Discussion of ATI vs Nvidia build quality and other topics

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: error8
But that's exactly it. It doesn't offers much, just like PhysX . Do you want me to link you to the jumping balls dx 10.1 demonstration movie ATI has, to show you the differences? You're right, PhysX has the upper hand on eye candy improvement, but dx 10.1 path is faster on cards and games that use it correctly.

Well that's certainly your opinion about physics, but to anyone who isn't blind or trolling that's clearly not the case in games that implement hardware accelerated physics or demos that enable physics features that clearly have not been done in real-time previously.

Yes, chizow, in your fantasy land, cloth and more glass particles on the floor it makes the game so much more immersive and better. Oh and let us not forget the hail map in UT3. And again, there is GRAW 1 and 2 that I just have no idea where it had PhysX, since I've seen none with my 8800 GT. Very impressive stuff. Is there any other game that I forgot to include?

Originally posted by: chizow
But I do agree about DX10.1, its so unremarkable its simply not worth mentioning.

Yes, having a couple of games run faster on dx 10.1 is totally unremarkable
Here we can see 4890 performing faster on dx 10.1, at highest settings, then gtx 285 and that at a much lower price:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...890-1gb-review-20.html

Who said I consider ATI cards inferior just because of this feature? There's about 8-9 other considerations that precede PhysX where Nvidia parts are superior, starting with performance.

Now please, roll out those 8-9 considerations that show Nvidia parts more superior, so that I can troll over them.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: error8
Yes, chizow, in your fantasy land, cloth and more glass particles on the floor it makes the game so much more immersive and better. Oh and let us not forget the hail map in UT3. And again, there is GRAW 1 and 2 that I just have no idea where it had PhysX, since I've seen none with my 8800 GT. Very impressive stuff. Is there any other game that I forgot to include?

Uh, no in my fantasy land hardware accelerated physics are clearly superior compared to software accelerated physics effects. I've already linked some distinct differences with videos comparing cloth effects earlier in this thread. In the games you mentioned, along with retail titles like Mirrors Edge and Cryostasis, the difference is unmistakable between hardware and software PhysX. The same cannot be said between DX10 and DX10.1.

Yes, having a couple of games run faster on dx 10.1 is totally unremarkable
Here we can see 4890 performing faster on dx 10.1, at highest settings, then gtx 285 and that at a much lower price:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...890-1gb-review-20.html

So once again, what does DX10.1 offer that can't be accomplished in DX10, especially since its been shown Nvidia parts can also benefit from such implementations with FC2. I've already acknowledged marginal performance gains, often at the expense of shoddy implementation, but that doesn't offer anything in the way of features over DX10. This is the great irony of course when certain folks criticize PhysX and its cosmetic eye-candy. They can't even make the same claim for DX10.1, which they inevitably try and draw parallels to!

Now please, roll out those 8-9 considerations that show Nvidia parts more superior, so that I can troll over them.

Of course you'd be trolling, Nvidia parts are clearly superior:

1) Performance
2) Overclockability
3) Cooling, Temps, Power Draw
4) Warranty, overall build quality
5) Vendor Support and Resources (EVGA ftw)
6) Driver Support (particularly for new titles)
7) Game/software Bundle
8) 1st and 3rd party utilities and driver features
9) CUDA application acceleration (non-PhysX)

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: chizow

Of course you'd be trolling, Nvidia parts are clearly superior:

1) Performance
2) Overclockability
3) Cooling, Temps, Power Draw
4) Warranty, overall build quality
5) Vendor Support and Resources (EVGA ftw)
6) Driver Support (particularly for new titles)
7) Game/software Bundle
8) 1st and 3rd party utilities and driver features
9) CUDA application acceleration (non-PhysX)

Where's "Image Quality" in your list?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: chizow

Of course you'd be trolling, Nvidia parts are clearly superior:

1) Performance
2) Overclockability
3) Cooling, Temps, Power Draw
4) Warranty, overall build quality
5) Vendor Support and Resources (EVGA ftw)
6) Driver Support (particularly for new titles)
7) Game/software Bundle
8) 1st and 3rd party utilities and driver features
9) CUDA application acceleration (non-PhysX)

Where's "Image Quality" in your list?

Not to mention Transparency AA, ambient occlusion, etc.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: chizow

Of course you'd be trolling, Nvidia parts are clearly superior:

1) Performance
2) Overclockability
3) Cooling, Temps, Power Draw
4) Warranty, overall build quality
5) Vendor Support and Resources (EVGA ftw)
6) Driver Support (particularly for new titles)
7) Game/software Bundle
8) 1st and 3rd party utilities and driver features
9) CUDA application acceleration (non-PhysX)

Where's "Image Quality" in your list?

Not to mention Transparency AA, ambient occlusion, etc.

Well, personally, I'd just include those as aspects to Image Quality.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: error8
Yes, chizow, in your fantasy land, cloth and more glass particles on the floor it makes the game so much more immersive and better. Oh and let us not forget the hail map in UT3. And again, there is GRAW 1 and 2 that I just have no idea where it had PhysX, since I've seen none with my 8800 GT. Very impressive stuff. Is there any other game that I forgot to include?

Uh, no in my fantasy land hardware accelerated physics are clearly superior compared to software accelerated physics effects. I've already linked some distinct differences with videos comparing cloth effects earlier in this thread. In the games you mentioned, along with retail titles like Mirrors Edge and Cryostasis, the difference is unmistakable between hardware and software PhysX. The same cannot be said between DX10 and DX10.1.

Yes, having a couple of games run faster on dx 10.1 is totally unremarkable
Here we can see 4890 performing faster on dx 10.1, at highest settings, then gtx 285 and that at a much lower price:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...890-1gb-review-20.html

So once again, what does DX10.1 offer that can't be accomplished in DX10, especially since its been shown Nvidia parts can also benefit from such implementations with FC2. I've already acknowledged marginal performance gains, often at the expense of shoddy implementation, but that doesn't offer anything in the way of features over DX10. This is the great irony of course when certain folks criticize PhysX and its cosmetic eye-candy. They can't even make the same claim for DX10.1, which they inevitably try and draw parallels to!

Ok, I had enough of that, so I don't want to argue it anymore, since it's not going to get anywhere. I'll still keep my point and you'll be keeping yours and from one thing to another, the thread gets locked.

Originally posted by: chizow

Now please, roll out those 8-9 considerations that show Nvidia parts more superior, so that I can troll over them.

Of course you'd be trolling, Nvidia parts are clearly superior:

1) Performance
2) Overclockability
3) Cooling, Temps, Power Draw
4) Warranty, overall build quality
5) Vendor Support and Resources (EVGA ftw)
6) Driver Support (particularly for new titles)
7) Game/software Bundle
8) 1st and 3rd party utilities and driver features
9) CUDA application acceleration (non-PhysX)

1) ATi has a videocard that is able to fight at any performance level with Nvidia's cards, with some minor exceptions: it doesn't have a single GPU card as fast as GTX 285 ( but it has 4850X2 cheaper and faster for that) and again is loosing the battle at the very highest level, GTX 295 being faster then 4870X2. At any other level, they're about equal.

2) Debatable. Some ATi cards overclock like shit others overclock nice. It's the same in Nvidia's garden.

3) Yes, at idle, Nvidia wins hands down. At load, the battle is tighter. At cooling, come on, you know that ATi has cards with aftermarket coolers, just like Nvidia does. 4870 has a nice beefy "cold" cooler. 4850 stock one, had some issues, but so was the 8800 GT in the beginning . You can't generalize here. Both companies had some problems at cooling at some point. There is no way I see Nvidia's cards cooler. Quieter, I don't think so. Fans are tweakable and everyone can reach their desired silence/performance level.

4) Warranty, I can't speak about that as I don't know. Overall build quality? Nvidia has better build cards? How is that? Prove it!

5) Agreed. Ati doesn't have a vendor like EVGA and so, no step up, which is great indeed.

