this except:

5900XT: spend <$30 more and get the the 9800Pro (there's my nVidia bias showing again )
X800XT PE: This one is the hardest call. 6800U wins some, X800XTPE wins some. I'd give nod to the 6800U for Doom3/it's licenses, and possibility of SM3.

 

[lordtyranus]

5900XT: spend <$30 more and get the the 9800Pro (there's my nVidia bias showing again )
X800XT PE: This one is the hardest call. 6800U wins some, X800XTPE wins some. I'd give nod to the 6800U for Doom3/it's licenses, and possibility of SM3.

Well said, Rollo. Though I give the nod to the XTPE for overall superior 16x12 AA/AF performance and higher HL2 performance.

 

[xgi]

But as far as I know, ATI makes nice cards for low/mid end sector chips while nVidia currently dominates the high end graphic chips...

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
for the sub $100 market, nvidia wins with the Geforce4 TI4200 128mb (one of the greatest cards every built), for the $170, nvidia wins with the 5900XT, for the $200 market, ATI wins with the 9800 pro, for the $300 market, nvidia wins with the 6800 (does ATI have a product at the $300 price point?), for the $400, nvidia wins with the 6800GT, for the $500, ATI wins with the X800XT PE.

I agree with all of this except:

5900XT: spend <$30 more and get the the 9800Pro (there's my nVidia bias showing again )
X800XT PE: This one is the hardest call. 6800U wins some, X800XTPE wins some. I'd give nod to the 6800U for Doom3/it's licenses, and possibility of SM3.

Yes well said. I agree. I would personally pick the 6800U over the X800XTPE. But both are very comparable and neither will disappoint anyone (except in DIII performance)

Also one market segment that has been forgotten is the Worstation Video cards. Imnot being biased or anything but it is a fact that Nvidia DOMINATES in that market segment.

-Kevin

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: xgi
But as far as I know, ATI makes nice cards for low/mid end sector chips while nVidia currently dominates the high end graphic chips...

Well, we're telling you differently nVidia wouldn't be so big if it just made high performance cards. You don't make a large profit, selling cards to a minority of consumers. For every card ATI has, and for every card nVidia has, the other company has a counterpart, it's as simple as that. Here's a list, and i'm using the card the other company had out AT THE TIME, as a comparison.

Radeon 9200 = GeForce FX 5200 - (assuming it's a 128 bit 5200) nVidia wins
Radeon 9600 = GeForce FX 5600 - ATI wins
Radeon 9600 Pro = GeForce FX 5600 Ultra - ATI wins
Radeon 9600XT = GeForce FX 5700 Ultra - nVidia wins
Radeon 9500 Pro = GeForce 4 TI series - Somewhat of a tie
Radeon 9700 Pro = GeForce FX 5800 Ultra - ATI wins
Radeon 9800 series = GeForce FX 5900 series - ATI wins overall
Radeon x800 series = Geforce 6 series - nVidia wins overall

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
for the sub $100 market, nvidia wins with the Geforce4 TI4200 128mb (one of the greatest cards every built), for the $170, nvidia wins with the 5900XT, for the $200 market, ATI wins with the 9800 pro, for the $300 market, nvidia wins with the 6800 (does ATI have a product at the $300 price point?), for the $400, nvidia wins with the 6800GT, for the $500, ATI wins with the X800XT PE.

I agree with all of this except:

5900XT: spend <$30 more and get the the 9800Pro (there's my nVidia bias showing again )
X800XT PE: This one is the hardest call. 6800U wins some, X800XTPE wins some. I'd give nod to the 6800U for Doom3/it's licenses, and possibility of SM3.

Do remember, however, that in many benchmarks they include both the 6800 Ultra and it's invisible brother the 6800 Ultra Extreme, which skews many people's perception of the 6800's compared to the X800XT.

Regardless, $500 is IMO an absurd amount to spend on a card. Nvidia has it where it counts in the <$300 market with the 6800nu and $400 market with the 6800GT.

 

[ronnn]

Ha Ha, I love these troll threads. Buy the card with the features you like in any segment. The difference will not be big. Personally I lean towards the pro vivo toxic line. Stock quiet performance, with a very high chance of being able to unlock to 16 working pipes.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: ronnn
Ha Ha, I love these troll threads. Buy the card with the features you like in any segment. The difference will not be big. Personally I lean towards the pro vivo toxic line. Stock quiet performance, with a very high chance of being able to unlock to 16 working pipes.

@ pretty close to the same price as the XT. So you might as well get the full fledged XT.

Well, we're telling you differently nVidia wouldn't be so big if it just made high performance cards. You don't make a large profit, selling cards to a minority of consumers. For every card ATI has, and for every card nVidia has, the other company has a counterpart, it's as simple as that. Here's a list, and i'm using the card the other company had out AT THE TIME, as a comparison.

Nice i agree with you 90% of the time Sneaky Stuff. The only part i disagree on is comparing a 5600U to anything. That card is pretty much discontinued as the 5700LE 5700NU and the 5700U have replaced it. I think that would be a better comparison.

-Kevin

 

[ronnn]

Problem with a stock xt is fan noise. Worth a couple bucks (for me) to get a quiet solution and be able to keep my warranty for a few months. Than when i need the speed, time for the soft mod - likely will out perform the xt after. According to the article this card out performs the reference pro by 10% or so. A nice gt with a stock silencer at the same price point - would make for a difficult decision. :beer:

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Radeon 9600XT = GeForce FX 5700 Ultra - nVidia wins

9600XT is easily a faster all around card over the 5700U.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Uh no. Check out AT's review of the 5700U. They gave it the midrange crown. It is faster than the 9600XT in general. Just barely actually either card you get youll be happy with but the 5700U edges out ahead.

