Scabbed Angel Posted March 31, 2005 Danarchy said:I have an Intel Graphics Controller. : ( 0 Share this post Link to post
SyntherAugustus Posted March 31, 2005 oh noes the Ati vs Nvidia wars have reached doomworld!!! 0 Share this post Link to post
Zodiak Posted March 31, 2005 I like the nVidia mermaid beter than the ATi logo... 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted March 31, 2005 You may as well go ahead and debate whether Doom 3 is better or Half Life 2 while you're at it. :P 0 Share this post Link to post
Goat Posted March 31, 2005 ati has a girl for a mascot, too, http://www.ati.com/ruby/index.html 0 Share this post Link to post
Zodiak Posted March 31, 2005 Well it's not a mermaid. And most of there cards have a Monster. LOL 0 Share this post Link to post
sirjuddington Posted March 31, 2005 I'm getting an nvidia GF 6600GT tomorrow. Currently have an nvidia GF4 Ti4200. Before that I had an nvidia GF2MX. So yeah, kinda obvious which I prefer :P I had an ATI 9600XT temporarily, and while it certainly outperformed my ti4200, I actually prefer the nvidia card because the ati drivers were terrible. 0 Share this post Link to post
Stealthy Ivan Posted March 31, 2005 Heh, one of my PC's is using nvidia gforce4 (thats my gaming box), the others use ATi (workstations and my server)... 0 Share this post Link to post
Piezo Posted April 1, 2005 Any of the top notch cards support ray tracing yet? 0 Share this post Link to post
nightice Posted April 1, 2005 I've got a GF2MX in my main comp. For either my next rig or a near-future upgrade to this one I've been eyeing a Chaintech GF6600. Oh, and my test comp/server has an S3 Trio64V+. BEAT THAT, BITCH! 0 Share this post Link to post
pilottobombadier Posted April 1, 2005 ATi's fast, NVidia's stable, but technologically, pretty behind. ATi's actually best geared to CAD, not gaming. That's why IBM and Apple use them pretty much exclusively in their workstations. 0 Share this post Link to post
SulfurOccult Posted April 1, 2005 i like ATI better. if you are crazy and want to spend 700 bucks (US, god only knows about europe), then ati has the technically best card. it really depends on the games you want to play. doom 3 runs better on nvidia cards (although i have a radeon 9700 pro and doom 3 runs just fine for me on high detail), however, far cry (if anybody still plays that), and half life 2/counter-strike: source run MUCH better on ati cards. honestly, i played cs:s at my friends and couldn't believe how horrible it looked on his 256mb nvidia, compaired to how it looked on my 128mb ati. ati cards are also nice because their drivers actually work, but whatever. 0 Share this post Link to post
david_a Posted April 1, 2005 Piezo said:Any of the top notch cards support ray tracing yet? Technically, yes, although it's just a novelty right now. A better ray tracing card would be a bunch of DSPs stuck on a board (a mini SMP system, basically). GPU's aren't exactly designed with ray tracing in mind. 0 Share this post Link to post
Zodiak Posted April 1, 2005 MasterOfPuppets said:i like ATI better. if you are crazy and want to spend 700 bucks (US, god only knows about europe), then ati has the technically best card. it really depends on the games you want to play. doom 3 runs better on nvidia cards (although i have a radeon 9700 pro and doom 3 runs just fine for me on high detail), however, far cry (if anybody still plays that), and half life 2/counter-strike: source run MUCH better on ati cards. honestly, i played cs:s at my friends and couldn't believe how horrible it looked on his 256mb nvidia, compaired to how it looked on my 128mb ati. ati cards are also nice because their drivers actually work, but whatever. CS is only a 32-bit High detail game. it should run fine on any card 0 Share this post Link to post
nightice Posted April 1, 2005 I played Doom 3 on my friend's Radeon 7000 (or 7500, dunno which it is) and the textures looked like SHIT. 0 Share this post Link to post
Grazza Posted April 1, 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing Or use Google to find other info. 0 Share this post Link to post
SulfurOccult Posted April 2, 2005 Zodiak said:CS is only a 32-bit High detail game. it should run fine on any card counter-strike: source. and it looked very bad, even though he has a better processor and an nVidia card that is supposedly better than mine. although maybe he hadnt' updated the drivers very well, i don't know. 0 Share this post Link to post