6) Usually the problems that came out in the last games, have been "repaired" with newer catalysts versions, except FarCry 2, that ATi ignored and I hate them for that.

7) Ati has games in their card's boxes too. I thought you knew that. Software bundle, I have no idea, since I never look on the DVDs that come with my cards. PowerDVD is not a criteria when buying a videocard, though.

8) Huh?Where is the Nvidia's superiority here?

9) Agreed. Nvidia wins here, but F@H works on ATi's gpus too, although slower.

Frankly, I don't see a Nvidia superiority from your 9 points. I agree that it has it's good features that ATi lacks, but as long as I don't care about idle power consumption, CUDA, don't have money for the best card on the market, I can buy myself an ATI card. Nvidia's superiority doesn't stop me.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage



Not to mention Transparency AA, ambient occlusion, etc.

Well, ATi has adaptive AA. Ambient occlusion improves image quality indeed, but from what people are saying on the forums, the performance drop is catastrophic.
And what etc stands for? What are the other image quality improvements?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Wreckage



Not to mention Transparency AA, ambient occlusion, etc.

Well, ATi has adaptive AA. Ambient occlusion improves image quality indeed, but from what people are saying on the forums, the performance drop is catastrophic.
And what etc stands for? What are the other image quality improvements?

Superior AF, game physics, less driver issues that affect IQ....

I'm sure the list could be 100 and you would dismiss it. Not sure why you are asking if you don't really want to know.

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

I got a GTX260 for around $200.

What's really funny is that if there weren't for the HD4870 (you know, the card that is so 'inferior' to nvidia's GTX260 according to him) he would probably have had to pay close to $400 for it.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage


Superior AF, game physics, less driver issues that affect IQ....

I'm sure the list could be 100 and you would dismiss it. Not sure why you are asking if you don't really want to know.

From what you've seen, I'm not dismissing facts. I'm not like you. If Nvidia has something better and it truly is better, I will admit it.
But when I'm asking you what is better and you start speaking again of physics, it's clear that you don't really know what's superior on Nvidia's image quality. Moving around in circles, saying the same thing over and over again, until it reaches 100.
Sadly I'm not able to find an AF comparison between Nvidia and ATi, but surely I will not take your word for it.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: chizow

Of course you'd be trolling, Nvidia parts are clearly superior:

1) Performance
2) Overclockability
3) Cooling, Temps, Power Draw
4) Warranty, overall build quality
5) Vendor Support and Resources (EVGA ftw)
6) Driver Support (particularly for new titles)
7) Game/software Bundle
8) 1st and 3rd party utilities and driver features
9) CUDA application acceleration (non-PhysX)

Where's "Image Quality" in your list?

Not to mention Transparency AA, ambient occlusion, etc.

Well, personally, I'd just include those as aspects to Image Quality.

Yep valid points, I didn't include IQ because they're pretty similar for the most part, the only thing that would really bother me is the texture shimmering on ATI parts, which is much better on 8-series or better Nvidia parts, but not completely absent either.

Originally posted by: error8
1) ATi has a videocard that is able to fight at any performance level with Nvidia's cards, with some minor exceptions: it doesn't have a single GPU card as fast as GTX 285 ( but it has 4850X2 cheaper and faster for that) and again is loosing the battle at the very highest level, GTX 295 being faster then 4870X2. At any other level, they're about equal.

2) Debatable. Some ATi cards overclock like shit others overclock nice. It's the same in Nvidia's garden.

3) Yes, at idle, Nvidia wins hands down. At load, the battle is tighter. At cooling, come on, you know that ATi has cards with aftermarket coolers, just like Nvidia does. 4870 has a nice beefy "cold" cooler. 4850 stock one, had some issues, but so was the 8800 GT in the beginning . You can't generalize here. Both companies had some problems at cooling at some point. There is no way I see Nvidia's cards cooler. Quieter, I don't think so. Fans are tweakable and everyone can reach their desired silence/performance level.

4) Warranty, I can't speak about that as I don't know. Overall build quality? Nvidia has better build cards? How is that? Prove it!

5) Agreed. Ati doesn't have a vendor like EVGA and so, no step up, which is great indeed.

6) Usually the problems that came out in the last games, have been "repaired" with newer catalysts versions, except FarCry 2, that ATi ignored and I hate them for that.

7) Ati has games in their card's boxes too. I thought you knew that. Software bundle, I have no idea, since I never look on the DVDs that come with my cards. PowerDVD is not a criteria when buying a videocard, though.

8) Huh?Where is the Nvidia's superiority here?

9) Agreed. Nvidia wins here, but F@H works on ATi's gpus too, although slower.

Frankly, I don't see a Nvidia superiority from your 9 points. I agree that it has it's good features that ATi lacks, but as long as I don't care about idle power consumption, CUDA, don't have money for the best card on the market, I can buy myself an ATI card. Nvidia's superiority doesn't stop me.

Again, my point of view is taken as a whole with few exceptions:

1) Yep Nvidia parts lead in performance with few exceptions, just as I said.

2) Sure there's going to be exceptions, but overall Nvidia parts overclock better than ATI parts historically.

3) With cooling I'm referring mainly to the reference dual slot cooler, which imo is superior to any after-market solution as it does a better job of not only cooling the GPU, RAM and VRMs, but it also exhausts heat out of the case. Nvidia's heat sinks are provably better, meaning more material with fins, heat pipes etc., but the fans are also noticeably more efficient resulting in less noise.

4) Lifetime warranty from a variety of domestic vendors > limited warranties, some requiring you to ship overseas last I heard.

5) I'm not just referring to things like step-up, I'm also referring to their forums, customer service, and support of the enthusiast community in general.

6) Not saying most don't get fixed or that Nvidia is perfect, I'm saying I don't see nearly as many problems ATI users are seeing in new titles within the first few months of release.

7) You mean ATI has pictures of games on their boxes (Mass Effect)? I know some ATI partners do bundle games (usually the cross-vendor partners), but Nvidia partners typically bundle better games more consistently.

8) Nvidia drivers allow for game specific profiles and much more control in general, particularly with SLI profiles. Other tools like nHancer, Precision, EVGA voltage utility supplement the NV CP functionality.

9) I was actually referring to video transcoding also, like Cyberlink software and Badaboom. F@H and Seti are certainly important for some, but not me.

So yes, while you may disagree with some of my points, I've clearly shown there's no shortage of advantages for Nvidia parts that supercede PhysX.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: chizow

I was actually referring to video transcoding also, like Cyberlink software and Badaboom.

Cyber Link supports Stream just as they do CUDA.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow

Again, my point of view is taken as a whole with few exceptions:

1) Yep Nvidia parts lead in performance with few exceptions, just as I said.

2) Sure there's going to be exceptions, but overall Nvidia parts overclock better than ATI parts historically.

3) With cooling I'm referring mainly to the reference dual slot cooler, which imo is superior to any after-market solution as it does a better job of not only cooling the GPU, RAM and VRMs, but it also exhausts heat out of the case. Nvidia's heat sinks are provably better, meaning more material with fins, heat pipes etc., but the fans are also noticeably more efficient resulting in less noise.

4) Lifetime warranty from a variety of domestic vendors > limited warranties, some requiring you to ship overseas last I heard.

5) I'm not just referring to things like step-up, I'm also referring to their forums, customer service, and support of the enthusiast community in general.

6) Not saying most don't get fixed or that Nvidia is perfect, I'm saying I don't see nearly as many problems ATI users are seeing in new titles within the first few months of release.

7) You mean ATI has pictures of games on their boxes (Mass Effect)? I know some ATI partners do bundle games (usually the cross-vendor partners), but Nvidia partners typically bundle better games more consistently.

8) Nvidia drivers allow for game specific profiles and much more control in general, particularly with SLI profiles. Other tools like nHancer, Precision, EVGA voltage utility supplement the NV CP functionality.

9) I was actually referring to video transcoding also, like Cyberlink software and Badaboom. F@H and Seti are certainly important for some, but not me.

So yes, while you may disagree with some of my points, I've clearly shown there's no shortage of advantages for Nvidia parts that supercede PhysX.

3) I still don't agree with you on the cooling department. 4870 has a great stock cooler, that cools everything and exhausts hot air outside your case and that can be had without ear shattering noise. If I could, I would give you a 4870 to test it yourself and see if it's that noisy. I have volt modded my card with the stock cooler, so I guess that says a lot of the efficiency of the fins and heat pipes .The "problem" was only the stock cooler on 4850, which at some cards and in some particular badly ventilated cases, could have been at fault for some crashes and issues.

4) There are vendors at ATI with lifetime warranty too. Maybe not as much as Nvidia has, but still, they are. Lifetime warranty, however, doesn't mean that much for the usual enthusiast, that changes videocards and cpus every couple of months. To me, a card with 1 year warranty is just as good as one with 100 years.

8) Voltage utilities are used on ATi cards as well and I might say even better, since the newer GTX 260-285 variants do not have the volterra chip, "guilty" for voltage mods. ATi has ATi tray tools and other little programs just like Nvidia. This is surely not a bonus for Nvidia.

9) Cyberlink and gpu acceleration for videos are available on ATi too.

5) Clearly the support, customer service , forums for ATi are unknown to you, since you never owned an ATi card and didn't had problems with it, at least in the last years when Nvidia had shown its supremacy.

6) Frankly, when I bought my card, I expected more problems in games with it, but besides FC2, the only other game that didn't work right from the start, was Brothers in Arms, that had issues in the Black Friday level and it could not be played from there on. The catalyst solved that of course. Other issues I have not found. Maybe ATi had bigger problems in the past with games, I don't know that exactly, but we are now speaking about the current generation and drivers support today is pretty darn good.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: error8
3) I still don't agree with you on the cooling department. 4870 has a great stock cooler, that cools everything and exhausts hot air outside your case and that can be had without ear shattering noise. If I could, I would give you a 4870 to test it yourself and see if it's that noisy. I have volt modded my card with the stock cooler, so I guess that says a lot of the efficiency of the fins and heat pipes .The "problem" was only the stock cooler on 4850, which at some cards and in some particular badly ventilated cases, could have been at fault for some crashes and issues.

Again, I'm not saying the 4870's cooler isn't good, I'm saying Nvidia's cooler is superior in every way. You can look at reviews that disassemble them where the Nvidia reference is larger with a bigger copper block, more fins, and more heatpipes. The fan, while similar is larger for Nvidia, allowing for more CFM at lower RPM, meaning less noise for similar efficiency. This is clearly indicated in reviews measuring noise, temps and RPM along with subjective comments about the 4870 being loud at 40% or higher with a higher pitched whine due to the smaller size and higher RPMs. You typically don't hear comments like that until the GT200 fans hit 75%+.

4) There are vendors at ATI with lifetime warranty too. Maybe not as much as Nvidia has, but still, they are. Lifetime warranty, however, doesn't mean that much for the usual enthusiast, that changes videocards and cpus every couple of months. To me, a card with 1 year warranty is just as good as one with 100 years.

I thought it was just XFX? In any case, it goes beyond lifetime warranty, as many Nvidia partners also cover overclocking and removal of the heatsink for aftermarket or reapplication of thermal compound.

8) Voltage utilities are used on ATi cards as well and I might say even better, since the newer GTX 260-285 variants do not have the volterra chip, "guilty" for voltage mods. ATi has ATi tray tools and other little programs just like Nvidia. This is surely not a bonus for Nvidia.

Yep, you can always flash your BIOS too to manipulate voltages, but again, EVGA covers voltage mods done with their utility via warranty. As for support of non-Volterra VRMs, last I checked EVGA said they were still planning support. Precision is Nvidia-only and while RivaTuner supports both, Unwinder typically gets his fixes out for Nvidia parts sooner (especially now that his work is subsidized by EVGA).

5) Clearly the support, customer service , forums for ATi are unknown to you, since you never owned an ATi card and didn't had problems with it, at least in the last years when Nvidia had shown its supremacy.

