What would you rather Have?

[Corey0808]

I've read a few reviews on both Nvidias and ATI's new video cards. Both companies have gone about things differently. I'm just curious to hear what you people think. Would you rather have the Nvidia because of the future vertex and pixel shaders, but it takes 2 molex connectors and takes up 2 slots but is king of performance. Or would you rather have the ATI that uses pixel shaders and everything for the games of today with a little bit slower performance but is quieter, takes up one slot and requires only one connector? Just curious post your thoughts

 

[Lonyo]

"King of performance".

Not really. It loses in a fair few tests, sucks with AA over 4x (for older games, or freaks ).
They're fairly even cards.

 

[araczynski]

fanboys will continue to be fanboys, price will dictate majority of purchases as before, they perform equally overall. good/bad on both sides.

as for which i'd choose, right now i don't know, but i definately won't be buying either anytime soon now that i know they're both pretty equal. I'll wait a while and let the drooling fanboys drive the prices down and let them improve the drivers, perhaps there'll be some improvement leaning toward one side (unlikely).

 

[Acanthus]

The 6800 GT is looking very attractive, although i was budgeted for a 6800U.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
"King of performance".

Not really. It loses in a fair few tests, sucks with AA over 4x (for older games, or freaks ).
They're fairly even cards.

Exactly there dosent seem to be an outright winner of performance here. But based on what ive seen i would go with ATI for achieveing that level of performance with only 1 molex connector and lower temps.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: Lonyo
"King of performance".

Not really. It loses in a fair few tests, sucks with AA over 4x (for older games, or freaks ).
They're fairly even cards.

Exactly there dosent seem to be an outright winner of performance here. But based on what ive seen i would go with ATI for achieveing that level of performance with only 1 molex connector and lower temps.

Ditto. Not one web site has crowned a vitor that I have read. Each has its own strenghs. I like the lower heat and power requirements of the ATI right now.

 

[Wingznut]

Whichever one that I could get the better deal on, at the particular time that I was ready to buy. They both seem to have their strengths and weaknesses, which even out overall.

I do have to say that if you are choosing your card based on how many molex connectors it takes, is pretty silly.

 

[JBT]

I think it really depends on how these cards are priced. the GT doesn't look to bad for $400 But either way I have to wait till the end of summer and by then PCI-Express will be out.

 

[Corey0808]

I'm definitely not buying one. I'm just asking for everyones thoughts on it. I wouldn't base my decision on that though. But Nvidia says that the recommended power supply size is 480W. I have an ANtec True430 I wouldn't go out and buy another power supply for a video card.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Whichever one that I could get the better deal on, at the particular time that I was ready to buy. They both seem to have their strengths and weaknesses, which even out overall.

I do have to say that if you are choosing your card based on how many molex connectors it takes, is pretty silly.

Yea but that means it takes more power to do basically the same job the X800 does (slightly better or worse depending on the game) and nvidia also even said that it requires a lot of power, wheres the X800 will run on a 300W PSU and somone even brought one along at the ATI launch event and proved it would run on one.

Upgrading a PSU isnt cheap it can add an extra 50-60 quid for a quality one or maybe 70-80 for nvidias recommended 480w quality and well your just better off buying an x800 instead of a 6800 and a new psu.

 

[biostud]

Ati (not that I'm going to change my 9800pro)

Less powerconsumption (1xMolex)
Seems to be faster with AA and FSAA
Runs faster on PS2.0 (We don't know much about how many and how well PS3.0 will be implemented in future game, so it might swith to nvidia if PS3.0 has a huge impact)

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

I'll go with whichever gives me better performance for the dollar. Period. I'm easy.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Neither. My next card will be bought when I build an entirely new system, either late this year or early 2005. By then the refreshes of these parts will be available. But it seems to me that the X800 PRO at $399 is at a sweet spot.

It will be interesting to see how the X800 SE (8 pipelines, DDR1 memory) compares with the 9800 PRO/XT.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: biostud666
Ati (not that I'm going to change my 9800pro)

Less powerconsumption (1xMolex)
Seems to be faster with AA and FSAA
Runs faster on PS2.0 (We don't know much about how many and how well PS3.0 will be implemented in future game, so it might swith to nvidia if PS3.0 has a huge impact)

AA speeds between the 2 architectures are very similar. NVIDIA is hurting in AF performance, but its a new implementation and probably has a lot of room for optimisation.

Power consumption is only 15% higher than the 9800Pro, its not like its some new monster chip that sucks up 350w... The 2nd molex is probably just being conservative to make sure the card gets enough power even under extended heavy load.

Those drivers that were tested on the 6800 have multiple known bugs ranging from performance to IQ issues, again we will see where that goes in a month when we can actually buy all this stuff.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

The higher end cards seem to be CPU limited anyway, so I wouldn't spend the money for one unless I was also planning to upgrade my system within a year.

Which begs the question. What would be the minimum card to max out a 3200+ as that's what I'll be sticking with quite a while? 9800 Pro? 6800 GT? X800 Pro?

 

[suklee]

a X800... b/c of 3 simple things:

1) less heat
2) only one power connector required
3) single slot solution

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I'm thinkin' 6800GT, ATi has been dragging it's feet on 64bit drivers and the only proper way to send the message that I'm disgruntled about it is with my money They don't need it? Fine by me. I was happily using XP pro 32bit and 64bit in a dual boot config until I got this 9800pro and I intend to get back to it ASAP. Why? The latest Det's had performance about on par to the 32bit ones in the games I played and benchies I ran and I was enjoying "the feel" of the 64bit OS.

Besides, nV is made to be the :evil: by most people now, and I'm more of a darkside kinda guy :laugh:

 

[Axon]

Originally posted by: Kai920
a X800... b/c of 3 simple things:

1) less heat
2) only one power connector required
3) single slot solution

 

[Shad0hawK]

i am going to buy an NV40.

ATI has made a great card and in ps2 still leads by a small margin overall.

however farcry for example, will have a downloadable mod converting it to ps3 that according to cevat yerli of crytek only took them 3 weeks to make.

stalker will be ps3.

the extra molex connector to me is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things...it means i plug another line into it...big deal. my antec 450watt PSU will handle it as it has superior amperage ratings than many 500 watt el cheapo PSU's

 

[jim1976]

Well it seems that if I don't care for the money I would go for the X800XT
If I did care for the price/perf ratio I would go for the 6800GT.

It seems that NVIDIA is trying to pull an asset with the 6800GT and hit ATI in the price/perf ratio.

While in the top line performance X800XT and 6800U ATI is winning in most of the cases when higher resolutions and AA/AF is enabled, the exact opossite seems to happen with the 6800GT and X800PRO.

But then again it's too early to tell. Just first thoughts.

 

[ForceCalibur]

THe X800Pro is definately going to be the price winner, hands down. Not only is it more Frames/Buck, its cheaper architecture will probably end up with lower production costs -> more savings to the consumers. Almost reminscent of the Radeon 9800 Pro. The XT is, like the 9800XT of its time, undoubtably the king of high end graphics (No one bothers to pay 500 bucks for a card that suffers under FSAA/AF stress, sorry Nvidia)

If this time will be anything like last time, the Nvidia product will be sporting alot more pricier components and will end up costing more and performing worse than comparable X800 models.

 

[MichaelZ]

you know right now i could toss a coin for it really. there's only one thing on my mind... compatibility.

NV's drivers up to now have had less bugs (excluding the bullcrap optimization bugs "anomalies" or watever they want to call it) and that in the end matters most to me personally. however with the NV40 drivers basically written from scratch, i am concerend whether or not they will provide the same kind of support as previously offered. and those who plan on jumping out to disagree, save it. there have been polls conducted here @ AT and generally all say that NV drivers have less compatibility problems.

a friend is planning on forking over for a 6800U. he's agreed to lend me the card so i can see whether or not they will run my current and older collection of games without problems. if the drivers are still trusty, then 6800 it is.

 

[AtiLover]

i used to use nvidia cards all the time, then i started running into problems with there drivers.. so after looking and downloading better drivers, it just got worse, so i sold the ti 4600, and got some more money awhile ago and bought a 9700 pro, and i love it... the drivers are easy to work with.. cataylst drivers are great, you always get that digital signed thing for compatibility... nvidia doesn't have them for all there drivers... its called WHQL.. ati has this logo on all there drivers, this logo is needed to keep windows xp stable on the driver.. i love ati, there products are cheaper, and the bandwigth is high for the buck..

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: AtiLover
i used to use nvidia cards all the time, then i started running into problems with there drivers.. so after looking and downloading better drivers, it just got worse, so i sold the ti 4600, and got some more money awhile ago and bought a 9700 pro, and i love it... the drivers are easy to work with.. cataylst drivers are great, you always get that digital signed thing for compatibility... nvidia doesn't have them for all there drivers... its called WHQL.. ati has this logo on all there drivers, this logo is needed to keep windows xp stable on the driver.. i love ati, there products are cheaper, and the bandwigth is high for the buck..

Wow! A pro ATi post that bashes nV drivers by a guy with your handle and reg. date is really going to get taken seriously around here :roll:

 

[Yourself]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: AtiLover
i used to use nvidia cards all the time, then i started running into problems with there drivers.. so after looking and downloading better drivers, it just got worse, so i sold the ti 4600, and got some more money awhile ago and bought a 9700 pro, and i love it... the drivers are easy to work with.. cataylst drivers are great, you always get that digital signed thing for compatibility... nvidia doesn't have them for all there drivers... its called WHQL.. ati has this logo on all there drivers, this logo is needed to keep windows xp stable on the driver.. i love ati, there products are cheaper, and the bandwigth is high for the buck..

Wow! A pro ATi post that bashes nV drivers by a guy with your handle and reg. date is really going to get taken seriously around here :roll:

Pun-

You have to admit that post was pretty damn funny....



Self