Remilia Scarlet Posted April 2, 2005 nightice said:I played Doom 3 on my friend's Radeon 7000 (or 7500, dunno which it is) and the textures looked like SHIT. I think I have you beat. I got Doom3 to run on my laptop's GeForce 2 Go 16mb card. Now that really looked like shit, played like shit, and if it had emitted odors, it probably would have smelled like shit too. But it was still fun to do :) 0 Share this post Link to post
iori Posted April 2, 2005 Zodiak wrote: CS is only a 32-bit High detail game. it should run fine on any card Honestly, what game isnt a 32 bit game nowadays. That's kinda like saying "Oh that game is just hardware accelerated" in the respect that almost every damn game released now IS hardware accelerated. 0 Share this post Link to post
Zodiak Posted April 2, 2005 iori said:Honestly, what game isnt a 32 bit game nowadays. That's kinda like saying "Oh that game is just hardware accelerated" in the respect that almost every damn game released now IS hardware accelerated. Doom 3 was meant to be played on ultra with a 512MB card. Yea, some 32-bit action. 0 Share this post Link to post
EarthQuake Posted April 2, 2005 I have owned three ATI cards and honestly they were the best damned video cards I ever had. Never had any of these instability or driver problems that are supposedly so rampant. Personally, I think it's just a bunch of bullshit to get people to not buy ATI cards. gargoylol said:PowerVR Kyro2 64mb bitches That is such a horrible fucking card, I went back to using my ATI Rage Fury (32mb). :P 0 Share this post Link to post
MasterOFDeath Posted April 2, 2005 ATi all the way, f*ck nVidia. And if I hear another person say ATi cards suck just because they have 1 bug in the driver that can be fixed with something as simple as a bug report... GAH!!! Anyways I run an ATi Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro 128 MB. Have not gotten to try Doom3 on it yet sadly, I dont have it and the demo is WAY to freaking big for my dialup. I have some friends though who have it, one got it even though he doesn't play games (??), the other can't run it and he doesn't want to upgrade his PC because he doesn't have alot of interest in modern games. And I will NOT be getting HL2 at all probaly, and if I do, it will not be for a while. Why? Guess. But yeah, ATi all the way. 0 Share this post Link to post
Relica Religia Posted April 2, 2005 MasterOFDeath said:ATi all the way, f*ck nVidia. And if I hear another person say ATi cards suck just because they have 1 bug in the driver that can be fixed with something as simple as a bug report... GAH!!! At least they give a reason why they like a specific card. From my experiences with both cards, Nvidia and ATI both offer lovely graphics, but NV always had slightly better visuals and a definitely higher level of reliability. The problem with judging which card is actually better is pretty difficult, given that no two systems are exactly the same and what one card does on one machine can be completely different on another. I tweak all my systems and software for optimum performance and stability, and NV has always panned out best for me. That's just me, though. Everyone's different. 0 Share this post Link to post
ducon Posted April 2, 2005 11 posts and already trolling… at least can you explain your opinion? 0 Share this post Link to post
Amaster Posted April 2, 2005 No, the one that can run my games the with the highest degree of speed and quality is the best. These two companies have traded #1 spots a couple of times, and will continue to do so as they contniue to compete with each other. However, ATI gets props for giving us free food and drinks at 3December :P 0 Share this post Link to post
SulfurOccult Posted April 2, 2005 Zodiak said:Doom 3 was meant to be played on ultra with a 512MB card. Yea, some 32-bit action. how is this a defense of your previouse statement, lol? i agree with you iori, i've never had a driver problem with my ati card. well, exept that one time i tried out the Omega drivers. i'll stick with Catalyst, thank you very much. 0 Share this post Link to post
pilottobombadier Posted April 2, 2005 Zodiak said:Doom 3 was meant to be played on ultra with a 512MB card. Yea, some 32-bit action. Actually, Doom 3 was probably built to run on SLI'd 512's, considering it was built on 380+ megs of texture memory, which means that the card had to have roughly 760 megs of RAM (iirc, 1/2 of a video card's memory is dedicated to textures). Doom 3 was also more than likely built on dual Xeons, because it supports dual processing. And in that case, NVidia's only the better choice because Carmack whores for them. 0 Share this post Link to post