-Kevin

 

[ronnn]

Yes, but that review did much to confirm anantechs position as a nvidia site. Was controversial to say the least.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Yeah an Nvidia site that uses a 9800Pro as their primary graphics card. AT is the least biased site of any out there. I do think they have a very very slight lean towards Nvidia however everyone has a bias... there is nothing that has no bias. AT has the most dependable reviews and least biased reviews you can get.

-Kevin

 

[lordtyranus]

IMO firingsquad and xbit are better than anand. this site took a drop off once anand stopped doing the gpu reviews himself.

toms, hardocp, and beyond3d all suck.

 

[nitromullet]

Radeon 9500 Pro = GeForce 4 TI series - Somewhat of a tie
Radeon 9700 Pro = GeForce FX 5800 Ultra - ATI wins

Weren't the 9500 and 9700 both part of the same generation? The GF4 Ti series were DirectX8 cards, wouldn't they be in direct competition with the the Radeon 8X00 series? I know there was an overlap as the FX 5800 didn't get released till well after the 9700 Pro, but weren't the GF 4 cards pretty much in their twighlight by that time anyway?

 

[ronnn]

I would take hardcop, not that they aren't biased. They let you know what to expect in actual gameplay versus some of these dumb fps tournaments and they are not afraid to have a controversial opinion. Every site has advertisers and personal connections in the industry. Bias is part of it. Beyond3d has very detailed reviews - which can be handy - . Anatech has some good reviews, but most are limp. Like the last round of HL2 source stuff. No opinion on 6 x aa, just fps wars with a resolution nobody I know uses. Left the feeling the only reason they included it, was that the pro wouldn't run. If you are going to declare the gt - best bang - lets back it up with something of interest to most.

 

[FuFighterStan]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Radeon 9500 Pro = GeForce 4 TI series - Somewhat of a tie
Radeon 9700 Pro = GeForce FX 5800 Ultra - ATI wins

Weren't the 9500 and 9700 both part of the same generation? The GF4 Ti series were DirectX8 cards, wouldn't they be in direct competition with the the Radeon 8X00 series? I know there was an overlap as the FX 5800 didn't get released till well after the 9700 Pro, but weren't the GF 4 cards pretty much in their twighlight by that time anyway?

Yeah, i wouldn't compare the 9500 Pro with the GeForce 4 series. The 9500 cards were ATI's midrange to the 9700 high end. So a direct comparison would be to Nvidia's mid and high range cards during that generation... wouldn't that be the 5600 and 5800? Either way, i'd give the nod to ATI there. The 8500 cards would be more of a comparison to the GeForce 4.

 

[SneakyStuff]

xgiYour lack of knowledge amazes me. Listen to other forum members, lurk for awhile, while you learn what's true, and what's false. THEN mabye you should start posting. You are spreading misinformation, and nothing more.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: FuFighterStan

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Radeon 9500 Pro = GeForce 4 TI series - Somewhat of a tie
Radeon 9700 Pro = GeForce FX 5800 Ultra - ATI wins

Weren't the 9500 and 9700 both part of the same generation? The GF4 Ti series were DirectX8 cards, wouldn't they be in direct competition with the the Radeon 8X00 series? I know there was an overlap as the FX 5800 didn't get released till well after the 9700 Pro, but weren't the GF 4 cards pretty much in their twighlight by that time anyway?

Yeah, i wouldn't compare the 9500 Pro with the GeForce 4 series. The 9500 cards were ATI's midrange to the 9700 high end. So a direct comparison would be to Nvidia's mid and high range cards during that generation... wouldn't that be the 5600 and 5800? Either way, i'd give the nod to ATI there. The 8500 cards would be more of a comparison to the GeForce 4.

I agree, 9500 series should be compared with 5600 series since both were released as mid-range cards in the same generation, a TI4200 performs nowhere near a 9500Pro by the way.

p.s: OMG XGI, you got 89 posts in 3 days :shocked:

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Uh no. Check out AT's review of the 5700U. They gave it the midrange crown. It is faster than the 9600XT in general. Just barely actually either card you get youll be happy with but the 5700U edges out ahead.

-Kevin

Anandtech went out of their way to select games (OGL) where the 5700U excels, just like what Firingsquad does. If you check out a broad selection of reviews with a lot of games the 9600XT is faster and runs with higher IQ. The 4AA on the 5700U is more like 2AA on the 9600XT and lately NV has been using extreme AF opts that look like crap. So some of the later reviews it?s hard to compare because NV is dropping IQ so much.

hardocp

The GV-R96X128D (9600XT) was able to go one step above the GV-N57U128D (5700U) and enable anisotropic filtering and still maintain higher performance. We also found this trend to be true in Tomb Raider: AOD and Need For Speed: Underground. In Tomb Raider: AOD we were able to run the R96X at 2XAA whereas the N57U had to have AA and AF both disabled to achieve playable performance. In NFS: Underground we were able to run at the R96X?s highest anisotropic level and still maintain faster performance overall.

xbit

ATI RADEON 9600 XT. With disabled full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering it outperforms its competitors on NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra in the majority of benchmarks due to faster DirectX9 pixel shaders performance and higher VPU frequency. But in heavy modes, with enabled FSAA and AF NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra manages to take revenge very often due to higher memory bus bandwidth and aggressive anisotropic filtering optimizations.

Same thing in ?.

nordichardware
amdmb.com
driverheaven