Hey Rollo,
Since you have owned both high-end ATI and Nvidia cards - if we put frames-per-second performance aside, if you were to compare last generation high-end cards (6800 Ultra and X800 XT PE) what actually "looks" best overall?
I've never used Nvidia, so I am curious about this. I started many years ago with Diamond Vipers, then went to Matrox Millenium, Millenium II, Millenium G450 with Quantum 3D X24 SLI (at the time 1024x768 Doom was the ultimate!), then 9800 Pro 128 and 256MB cards (yeah I had both) and now I use an X800 XT PE.
I'm not "married" to any manufacturer - I believe in using the best product for the job, no matter who makes it. Who cares about a fvcking label? So I want an un-biased answer from someone who has used both manufacturer's products recently.
NOTE: My brother, who is a gamer and systems consultant and well as a friend who is a systems consultant/gamer say that ATI's color rendition "looks" better. This also carries on over to text reading in applications and on the internet.
Although addressed to Rollo, constructive comments are welcome from anyone, but no flames please. However, anyone who does want to flame me can't bite me, OK?
Since you have owned both high-end ATI and Nvidia cards - if we put frames-per-second performance aside, if you were to compare last generation high-end cards (6800 Ultra and X800 XT PE) what actually "looks" best overall?
I've never used Nvidia, so I am curious about this. I started many years ago with Diamond Vipers, then went to Matrox Millenium, Millenium II, Millenium G450 with Quantum 3D X24 SLI (at the time 1024x768 Doom was the ultimate!), then 9800 Pro 128 and 256MB cards (yeah I had both) and now I use an X800 XT PE.
I'm not "married" to any manufacturer - I believe in using the best product for the job, no matter who makes it. Who cares about a fvcking label? So I want an un-biased answer from someone who has used both manufacturer's products recently.
NOTE: My brother, who is a gamer and systems consultant and well as a friend who is a systems consultant/gamer say that ATI's color rendition "looks" better. This also carries on over to text reading in applications and on the internet.
Although addressed to Rollo, constructive comments are welcome from anyone, but no flames please. However, anyone who does want to flame me can't bite me, OK?
IMO, my ATI Radeon 9500 PRO's analog output to LCD looks better than my current GeForce 6800's DVI output. I don't know what it is but it just looks better on my Radeon.
xtknight, I know you said "I don't know what it is..." but when you say "...it just looks better on my Radeon" can you try to be a little more speciifc?
Are you talking about the color saturation, the sharpness of detail, or the special effects themselves? You would think that the DVI output from your 6800 would look better just because the signal is pure digital, instead of being converted from digital to analog. Hmm...
I don't really have an answer for you on this. I used to like ATIs 2d better than anyone's, but they're so close now I'd be hard pressed to pick for IQ. (especially at gaming)
If I were to pick one differentiating feature, it would be transparency anti-aliasing. IMO, nVidia has a clear lead on gaming IQ with this.
Yeah I know...well...the GeForce 6800's colors look more washed out, just slightly. maybe my brain's messing with me...i don't know...i do know ATI has implemented better TMDS transmitters in their boards. maybe it's the placebo effect.
Not sure what you mean by special effects...we're talking about the Windows desktop here, right?
The colors are slightly more saturated, and as for the sharpness I'm not sure. My LCD sort of inhibits my ability to tell, because the LCD has to be analog-tuned. So the sharpness setting on the LCD will never be perfect and I can't tell.
Though why do you ask? Are you one of the few that actually take this in to consideration, or are you just concerned about 2D quality? If so, Matrox is clearly superior to either ATI or NVIDIA in 2D. I'd never take my Radeon 9500 over this 6800 for 3D performance, though, of course.
My Radeon 9500 PRO is in my old PC next to me, and I have a dual-input LCD so if you want I can do some more testing.
I don't want to offend anybody or get in any arguments, but for the people who have been asking about BF2 this is what I have to say (this is simply my personal experience, nothing more):
I have a FX55, 2GB OCZ Ram, and Raptor 74G 10K HD, and I play on a Dell 2405FPW at 1920x1200 resolution. A week ago, I was using a ATI X850 XT.
I have been playing BF1942 and HL2 on this machine in recent months. The x850 did great, except I had to turn down the AA for HL2 at 1920. It was a great card. My highest 3dMark05 score was 6,377 at 594/594 through the Catalyst CC. The demo for BF2 came out, and the x850 played Gulf of Oman at 1920x1200 with 6xAA what seemed to be smoothly. I did not imagine I would need to upgrade my card for quite some time.
And then BF2 actually came out. Kubra Dam, Mashtuur City, and especially, Songhua Stalemate lagged pretty bad. Other maps also were not great, but these three stick out in my mind. I love more than anything having the graphics turned up, and to turn down any of the settings was almost painful. I knew that I needed a new card, and luckily the 7800GTX had just come out. My framerate examples are from Songhua Stalemate.
ATI X850XT (AFTER turning down AA to 4x) - 15-25 fps, average about 18
7800GTX - 45-65, average about 55
The 7800GTX (single) made BF2 playable at all of the highest settings of 1920x1200, 4x(no 6x option) AA, and high detail on everything else. Essentially as high as it would let me go. Furthermore, the image quality is markedly improved from the x850xt. The colors are crisper and richer, and this is without adjusting anything, including Digital Vibrance.
The card also seems like a good overclocker - I, just today, got 8,674 on 3dmark05, with the settings 499/1.38 (stock coolers) (clocks set by Coolbits...3dmark05 read the Core clock at basically 540).
Point: If you want to be able to play BF2 at the highest settings smoothly and enjoyably, purchase the 7800GTX. It's worth it, and the performance increase actually resulted in my playing ability improving drastically in BF2, even in maps where I didn't know I was lagging previously. It simply became easier to do stuff, because it is completely fluid and without video lag. Love it.
Edit: I believe the x850xt CAN play Bf2 at the highest settings smoothly at sub 1600x1200 resolutions. It is when you go 1600x1200 or higher that the x850xt cannot do the job, and the 7800GTX is a must.
I have a FX55, 2GB OCZ Ram, and Raptor 74G 10K HD, and I play on a Dell 2405FPW at 1920x1200 resolution. A week ago, I was using a ATI X850 XT.
I have been playing BF1942 and HL2 on this machine in recent months. The x850 did great, except I had to turn down the AA for HL2 at 1920. It was a great card. My highest 3dMark05 score was 6,377 at 594/594 through the Catalyst CC. The demo for BF2 came out, and the x850 played Gulf of Oman at 1920x1200 with 6xAA what seemed to be smoothly. I did not imagine I would need to upgrade my card for quite some time.
And then BF2 actually came out. Kubra Dam, Mashtuur City, and especially, Songhua Stalemate lagged pretty bad. Other maps also were not great, but these three stick out in my mind. I love more than anything having the graphics turned up, and to turn down any of the settings was almost painful. I knew that I needed a new card, and luckily the 7800GTX had just come out. My framerate examples are from Songhua Stalemate.
ATI X850XT (AFTER turning down AA to 4x) - 15-25 fps, average about 18
7800GTX - 45-65, average about 55
The 7800GTX (single) made BF2 playable at all of the highest settings of 1920x1200, 4x(no 6x option) AA, and high detail on everything else. Essentially as high as it would let me go. Furthermore, the image quality is markedly improved from the x850xt. The colors are crisper and richer, and this is without adjusting anything, including Digital Vibrance.
The card also seems like a good overclocker - I, just today, got 8,674 on 3dmark05, with the settings 499/1.38 (stock coolers) (clocks set by Coolbits...3dmark05 read the Core clock at basically 540).
Point: If you want to be able to play BF2 at the highest settings smoothly and enjoyably, purchase the 7800GTX. It's worth it, and the performance increase actually resulted in my playing ability improving drastically in BF2, even in maps where I didn't know I was lagging previously. It simply became easier to do stuff, because it is completely fluid and without video lag. Love it.
Edit: I believe the x850xt CAN play Bf2 at the highest settings smoothly at sub 1600x1200 resolutions. It is when you go 1600x1200 or higher that the x850xt cannot do the job, and the 7800GTX is a must.
Man I could have typed up the exact same post!
I'll confirm everything he said. BF2 runs smooth as silk with everything on high including Transperancy Supersampling 8xS AA and 16x AF.
Thanks for responsing, Rollo. I went up on Nvidia's web site and was looking at the special effects demos. I have to say that the image quality looked pretty danm good. And thats' over the net'. Gotta look really good when you're sitting in front of a monitor. I am tempted by the 7800GTX, but if I really should wait a bit before I upgrade my GPU, as I will need a new PSU, PCI-E mobo, and (PCI-E) graphics card all at the same time. Could have (and should have) bought all three instead of my FX-57 but I was seduced by the Darkside! It was a tough decision between the 4800+ and the FX-57.
Although, it behooves me to wait until ATI releases the X900 lineup. I am dying to see what each company's 32 pipeline cards can do. I look forward to reviews and benchmarks of those products side-by-side.
I have heard that ATI's color rendition appears more "true to life" in photos, and that Nvidia's colors appear "washed-out" as well.Originally posted by: xtknight
Yeah I know...well...the GeForce 6800's colors look more washed out, just slightly. maybe my brain's messing with me...i don't know...i do know ATI has implemented better TMDS transmitters in their boards. maybe it's the placebo effect.
Not sure what you mean by special effects...we're talking about the Windows desktop here, right?
The colors are slightly more saturated, and as for the sharpness I'm not sure. My LCD sort of inhibits my ability to tell, because the LCD has to be analog-tuned. So the sharpness setting on the LCD will never be perfect and I can't tell.
Though why do you ask? Are you one of the few that actually take this in to consideration, or are you just concerned about 2D quality? If so, Matrox is clearly superior to either ATI or NVIDIA in 2D. I'd never take my Radeon 9500 over this 6800 for 3D performance, though, of course.
My Radeon 9500 PRO is in my old PC next to me, and I have a dual-input LCD so if you want I can do some more testing.