I'm not talking about vendor forums, Nvidia has nZone as well, I'm talking about EVGA's own forums, which distinguishes itself from general help forums as everyone there actually uses the hardware, most consider themselves enthusiasts, and overall have a high level of knowledge. EVGA's techs and employees are also very active in discussions there. Its easily the most focused resource to compare hardware and performance, as the concentration of enthusiast-type builds means there's a lot of similarity.

6) Frankly, when I bought my card, I expected more problems in games with it, but besides FC2, the only other game that didn't work right from the start, was Brothers in Arms, that had issues in the Black Friday level and it could not be played from there on. The catalyst solved that of course. Other issues I have not found. Maybe ATi had bigger problems in the past with games, I don't know that exactly, but we are now speaking about the current generation and drivers support today is pretty darn good.

Well I can certainly list off another 4-5 pretty significant issues with AAA titles released over the last 6 months or so, but no need to start yet another list is there?

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow
but no need to start yet another list is there?

Yeah, I guess we had already too many lists here. There is no way we can settle for a peace, so it's better to just leave it there. You just see Nvidia "better"and that's all. No matter how many arguments I'll try to give you, to make the sun shine over ATI, you'll always find counterarguments for them ( even though, some don't really have a solid base )

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: error8
Yeah, I guess we had already too many lists here. There is no way we can settle for a peace, so it's better to just leave it there. You just see Nvidia "better"and that's all. No matter how many arguments I'll try to give you, to make the sun shine over ATI, you'll always find counterarguments for them ( even though, some don't really have a solid base )

Heh, you asked, I answered with little difficulty why someone would prefer Nvidia even without PhysX in the equation. ATI certainly makes for a fine alternative, they would certainly be my 2nd choice.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: error8
Yeah, I guess we had already too many lists here. There is no way we can settle for a peace, so it's better to just leave it there. You just see Nvidia "better"and that's all. No matter how many arguments I'll try to give you, to make the sun shine over ATI, you'll always find counterarguments for them ( even though, some don't really have a solid base )

Heh, you asked, I answered with little difficulty why someone would prefer Nvidia even without PhysX in the equation. ATI certainly makes for a fine alternative, they would certainly be my 2nd choice.

Fair enough. Although, I have a feeling that we'll fight again sometime, on the same subject .:moon:

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: chizow
4) Warranty, overall build quality

Got anything to back that up? nRollo said the same thing but couldn't actually prove it.

Performance is neck and neck. I'll grant OCing (as in percentage) is somewhat higher on nV cards. I like the coolers on nV cards as they generally stay quiet as well but cooling capability is about the same if you don't mind the noise. Temps CAN be kept very low depending on how much noise you're willing to put up with. Power draw is also fairly even (ie. Core 216 slightly better than 4870 1GB while 4890 slightly better than 275). Vendors are mostly better for nV cards (and this is a big swaying point for me) but since XFX came on board it's gotten better for ATI. Game bundles are better for nV cards.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Although this is going OT, its hard to say which side has better overall build quality. If your talking about a comparision between HD4890 and GTX275, Id say ATi is better. ATI is currently using digital PWM unlike nVIDIA. The power circuitry of the HD4890 is leagues ahead of what you find on a GTX275 since nVIDIA went "eco" on this area with the GTX275. To be abit more specific, the HD4890 uses 5+2 phase design for its power supply section where it utilizes two volterra VT1165MF chips (one for gpu, and the other for memory where the voltages can be controlled via software), not to mention some of the chips are utilizing CSP (chip scale package) technology. Its competition on the other hand uses a cheaper low end 6 phase design, using very cheap components for its power circuitry (very cheap compared to what you find on the HD4890 and initial GTX series cards), while limping on the stock cooling, reducing the number of fins and heat pipe, also using cheaper DVI connectors compared to the ones they used initially. I could also add in the buzzing or squealing noises which are apparent with GTX series cards more so than its competition due to the power supply section of the GTX series being analogue in nature. Overall build quality definitely goes to ATi, because the components that it uses are just in a whole different playing field compared to the GTX275. Actually Im just lost for words when you take a look at the component it uses while comparing to its retail price tag!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Got anything to back that up? nRollo said the same thing but couldn't actually prove it.

Not sure what nRollo was referring to, but for me it certainly starts with the heatsink, as I've already covered. Nvidia's high-end parts have also always had the fastest RAM modules available, most recently with DDR3 which has allowed them to postpone the switch to DDR5. DDR3 was supposed to cap out at 1000MHz, but today you'll find stock DDR3 hitting 1300MHz and overclocking close to 1500MHz.

Their reference designs also tend to feature more PCB layers than the competition, with I believe 12 or 14 on their original GT200 designs and similar on their previous high-end. Only recently has Nvidia given into their partner's requests for cost-cutting non-reference designs, as seen with the GT200b GTX 260 and explained in this blurb. I know Expreview had a pretty big write-up about the changes too but I can't find it atm.

Anyways, to me this helps explain why Nvidia parts are consistently better overclockers, as more PCB layers, higher quality components, and superior cooling have been shown to result in more stable voltages and overclockability with other parts, like motherboards and CPUs. I believe ATI finally realized this as well with 4890 and upgraded their PCB from 8 to 10 layers and beefed up some other components. Fortunately for Nvidia, the cost-cutting detailed in the link above didn't seem to hurt their overclockability, again, a testament to their overkill approach to quality control.

Performance is neck and neck.

Only recently has this been true for the last few years, and ATI's best single-GPU effort is still only roughly equivalent to Nvidia's 2nd or 3rd fastest part which offered that level of performance nearly 10 months ago.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: thilan29
Performance is neck and neck.

Only recently has this been true for the last few years, and ATI's best single-GPU effort is still only roughly equivalent to Nvidia's 2nd or 3rd fastest part which offered that level of performance nearly 10 months ago.

Chizow is that even remotely true?

The reviews I have read of the 4890 have it pretty much neck-and-neck with the GTX285, and when overclocked, the 4890 beats it badly. How is that equivalent to NV's 2nd or 3rd best part?

TBH I think that your post is blatant misinformation, Chizow.

Link to Xbit review

In the race again GeForce GTX 285 the regular Radeon HD 4890 wins in six tests out of fifteen, while the overclocked one wins in eleven and draws in one.

In some cases it was even enough for the new solution to defeat an even more powerful rival ? GeForce GTX 285. As for GeForce GTX 260 Core 216, it is no competitor to Radeon HD 4890 from several aspects, including the price.

Isn't the GTX280 NV's 3rd fastest part, or thereabouts? Which NV cards are you saying are faster than the 4890? Clearly the GTX280 is not as fast as the 4890.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: chizow
Their reference designs also tend to feature more PCB layers than the competition, with I believe 12 or 14 on their original GT200 designs and similar on their previous high-end. Only recently has Nvidia given into their partner's requests for cost-cutting non-reference designs, as seen with the GT200b GTX 260 and explained in this blurb. I know Expreview had a pretty big write-up about the changes too but I can't find it atm.

Have you considered they NEEDED those extra PCB layers? AFAIK having the 512/448-bit buses means you need more PCB layers. If they make a 256-bit version with GDDR5 and they still keep 12/14 layer PCBs THEN you can say yes they do that to improve quality (but I can guarantee you they wouldn't if it isn't needed).

"One of the reasons is that G92-based cards can be much simpler than G80-based solutions that require expensive and sophisticated 12-layer PCBs"
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...liss8800gt-1024gs.html

So if G80 cards required 12-layer PCBs, I'm willing to bet the newer GTX2XX series cards need it as well. nV is in the business of making money...if they can get away with 10 instead of 12 they'd do it, which is what happened with the 55nm 260.

Anyways, to me this helps explain why Nvidia parts are consistently better overclockers, as more PCB layers, higher quality components, and superior cooling have been shown to result in more stable voltages and overclockability with other parts, like motherboards and CPUs.

