Going for nvidia from ATI

[gxsaurav]

I have a Gigabyte Radeon 9600 Pro with 128 MB RAM, I m getting a great deal if I sell my card, & get a Gigabyte FX5700 based card, how good is a FX5700 non Ultra over a Radeon 9600 Pro. My work includes casual gaming with quality of image the most important, usually I play games at 1024X768 with 2X AA & 2X Anis. Filtring.

80% of the time I spend with my PC is on Windows or 2D, so is the 2D quality of nvida better, same or worse then ATI

The ATI drivers have already given me some trouble in past even in 2D application compatibility like when playing with RealOne Player, DVD used to hang till catalyst 4.1, & other sort of probs. I need to know Do the drivers for nvidia atleast provide stable & good quality 2D image & 3D Image with this FX5700, are they better then Catalyst for ATI with 2D

Well, my Radeon supports VPU recoverer, is there anything like this for the nvidia FX cards, as it has helped me a lot during crashes

 

[imported_Phil]

The difference you'll see won't be huge. In fact, you're better off spending your money on a 9800 Pro or a 5900/5950 Ultra card than a 5700. The 2D quality these days is pretty much the same between nVidia & ATI, although I prefer ATI's - it seems a tiny tiny bit sharper for me.

As far as I know, there's no "VPU Recover" feature for nV cards yet.

 

[Markfw]

I have not seen the 5700 personally, even though I have seen many other Nvidia cards. Of those I have seen ATI has allways had better quality 2d.

 

[gxsaurav]

Ok, so ATI has better 2D quality then nVidia, now what about the drivers, as I have heard that nvidia drivers are better then ATI, & and I already had probs with ATI drivers in 2D Mode, atleast all my friends who have nvidia FX5700 cards, never had any compatibility issue with either 2D or 3D

 

[imported_Phil]

I have never had any problems with 2D or 3D and I have a 9600 Pro. Some will say that ATI's drivers are terrible, some will say that they're great. Personally, I've never thought that they were anything other than perfectly good.

 

[Monoman]

Originally posted by: gxsaurav
Ok, so ATI has better 2D quality then nVidia,

No, IMO NVIDIA looks better. I have now a Fx5900U upgraded from a 9500pro and I can tell the difference. Driver support is no competition. It's NVIDIA's high point. back to the OP, MATROX has the best 2D quality

 

[LTC8K6]

It looks like the 5700 non ultra is a step down to me.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
It looks like the 5700 non ultra is a step down to me.

Oh, I didn't see that it was a non-Ultra card.

In that case, Radeon 9600 Pro, hands down.

[Edit]

Some useful 5700 non-Ultra benchmark scores

 

[Vernor]

Nvidia has Digital Vibrance, which some people can't do without.

 

[bluemax]

If you sold the 9600 Pro, bought the 5700 and wound up with a wad of cash left over, I'd say go ahead!

The two are pretty close in speed and quality - the 9600 Pro being a little faster, but not by a great deal.

 

[gxsaurav]

So, nvidia and ATI have preety much the same 2D Quality, well, OK, preety much same is good enough for me. Matrox has best 2D quality that I know & I swear by that, IMO they are best in 2D

Now what about Driver stability, as FX 59xx is not avalible here I can't go for that. What is this Digital Vibrance, I have never seen it in display porperties of nvidia cards

 

[biostud]

I've had 3 different cards in my PC last 3 months and the 2D quality was as follows

5900XT<<4200Ti<9800pro

5900XT was really blurry and the 9800pro was just a bit sharper than my old GF4 Ti4200.

 

[bluemax]

I've used two nVidia solutions and an ATI.

Hercules Radeon 8500LE
nForce2 IGP
GF4MX-440

The output from the GF4MX and 8500Le are almost impossible to tell apart. The imbedded nForce2, however, is much lower quality.

I'd say brand is almost more important than chipset. Go for a reputable brand and you SHOULD be good either way.

Powercolor, HIS, and some other no-name-brands are often best to be avoided because the quality often suffers.