Microsoft recommending ATI gfx cards over Nvidia cards for Vista at this time due to...wait for it, go on, wait...

[Reliant1]

Don't know if it's been covered because I don't want to read through all the tinfoil hat posts but it likely has to do with the ATI drivers requiring .NET framework to be installed.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Only because ATI agrees to whore your system out with Microsofts .net framework. I installed that garbage along with ATI drivers and box went from using 80MB idle to over 400MB!! Totally rediculous IMO.

As far as Vista? Still using win2K and will probably for several more years until winXP's bugs are worked out then I'll move to that, maybe.

What you got running at idle? Cause I got Zonealarm, Newsbin 5, Netlimiter and Norton Antivirus Corp., Firefox running in the background and it's 470MB RAM commit. The CCC components take 21MB of RAM...at least that's what Taskmanager says. Either way, I do agree the CCC is bloated but I doubt it'll make you go from 80MB idle to 400MB at idle.

And I think MS is pimping ATI's cards cause of the Xbox 360 deal and the fact nVidia sued MS over the original Xbox.

 

[gtd2000]

Well I consider myself to be a very objectiive guy regarding most things in life...

ATI graphics cards have certainly been the most problematic by a HUGE margin by comparison to Nvidia.

I've encountered problems with 3 separate ATI 9XXX series cards on different systems - almost to the point that I would not consider ATI as a viable option.

I succumbed to building a new system for a buddy of mine who does not have a lot of cash to spare and (going against better judgement) advised him to purchase a Radeon 9550 as an upgrade. The card would not work in his system and as a result the motherboard and CPU was replaced as well...
(The card would run in safe mode without any problem at all but once the drivers loaded it would bluescreen or simply reboot)

I think that ATI hardware is generally decent (performance etc) but the drivers are still very much sub-par by comparision to Nvidia.

I'll be sticking with XP (and Nvidia) for as long as possible as far as I see it

 

[akugami]

ATI 9x00 cards and X800 cards in multiple systems (4 at home, 5 at various friends). No problem with the drivers. At least no crashes that can be traced back to the drivers. I'm wondering if you cleaned out all the old video card drivers before installing the new ones. While the ATI CCC is bloated, the ATI drivers themselves have pretty much been on par with nVidia's for nearly the last couple of years. With a proper installation ( uninstall drivers, Driver Cleaner to remove old drivers, install latest driver for video card) I have not encountered any BSOD's due to drivers on any ATI card made in the last two years.

 

[chilled]

This makes me feel so much better after having spend £100 on a 60GB 7K100 drive for my laptop.

 

[Sc4freak]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Only because ATI agrees to whore your system out with Microsofts .net framework. I installed that garbage along with ATI drivers and box went from using 80MB idle to over 400MB!! Totally rediculous IMO.

As far as Vista? Still using win2K and will probably for several more years until winXP's bugs are worked out then I'll move to that, maybe.

So you're saying that the CCC + .NET took up 320mb of system RAM? I'd like to see a screenshot of that, before and after.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: gtd2000
Well I consider myself to be a very objectiive guy regarding most things in life...

ATI graphics cards have certainly been the most problematic by a HUGE margin by comparison to Nvidia.

I've encountered problems with 3 separate ATI 9XXX series cards on different systems - almost to the point that I would not consider ATI as a viable option.

I succumbed to building a new system for a buddy of mine who does not have a lot of cash to spare and (going against better judgement) advised him to purchase a Radeon 9550 as an upgrade. The card would not work in his system and as a result the motherboard and CPU was replaced as well...
(The card would run in safe mode without any problem at all but once the drivers loaded it would bluescreen or simply reboot)

I think that ATI hardware is generally decent (performance etc) but the drivers are still very much sub-par by comparision to Nvidia.

I'll be sticking with XP (and Nvidia) for as long as possible as far as I see it

Funny.
My 9800 never had any problems.
My 7800GT in and of itself was fine, but the shipping VIVO drivers wouldn't install, and then when I found some that would, it made my PC BSOD over and over unless I either disabled or uninstalled them.
For every problem on one side, there is an alternate problem on the other side.
Then there's the whole nVidia drivers for motherboards issue (IDE drivers anyone? No thanks).