See Cookie Monster's post above...ATI uses higher quality components and it seems moreso than nV at the moment. Don't get me wrong I think both companies make some fine cards...but you can't prove one is higher quality than the other unless you have specific engineering knowledge of the cards.

Fortunately for Nvidia, the cost-cutting detailed in the link above didn't seem to hurt their overclockability, again, a testament to their overkill approach to quality control.

Another statement you can't possibly back up unless you have intimate engineering knowledge of the components used and within what tolerances, safety margins, etc they are operating.

Performance is neck and neck.

Only recently has this been true for the last few years
[/quote]

That's not what you stated in your original post where you listed your "reasons for superiority". You made a blanket statement which is false. They've gone back and forth in performance before and both companies have made mistakes (ie. R300 vs FX series or G80 vs R600).

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: SickBeast


The reviews I have read of the 4890 have it pretty much neck-and-neck with the GTX285, and when overclocked, the 4890 beats it badly. How is that equivalent to NV's 2nd or 3rd best part?

TBH I think that your post is blatant misinformation, Chizow..

More like your post is misinformation. An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16681

Which puts it behind the 280 & 285.

So at stock that puts the 4890 in 4th place.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Chizow is that even remotely true?

The reviews I have read of the 4890 have it pretty much neck-and-neck with the GTX285, and when overclocked, the 4890 beats it badly. How is that equivalent to NV's 2nd or 3rd best part?

TBH I think that your post is blatant misinformation, Chizow.

Link to Xbit review

In the race again GeForce GTX 285 the regular Radeon HD 4890 wins in six tests out of fifteen, while the overclocked one wins in eleven and draws in one.

In some cases it was even enough for the new solution to defeat an even more powerful rival ? GeForce GTX 285. As for GeForce GTX 260 Core 216, it is no competitor to Radeon HD 4890 from several aspects, including the price.

Isn't the GTX280 NV's 3rd fastest part, or thereabouts? Which NV cards are you saying are faster than the 4890? Clearly the GTX280 is not as fast as the 4890.

Do you even understand the benches and analysis in the article you linked? I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion the GTX 285 and the 4890 are neck and neck when your own review shows the GTX 285 dominating the benches by winning 9 of 15 games tested (66%, 2/3, 2:1 etc.), remaining consistent across resolutions. Only when the 4890 is overclocked by 18% does it eclipse the GTX 285, fortunately for the 285 it manages similar overclocks.

In any case, there's about 10 reviews here comparing the GTX 275 and 4890 head to head and most come to the conclusion the parts are very close with a slight edge to the GTX 275. There are also a few reviews that show the GTX 280 performs similarly to the GTX 275, however, its important to note most of the 260, 280, and 285 results are likely using older drivers and archived results.

Bit-Tech details the driver differences and shows the impact on performance, which is significant. If the 260, 280, and 285 were also tested those drivers, they would undoubtedly see similar gains, meaning any comparisons with the 4890 would be slightly off.

So in summary the 4890, ATI's best effort is still only the 2nd or 3rd fastest part on the market and an equivalent level of performance to what Nvidia has offered for nearly 10 months.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SickBeast


The reviews I have read of the 4890 have it pretty much neck-and-neck with the GTX285, and when overclocked, the 4890 beats it badly. How is that equivalent to NV's 2nd or 3rd best part?

TBH I think that your post is blatant misinformation, Chizow..

More like your post is misinformation. An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16681

Which puts it behind the 280 & 285.

So at stock that puts the 4890 in 4th place.

There is a problem with that review. In the Xbit review, the 4890 beat the 285 in Crysis Warhead. In the AT review, they were pretty much tied.

Even if you want to consider your review as accurate, the 4890 wins in 1 of the 5 games tested (Left 4 Dead), ties in another two (Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3), and barely loses in Crysis Warhead. The only game it came in "4th place" was COD: WAW. How you can call that 4th place overall is beyond me. Not only that, but the majority of the reviews I have read show the 4890 beating the 285 in Crysis Warhead, or at the very least tying it.

Now you're posting false information as well, Wreckage. I would have thought you would have learned something while on vacation.