Considering they're both top-end performers, Noise easily becomes the most important thing to me, and thus GTX it is... assuming they become more readily available and drop to a better price soon.
Considering they're both top-end performers, Noise easily becomes the most important thing to me, and thus GTX it is... assuming they become more readily available and drop to a better price soon.
Does that program now fully support the X1900 cards? Last I heard there were still some things you could only do with CCC, but that was a while ago.
The X1900XT seems to be a pretty nice deal at the current prices and I might try it out if it's possible to get around the driver issues.
Like all others have said, it really just depends on your preferences.
ATi:
Long-term
-Better AF (Although neither company has done a truly wonderful job here, IMO)
-Better AA SCALING (Less FPS hit w/ higher AA, although neither card can single-handedly use much higher than 4xAA in newer games & maintain good FPS)
*AVIVO (Not really a win, as this card wouldn't exactly be good for HTPC anyway...)
*Better shader performance (Although this could be debated, and I honestly think it really won't make a bit of difference- No matter what "features" are supported, both cards will still be just as "outdated" when newer games arrive)
Short-term
-More available & better prices (1900XT at ~450 = best value for ultra high-end)
nVidia:
Long-term
-Better AA QUALITY (TRAA or whatever it's called looks a bit better, although you can't really make much use of this unless in SLI or in older games)
-Quieter & cooler (Good for HTPCs)
-Better Linux support
*SLI is better than Crossfire (Although that depends on whether or not Crossfire ever manages to catch up w/ SLI, or if it remains an eternal game of catch-up for ATi)
Short-term
*SLI (Same as before; it's subjective...)
ATi:
Long-term
-Better AF (Although neither company has done a truly wonderful job here, IMO)
-Better AA SCALING (Less FPS hit w/ higher AA, although neither card can single-handedly use much higher than 4xAA in newer games & maintain good FPS)
*AVIVO (Not really a win, as this card wouldn't exactly be good for HTPC anyway...)
*Better shader performance (Although this could be debated, and I honestly think it really won't make a bit of difference- No matter what "features" are supported, both cards will still be just as "outdated" when newer games arrive)
Short-term
-More available & better prices (1900XT at ~450 = best value for ultra high-end)
nVidia:
Long-term
-Better AA QUALITY (TRAA or whatever it's called looks a bit better, although you can't really make much use of this unless in SLI or in older games)
-Quieter & cooler (Good for HTPCs)
-Better Linux support
*SLI is better than Crossfire (Although that depends on whether or not Crossfire ever manages to catch up w/ SLI, or if it remains an eternal game of catch-up for ATi)
Short-term
*SLI (Same as before; it's subjective...)
I;ve got an idea.
Someone start a CS:S server. fanATIcs are the terrorists. nVidiots are the CTs.
Whoever wins = better video card company
/thread
Someone start a CS:S server. fanATIcs are the terrorists. nVidiots are the CTs.
Whoever wins = better video card company
/thread
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Wow thats a really good idea! lol that would solve it once and for all. I would rather be a CT though, its those nvidia people that are terrorists!
DeathReborn
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2005
- 2,786
- 789
- 136
Originally posted by: Soviet
Wow thats a really good idea! lol that would solve it once and for all. I would rather be a CT though, its those nvidia people that are terrorists!
Play it twice, each side gets to be the CT's once & the T's once. Now if only it was CS 1.6... i'd get in on that fight, lol.
i had a powercolor 1900xtx and i was not impressed. I saw faint diagnal lines moving across the screen with this card. really distracting. Driver support was awful ex) no shadows in CS:S and AA and AF did not work occasionally in bf2. Also the pcb is paperthin so the card was slighty bending due to the pressure of the huge heatsink.
I will never buy another ATI product. The ATI cards don't seem to be as polished as nvidia. Nivida card has way thicker pcb and drivers are simple and reliable. Sure AF and the ability to do HDR + AA is nifty but to me the cons outweighed the pros
I will never buy another ATI product. The ATI cards don't seem to be as polished as nvidia. Nivida card has way thicker pcb and drivers are simple and reliable. Sure AF and the ability to do HDR + AA is nifty but to me the cons outweighed the pros
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,552
- 136
Never bought a Powercolor card before so not sure of their quality. I think you need to seperate ATI from Powercolor. As ATI, much like nVidia do not actually manufactor most of the cards out there. They usually put out a reference design and it's up to companies like EVGA, Sapphire, HIS, Asus, etc to do contract manufactorers and stuff. And it's also up to them to those companies to make any changes they feel is needed from the reference design (very rare, usually just a hsf change). If the pcb is paper thin on your Powercolor card, it'd be Powercolor's fault, not ATI.
Puzzling about the diagnal lines and stuff though as I haven't heard anyone else with this problem. Video problems as with any computer problems can be difficult to trace.