And something like 50% of the market is on integrated graphics, so yes, 9800Pro is on the whole for the average computer user "high end", since it's better than what over 50% of the entire PC user base has.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Sc4freak

Originally posted by: Zebo
Only because ATI agrees to whore your system out with Microsofts .net framework. I installed that garbage along with ATI drivers and box went from using 80MB idle to over 400MB!! Totally rediculous IMO.

As far as Vista? Still using win2K and will probably for several more years until winXP's bugs are worked out then I'll move to that, maybe.

So you're saying that the CCC + .NET took up 320mb of system RAM? I'd like to see a screenshot of that, before and after.

Exactly, 400MB. I wish i could show you but I sold the card the same day I got it mainly due to that fact. I'm used to my minimum services *and* nV drivers using about 62MB.


All I did was install OS, MS update which included both .nets, mobo drivers, DirectX, and CCC and it jumped way up there. Never even got around to installing apps or games cause I was'nt gonna put up with that kind of bloat.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Sc4freak

Originally posted by: Zebo
Only because ATI agrees to whore your system out with Microsofts .net framework. I installed that garbage along with ATI drivers and box went from using 80MB idle to over 400MB!! Totally rediculous IMO.

As far as Vista? Still using win2K and will probably for several more years until winXP's bugs are worked out then I'll move to that, maybe.

So you're saying that the CCC + .NET took up 320mb of system RAM? I'd like to see a screenshot of that, before and after.

Exactly, 400MB. I wish i could show you but I sold the card the same day I got it mainly due to that fact. I'm used to my minimum services *and* nV drivers using about 62MB.


All I did was install OS, MS update which included both .nets, mobo drivers, DirectX, and CCC and it jumped way up there. Never even got around to installing apps or games cause I was'nt gonna put up with that kind of bloat.

err... Let me guess your an Linux die hard fanboy and just make up some crazy numbers to make your argument that .NET is bad.

Originally posted by: Noob

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Has nothing to do with ATI drivers Otis.

1. nVidia sued MS over XBox
2. nVidia gets royalties on every XBox currently sold, for backwards compatibility
3. MS dumped nVidia from the XBox 360 project when they learned nVidia was designing the new chip for the market leader, Playstation

QFT. I doubt that it is really anything about their drivers, i think this is just one of the perks you get for partnering with MS. I think everyone in this thread is seeing right through this marketing.

Just to make it clear right now, i think both companies have EXCELLENT driver support nowadays with a slight edge to Nvidia for their superior Linux and x64 drivers (But then again they still have those blocky shadow problems in Far Cry and BF2 so )

-Kevin

ATI cards have the same probelm with the BF2 shadows as well. It's probably just another one of the many flaws with that game. Yet it's extremely addictive

NVIDIA got angry at M$ because they weren't making any profit out of the XBOX and M$ was keep on forcing Nvidia to reduce the gpu price.

ATI was developing a gpu for XBOX 360 before Sony ever even asked NVIDIA. Sony had some crazy plans to install 3 Cell processor that would do everything but then found out ?oh crap .. The cell are horrible for graphic? so they went crying to NVIDIA to make them a GPU :! But that was in late 2004 ? early 2005 when the deal was made. Then NVIDIA as usual said ?Screw Sony.. we aren?t doing special?. Then NVIDIA just took the G70 and made few changes and said to Sony ?hear you go?. In e3 2005 , PLaystation 3 GPU was like introduced like a desktop GPU while XBOX 360 GPU had special features to make it future proof + it was GPU especially built for TV.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

who wuill buy vista? with those kiund of requirements its not a new OS/a rebuilt OS but a blown up vsersion of win xp.
so vista will need atleast a 600 bucks computer to run. and thats not run well but just everything work.


*proud user of ubuntu 5.10
*laugh at windows users.

 

[hectorsm]

I would like to know what kind of hardware are the OEM going to use for Vista. Specially for their low end systems. It probably will not be as cheap as today's low end systems.

 

[Steelski]

Hey guys,
Have a look at this and tell me how much better Nvidia support is.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1787521&enterthread=y
Read the 6th post. I'm sure if the poster sees this he will agree that support for that game is a bit of a joke.

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: Rollo
3. MS dumped nVidia from the XBox 360 project when they learned nVidia was designing the new chip for the market leader, Playstation

What? Check your timelines.... MS picked ATI for the job LONG before nVidia had anything to with the PS3. Sony had nobody else to turn to when it realized it couldn't make the Cell do graphics so late in the game they opted for an off the shelf graphics chip from nVidia because ATI was already in with MS and Nintendo.