Poll: Inconsistency in AnAndTech Video Card Reviews, NVIDIA vs. ATI

[LiquidCyanide]

After just reading the ATI Radeon 64MB DDR and Radeon LE reviews, it seems that the results for the tests were a little off. In the review for the ATI DDR it shows the GeForce2 GTS beating the ATI DDR by just a little bit (6fps) in 640x480x32, but in the Radeon LE review the GTS beat the ATI DDR by a large amount (20fps) in 640x480x32.

What is accounting for these inconsistencies, one shows the ATI DDR as equal to the GTS, the other shows The ATI performing in par with the "value" cards. The same situation applies for the tests in Unreal Tournament, except the GTS only beats the ATI DDR by about 10fps. I don't believe the tests were using different 3D techniques (OpenGL vs. D3D for example) and even if they were the results shouldn't be this far off from each other.

In the opinions of those out there what is the best Vid Card, most bang for the buck, overall. I was planning on chocking out the 150 for an ATI Radeon 64MB DDR, but then saw the LE review and saw its praises. But now I wonder, "How well does the Radeon really perform?" Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the difference in the test results.

Thanks :Q

 

[kylebisme]

ahh thats too easy, diffrent drivers and diffrent systems can make that much of a diffrence

 

[lsd]

Check the review dates genius.
Both have had A LOT OF DRIVER UPDATES. Next time you post something like this do a search; another genius asked the same quesion.

 

[uknemesis]

<< Check the review dates genius.
Both have had A LOT OF DRIVER UPDATES. Next time you post something like this do a search; another genius asked the same quesion. >>



What's your problem? He's obviously a newbie with this forum, no need to jump down his throat is there!

Nemesis

 

[chizow]

A totally legit question.

As he doesn't know of the horrendous drivers that ATI releases, he could not have known that they actually released one that did what it was supposed to do.....render images.

Chiz

 

[lsd]

<< He's obviously a newbie with this forum >>


I don't think so.


<< A totally legit question >>


BS. Who the heck can bring up such a question but can not see the DATES ARE ALMOST A YEAR APART.


I smell trolls.

 

[jobberd]

the stench is probably originating from you
he is a JUNIOR member, and on top of that, it is pretty easy to miss the dates on the articles if you're not looking for them. Liquid Cyanide had no idea that it had anything to do with different drivers, so he wasn't looking for the dates

 

[lsd]

<< it is pretty easy to miss the dates on the articles if you're not looking for them >>


What??? take a look agian. One of the first things you see when you open those pages are DATES


<< no idea that it had anything to do with different drivers >>


No idea??? Then you tell me how else there can be a big difference in the numbers since you think you're so smart.

 

[jobberd]

What??? take a look agian. One of the first things you see when you open those pages are DATES


and if you also look, you'll see that it is at the very top of the page, away from all the writing and information, which the typical newbie might want to read right away to understand why the performance differs

No idea??? Then you tell me how else there can be a big difference in the numbers since you think you're so smart.

um, if you didn't know too much about video cards, I doubt you would automaticaly assume that the drivers are the main readon for performance variations

 

[LiquidCyanide]

I would assume then that NVIDIA has released superior drivers when compared to ATI's released drivers?

1 Year Ago
ATI Radeon 64MB DDR - D7.11-CD01
NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS 64MB DDR - Detonator 5.30

Semi-Current
ATI Radeon DDR 32MB - 4.12.7103
NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS 64MB DDR - 11.01

It seems ATI can't even keep a standard form in naming their driver versions, but why woudl ATI produce such a good card and just flop when it came to driver realeases. Or answerign my second question, are the ATI cards just not that good.



PS lsd go OD and stop flaming. I did a thorough search on the platforms used here but since I am looking at the cards relative to each other that shouldn't matter all that much, unless this is another one of ATI's inconsistencies in universal support, the same way that the Radeon won't play some games, it won't perform well on some mobos.

 

[Rage187]

Whats w/ the senior members lately??

Getting a little nasty to someone new...


Nice to have you here Liquid, ignore the 15year olds...

 

[Compellor]

<< BS. Who the heck can bring up such a question but can not see the DATES ARE ALMOST A YEAR APART. >>



He overlooked it, obviously.



<< It seems ATI can't even keep a standard form in naming their driver versions, but why woudl ATI produce such a good card and just flop when it came to driver realeases. Or answerign my second question, are the ATI cards just not that good. >>



This is old news. Many ATi Radeon owners will claim how great the card performs, but the benchmarks speak for themselves. I'm not saying the Radeon is a bad video card; I just don't like numbers that I see. The 2D quality of the Radeon is what draws most people to buy one, so, the benchmarks are totally useless unless you're buying one for games and games ONLY. In that case, you need to look a little closer at the benchmarks, and get some advice/feedback from people that actually own one. But, don't believe everything you read.

 

[LiquidCyanide]

I was sorta lookign for that here too, I want to see what owners of these cards think of their cards. I've read alot of reviews and alot of data. the Radeon seems liek a good choice cause I liek to watch movies and I do want VIVO and good TV out quality. If i had the money I'd get a GeForce 3, but it doesnt seem worth it casue anything over 30 frames is good to me, seeing I'm used to playing Unreal Tourny at an average of about 12fps.