I got a Powercolor x1900xt too, and it also bends, but no other issues. As far as I'm concerned, speed + IQ > heat, noise, bcb color, driver mem footprint, ...
Anyone here running a x1900 xt(x) on a nforce 4 motherboard? Any compatibility issues? That would be the only thing that would keep me from going to an ATI vid card.
Yeap, I run one on an asus A8N32 SLI Deluxe. No problems whatsoever.
Though I do have an issue with the heat it produces.
When temps go up, my frame rates drop in games noticably, I dont know whether thats just the card, or another issue. Thats not to say frame rates still arent great.
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
I wish one of them would have made their product with a dumb crippling thing, like one only has 256 mb ram or the other only uses GDDR2 crap or somthing... Would make picking a winner easier.
Elfear made a good summing up of pro's/con's on the first page, but hes only done the X1900, so ill just quote finnys pro/con list. Pretty much the same stuff.
I conclude that the overall for your average gamer who wouldnt notice the difference between the different AA/AF's and dosent use a multi GPU setup or some other niche thing like dual monitors, and since the performance is the same, the 7900GTX is better. If you have a niche situation or game at really high resolutions, high in my definition is above 1280x1024 which is my LCD's max, then maybe the X1900 should be a consideration. Also i wouldnt consider linux support to be a factor, who games in linux? No doubt somone does, but its just... crazy. Im not simply assuming what the "average" gamer has, im basing it on what i have and what the results of that really big survey taken by valve. It looked pretty accurate.
7900GTX uses less power and makes less noise apparently, although the average gamer isnt gonna care about these things either, they are better off with them than without....
Dont take it badly X1900 fans! I own one, and its a fantastic card, its just IMO the 7900 edges it out by a tiny margin with its slightly more efficient design, both cards are power beasts but 7900 simply sucks less juice. Cant really vouch for its noise output, but the overall view is that its quieter.
Elfear made a good summing up of pro's/con's on the first page, but hes only done the X1900, so ill just quote finnys pro/con list. Pretty much the same stuff.
I conclude that the overall for your average gamer who wouldnt notice the difference between the different AA/AF's and dosent use a multi GPU setup or some other niche thing like dual monitors, and since the performance is the same, the 7900GTX is better. If you have a niche situation or game at really high resolutions, high in my definition is above 1280x1024 which is my LCD's max, then maybe the X1900 should be a consideration. Also i wouldnt consider linux support to be a factor, who games in linux? No doubt somone does, but its just... crazy. Im not simply assuming what the "average" gamer has, im basing it on what i have and what the results of that really big survey taken by valve. It looked pretty accurate.
7900GTX uses less power and makes less noise apparently, although the average gamer isnt gonna care about these things either, they are better off with them than without....
Dont take it badly X1900 fans! I own one, and its a fantastic card, its just IMO the 7900 edges it out by a tiny margin with its slightly more efficient design, both cards are power beasts but 7900 simply sucks less juice. Cant really vouch for its noise output, but the overall view is that its quieter.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,007
- 126
No but the X800XL I was using was the most stable video card I've ever used and it also works better than the 7800GT. Also my 9700Pro worked far better on my old nForce3 than my 6800U did.
In my experience ATi cards work better on nVidia chipsets than nVidia cards do.
Ronin
Diamond Member
Megatomic
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 20,127
- 6
- 81
I had the following on my NF3 motherboards:
ATI X800 Pro
ATI X800XL
Sapphire X800GTO2
I never had any of them on my NF4 SLI mobo, but I can tell you that they in no way compare to the 7900GT in my system now performance wise. Granted you said 7800GT, but they are close enough in speed for this arguement.
What did you mean by "works better" anyways?
Ronin
Diamond Member
could you be more specific?
my last 4 chipsets have been nf2(msi), nf3(dfi, msi, chaintech), nf4(dfi) and an 865pe (msi).
have run both nv and ati on each of those boards and have not had a single "stability" issue on any of them, and the only "compatibility" issue i had was an old 8500 that wouldn't run Sacrifice (required w-buffers with weren't supported by ati iirc).
both gfx cards and cpu's have all been overclocked on these systems.
so i am kind of scratching my head wondering what the heck you could be doing that's causing all these stability and incompatibility issues... of course, i don't count things like shadows in bf2 being borked on my XT as "stability and compatibility" issues, tho i suppose that could fall under compatibility (but that's on an ati part and unrelated to mb chipset)...
I'm in too.
But I dont have a preferance of card, though I do prefer being Terrorist as CT's get it too easy most of the time. I'll own you all...
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,007
- 126
The infamous DEP issue, pausing/stuttering/freezing in 3D games, and other general game compatibility problems.
The former two are known issues with NF3 and didn't happen on my 9700 Pro with the same motherboard.
My current driver issues for both vendors.
I might add that the Call of Duty issue has been present since the 61.77/6800U/NF3 and I have it again on NF4/84.21/7800GT. That's almost two years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter