Ok, I likes ati, but now they came out with new 3.2 drivers. And I installed just to find out that bf1942 no longer works correctly (display curruptions all over the place, see through ground, etc) and it screwed up system. Reverted back to old 3.1 and works fine. ATI really pissed me off with this crap, so I think my next card will me a nvidia card (since there drivers are rock solid, and high quality). What do you all think ?
Switching back to nvidia, good idea ??
- Thread starter bsr
- Start date
Until Nvidia gets their act together concerning regulations on OEMs about the 2D image quality of their boards, I will not be considering them at all. It just depends on what a person wants to do...if you're a gamer, then maybe you're willing to sacrifice in 2D IQ to get more compatible drivers, but if you're a person who works with desktop publishing, Photoshop, or Maya, you'd be better off steering clear of an nvidia card in favor of an ATI, Matrox, or 3DLabs one.
Yeah, I find every driver release from nVidia always helps my computer :rolleyes;
Mind you, that might be because I can never tell if a release is an actual release or not, at least ATi seems to have better control over driver releases.
You should report your problem to the ATi driver team so they can work on a fix for the next set, and if your card works fine with the 3.1's, then why complain that your (unnecessary) driver upgrade made things worse? You have one set of working drivers, is that a problem?
Mind you, that might be because I can never tell if a release is an actual release or not, at least ATi seems to have better control over driver releases.
You should report your problem to the ATi driver team so they can work on a fix for the next set, and if your card works fine with the 3.1's, then why complain that your (unnecessary) driver upgrade made things worse? You have one set of working drivers, is that a problem?
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
wait for nv35 and switch back to nvidia. I have never had any problems whatsover with my geforce but i will admit that image quality is not that good when compared to matrox. but at least i can run my games without crashes/artifacts/incompatabilities
I might stick with ati now, after prowling around in other forums, I find that people with 9500 and 9700 dont have this problem. But people with 8500 and 9000 do ... And they might fix it bcause nots of others have same problems, and we reported.
There is currently no good reason to switch back to nVidia when comparing _CURRENTLY_ widely available products. The Radeon 9700 Pro beats the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 pretty easily in every category.
nVidia's drivers are no better than ATI's I've had insane ammounts of problems with nVidia's drivers. I also don't like "guessing" what nVidia changed in their drivers, while ATI actually lists all the individual changes and improvements in their drivers.
nVidia's drivers are no better than ATI's I've had insane ammounts of problems with nVidia's drivers. I also don't like "guessing" what nVidia changed in their drivers, while ATI actually lists all the individual changes and improvements in their drivers.
Ati updates their drivers Way more and they are getting better and better all of the time. Ati is looking a lot like the Nvidia that crushed 3dfx a few years ago and that certainly is a good thing. The Cat drivers are pretty decent. Even though nvidia does have better drivers, Ati is certainly getting there. In a few months I will expect to see almost every problem worked out.
No I am not. I use CRTs, because they do still have a little advantage over LCDs in color rendition, and I require any video card that I use to be able to send a good quality image to the CRT using the analog connection. Cards based on nvidia chips (at least all of them that I've experienced, but the older GFMX are the worst of all), and some powered by ATI cards do not do this well. Built by ATI cards are my preferred choice where cost and 3D performance matter, but 2D image quality at high resolutions and refresh rates are also important. Matrox has by far some of the best 2D IQ, but their 3D performance isn't that great. 3DLabs cards are best for professional 3D applications, but they're a bit overpriced for basic 2D work.
I have owned no less than 10 Geforce4 cards, also several Radeon 8500's, 9000's, 9500's and 9700's. I found the 2D image quality of the GF4 to be the equal of the Radeon 8500, 9500 and 9700. To be honest the only card that had a definate advantage in 2D image quality was the 9000 series.
You may not notice too many differences if you are using a powered-by-ATI card, or if you don't have a high quality monitor, or if you don't use a high enough resolution and refresh rate (1600x1200@85Hz will make things more apparent, but I notice the difference even at lower resolutions), or if you aren't wearing your glasses.
I returned the only Nvidia card I ever bought because of driver problems.
It'll be a long time before I ever try another Nvidia card.
It'll be a long time before I ever try another Nvidia card.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Image quality on Nvidia cards is down the the individual brands,you`ll find Leadtek,Gainward are probably the best for image quality Nvidia card wise,as to your gaming question,well I game a lot on servers and believe me there `re more gamers that use Nvidia cards then ATi cards,I`ve spoken to quite a few and overall most gamers prefer Nvidia cards for gaming ,mainly because the drivers are better then ATi.
Ati drivers are improving but still not up to the standard of Nvidia drivers IMHO.
Switching back to Nvidia is not a bad idea,in my books it`s as good as staying with ATi especially if drivers and gaming is your top priority.
ATi does have very good image quality but if you go with a top image quality brand from Nvidia you should still be happy.
In the end you have the choice between ATI and Nvidia so it`s your call
.
jliechty, I have a 19" Mitsubishi Diamondtron NF and a 20" Sony Trinitron. Some of the cards where retail "built by ATI", and in case you didn't know it many of the 9500-9700 retail video cards are actually built by Sapphire. I usually run my desktop at 1152 x 864 or 1280 x 960, I find at 1600 x 1200 the text is getting too small. Perhaps there is a difference in resolutions that high, but in medium or lower ones I don't notice any difference. My eyes are fine and that's why I notice the lowly 9000 is the sharpest of all. Not trying to be rude, but your system rigs show you have only a couple of low end ATI cards and some average monitors. How many 8500, 9500, 9700, or GF4 cards have you owned? This isn't a case of the reviews make me a know it all, is it?
There was a time when ATI had better 2D then Nvidia. That time is over now and they are very close, it now comes down to personal preference.
There was a time when ATI had better 2D then Nvidia. That time is over now and they are very close, it now comes down to personal preference.
When I described my experience with various cards, I was including ones that I used on other systems that I do not own. That totals about 3 different Nvidia Gforces, and 5 various ATI cards. The Powered by ATI cards often do have worse image quality than the built by ATI cards (I've tried both, and on the same monitor, there is a noticable difference). Maybe the GFs that I saw just weren't the highest quality brand.Originally posted by: rogue1979
jliechty, I have a 19" Mitsubishi Diamondtron NF and a 20" Sony Trinitron. Some of the cards where retail "built by ATI", and in case you didn't know it many of the 9500-9700 retail video cards are actually built by Sapphire. I usually run my desktop at 1152 x 864 or 1280 x 960, I find at 1600 x 1200 the text is getting too small. Perhaps there is a difference in resolutions that high, but in medium or lower ones I don't notice any difference. My eyes are fine and that's why I notice the lowly 9000 is the sharpest of all. Not trying to be rude, but your system rigs show you have only a couple of low end ATI cards and some average monitors. How many 8500, 9500, 9700, or GF4 cards have you owned? This isn't a case of the reviews make me a know it all, is it?
There was a time when ATI had better 2D then Nvidia. That time is over now and they are very close, it now comes down to personal preference.
And FWIW, if the refresh rate is high enough and the video card supports it properly, 1600x1200 is fine on a 19 inch. My one powered-by-ATI card (may or may not be in my rigs list, can't remember), when driving my 19 inch monitor at 1600x1200, makes the text appear "too small", but that's only because of it's inferior 2D IQ. "Real" ATI Radeons, when driving the same monitor, allow me to use 1600x1200 with my eyes at ease.
My experiences with Matrox and 3DLabs have been very limited, but their quality seems to be better than ATI, according to those who have used the cards with monitors deserving of that high of a signal (i.e. high end Sony, Mitsubishi, et. al.). With my US$300 19 inch monitor, I doubt you could see a difference between a good ATI card and a Matrox one.
Originally posted by: rogue1979
jliechty, monitors. How many 8500, 9500, 9700, or GF4 cards have you owned? This isn't a case of the reviews make me a know it all, is it?
There was a time when ATI had better 2D then Nvidia. That time is over now and they are very close, it now comes down to personal preference.
Just as ATI's drivers have gotten alot better they still arent quite at Nvidia's level yet. And similarly Nvidia's 2D has improved but I wouldnt say its equal to that of ATI.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
Originally posted by: Mem
Image quality on Nvidia cards is down the the individual brands,you`ll find Leadtek,Gainward are probably the best for image quality Nvidia card wise,as to your gaming question,well I game a lot on servers and believe me there `re more gamers that use Nvidia cards then ATi cards,I`ve spoken to quite a few and overall most gamers prefer Nvidia cards for gaming ,mainly because the drivers are better then ATi.
Ati drivers are improving but still not up to the standard of Nvidia drivers IMHO.
Switching back to Nvidia is not a bad idea,in my books it`s as good as staying with ATi especially if drivers and gaming is your top priority.
ATi does have very good image quality but if you go with a top image quality brand from Nvidia you should still be happy.
In the end you have the choice between ATI and Nvidia so it`s your call
my point exactly...
image quality does not depend on the chip itself, but the RF filters on the card...
Well, AFAIK, I did say (edit: imply) that it depends on the board manufacturer, and apparently all of the ones I saw (which honestly were not that many, and I'm not sure what brand they were) sucked in the 2D IQ department. That does not mean that all Nvidia boards do (as apparently Leadtek and a few others mentioned are better). I'd still choose an ATI or Matrox card over any Nvidia-based one, but that's just because I'm too picky about my 2D IQ, and I don't play many games.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
I don't think switching back to nVidia is a good idea unless you're having horrendous problems with your ATi card.
Regarding the 2D issue, ATi usually slightly edges nVidia at 1600 x 1200 x 85 Hz from my testing. Both vendors are good but the Radeon looks slightly sharper and crisper.
Regarding the 2D issue, ATi usually slightly edges nVidia at 1600 x 1200 x 85 Hz from my testing. Both vendors are good but the Radeon looks slightly sharper and crisper.
I just adjusted to 1600 x 1200 with a GF4 and it looked fine, clarity was good. I sometimes kick back in my chair and get far away from my monitor, and 1600 x 1200 text is really getting physically small. I prefer larger text.
Originally posted by: jliechty
My experiences with Matrox and 3DLabs have been very limited, but their quality seems to be better than ATI, according to those who have used the cards with monitors deserving of that high of a signal (i.e. high end Sony, Mitsubishi, et. al.). With my US$300 19 inch monitor, I doubt you could see a difference between a good ATI card and a Matrox one.
I have also owned several Matrox cards, and they are definately sharper in 2D then ATI or Nvidia, no question about it.
I just fired up a Radeon 9500 Pro and did a comparison. First thing I noticed again was the 9000 was clearer sharper than the 9500 or the GF4. On a plain white background with black text, the 9500 did have a small advantage in text sharpness. But on a colorful web page the Radeon color saturation and contrast was lacking compared to the GF4, and no amount of color adjustment with the ATI control panel could make it match the GF4 color quality. Surfing online, the better color rendering of the GF4 made the 2D look better than the somewhat washed out ATI, more than making up for the small advantage the 9500 has in text, which was mainly noticable in black text on a white background. I guess since Sapphire makes most of the built by ATI 9500 and 9700's, then according to you they would have inferior 2D anyway. If may main 2D concern was razor sharp text with no compromises, I would just run a Matrox. If I put my main emphasis on 2D text clarity with some decent 3D performance, I would choose the 9000 series. If I wanted good 2D with awesome 3D power, the GF4 or the 9500-9700 cards would be my choice. Again this is just my preference from my own personal experience on my own machines, not based second hand on "reviews" or limited time on a "borrowed" system.
Here is a short history of Nvidia 2D quality vs. ATI from my own personal experience.
Geforce2 - Inferior 2D quality, some were worse than others. Although if you knew how you could remove the low-pass filter capacitors and get very close to original Radeon 2D.
Geforce3 - better 2D quality, but still clearly not as good as Radeon, still a big difference between various manufacturers.
Geforce4 - a match for Radeon 8500, 9500 and 9700 in 2D quality (my opinion). I have owned GF4's from MSI, Gainward, Asus, Jaton, Aopen, Abit and a few others. I noticed that all the cards had equal 2D quality.
I might add that I was slightly disappointed that the 9500-9700 did not have improved 2D quality above the 8500 series. The 9000 has something on the other ATI cards with a sharper 2D text clarity. I think this would be a great choice for desktop 2D work station, with the bonus for decent 3D gaming power. The 9000 doesn't seem to get much recognition and often gets criticized for being slower than the 8500. But it is still much faster than the original Radeon series that many people prefer for a budget 2D/3D video card.
Geforce2 - Inferior 2D quality, some were worse than others. Although if you knew how you could remove the low-pass filter capacitors and get very close to original Radeon 2D.
Geforce3 - better 2D quality, but still clearly not as good as Radeon, still a big difference between various manufacturers.
Geforce4 - a match for Radeon 8500, 9500 and 9700 in 2D quality (my opinion). I have owned GF4's from MSI, Gainward, Asus, Jaton, Aopen, Abit and a few others. I noticed that all the cards had equal 2D quality.
I might add that I was slightly disappointed that the 9500-9700 did not have improved 2D quality above the 8500 series. The 9000 has something on the other ATI cards with a sharper 2D text clarity. I think this would be a great choice for desktop 2D work station, with the bonus for decent 3D gaming power. The 9000 doesn't seem to get much recognition and often gets criticized for being slower than the 8500. But it is still much faster than the original Radeon series that many people prefer for a budget 2D/3D video card.
I too had this problem in BF1942 using the 3.2s/9000Pro with the BF1942 1.3patch. I just installed the 1.31patch and these artifacts have disapeared on my rig.
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