As far as special effects I am talking about stuff like AA, AF, fog, a shot from a Fuel Rod weapon in Halo, ect. If you've ever played Halo on a high-end system you know how cool the game looks with everything cranked up while playing really smooth.
As far as 2D quality goes, Matrox is probably still the best - thats why so many AutoCAD users chooses Matrox. Razor-sharp, rock solid images at ultra-high resolutions. I used to use Matrox cards, but todays best 3D cards are made by ATI and Nvidia (not necessarilly in that order).
I appreciate your offer to do more testing, but I am more interested in how image quality compares in more recent products. Thanks for your response and observations.
I can't speak for anyone else, but you're not offending me
in the least. I want to hear what people with current hardware have to say.
Basically, BF2 is a slide show with an X850 XT and the 7800GXT rocks. I use a Samsung 172X (17" LCD) with a native/maximum resolution of 1,280x1,024/70Hz refresh rate, so obviosly I can't run the same resolution that you enjoy, but thats OK because that just means BF2 will run even faster and I would also have the satisfaction of knowing that my GPU has headroom for more. I even have a "spare" 1GB PC3500 Level II DualPack in my desk drawer that I've been waiting to install when I got my new FX-57 with the ability to run 4x512MB at DDR400+.
Thanks for your input elsupremo - you too BroadbandGamer. When I upgrade my system my daughter gets my "old" stuff. She is lucky beyond all reasonable comprehension!
Aries64 - the 2D quality on ATI boards has not changed. The X800 XT PE still holds the throne for DVI compliance (among ATI/NVIDIA boards), according to Tom's Hardware Guide, though they haven't tested the 7800 yet.
The GeForce 7800 is superior to ATI in AA because it has the new transparent multi/supersampling AA. Both use gamma-corrected rotated-grid AA now. Personally I would get a Matrox card in addition to the GeForce 7800. That way for your 2D-critical work you could use the Matrox and the gaming you could switch to the 7800. Yeah that'll be a bit of a hassle but if 2D is at utmost importance, you don't have much choice. The X850XT PE has fully compliant 162 MHz TMDS, I think, which is a lot better than the 6800 that had around 150 MHz or so.
Fog-honestly no idea. I know NVIDIA has a special OpenGL extension for it (GL_EYE_RADIAL_NV), and I don't think ATI does. Does that mean anything? Well not necessarily...I'm guessing NVIDIA has the edge here.
I find it so intriguing there are still people like you around that actually care about this stuff...(and I'm saying that's a good thing).
The GeForce 7800 is superior to ATI in AA because it has the new transparent multi/supersampling AA. Both use gamma-corrected rotated-grid AA now. Personally I would get a Matrox card in addition to the GeForce 7800. That way for your 2D-critical work you could use the Matrox and the gaming you could switch to the 7800. Yeah that'll be a bit of a hassle but if 2D is at utmost importance, you don't have much choice. The X850XT PE has fully compliant 162 MHz TMDS, I think, which is a lot better than the 6800 that had around 150 MHz or so.
Fog-honestly no idea. I know NVIDIA has a special OpenGL extension for it (GL_EYE_RADIAL_NV), and I don't think ATI does. Does that mean anything? Well not necessarily...I'm guessing NVIDIA has the edge here.
I find it so intriguing there are still people like you around that actually care about this stuff...(and I'm saying that's a good thing).
I do want to add one thing, and will edit my other post too - at lower (sub 1600x1200) resolutions, I believe the x850xt CAN run BF2 at the highest settings smoothly. It is when you get into any of the higher resolutions (for me, 1920x1200) that the x850xt cannot do the job and the 7800GTX is a must.
Thanks for reading!
Thanks for reading!
I really don't do any critical 2D work, I just mentioned Matrox's 2D superiority because back in the day I used a 16MB Matrox Millenium II paired with a Quantum 3D Obsidian2 X-24 SLI for 3D gaming. If you are not familiar with that card the X-24 used dual Voodoo2 chipsets in a single 32-bit PCI slot (not really single slot, as the daughtercard that housed one of the chipsets pretty much blocked the adjacent PCI slot) and 24MBs' of memory.
As far as caring about image-quality I think its' important for consumers/prosumers to demand it from manufacturers' - if all we care about is how many 3D FPS we get then 2D quality could start to suffer. I use my PC for work as well as play, so I want my desktop to look good too.
I'm pretty sure that my X800 XT PE wil run BF2 smoothly (my LCD's maximum resolution is only 1,280x1,024) but I would mind having a 7800GTX! Thing is, in addition to getting a 7800GTX(s) I have to get a new mobo and PCI-E PSU. I'm thinking the PCP & C 510 SLI but I'm not sure about the mobo (SLI or single GPU).Originally posted by: elsupremo
I do want to add one thing, and will edit my other post too - at lower (sub 1600x1200) resolutions, I believe the x850xt CAN run BF2 at the highest settings smoothly. It is when you get into any of the higher resolutions (for me, 1920x1200) that the x850xt cannot do the job and the 7800GTX is a must.
Thanks for reading!
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter