ATI vs. Nvidia

[t3ch]

which nvidia chipset are you going with, and why did you decide for nvidia?

Nvidia is more of a gamers card (even though it has the same power of ATi), ATi is more built for what people of this board would use it for, not to mention has better quality.

[SKD_Tech]

Because I am a big gamer also so I know it will play Digital Video well and I will be able to have great graphics on the gaming side of the story.

Which chipset?

Well I am not sure yet. If the GeForce 5 comes out within the next 6 months I will go with that. If not I will go with the 4.

[admin]

I am getting a new PC (in one or two months time) for home theatre purposes (HTPC), and I've pretty much decided on getting an ATI chipped card. I've never bought an ATI card before (always NVIDIA), and I am mainly curious to check out how well it performs. The HTPC will be used for DVD playback (possibly recording) and games.

My current GeForce2 Ultra is pretty fast (at least at the time I bought it), but has horrible interference issues (wavy lines at certain resolutions/refresh rates). I've always had the impression that ATI cards were better at digital video related activities, in terms of support for acceleration and quality, and that's another reason why I am going for an ATI card in the HTPC.

[Enchanter]

wavy lines at certain resolutions/refresh rates

Pretty much the same problem with my old GF2MX and a friend's GF 4MX. Blame it on the poor RAMDAC and 2D filters used on the cards.

Fortunately my current Radeon 8500 does not suffer from such problems and it displays colours in a more vibrant way.

[Enchanter]

Originally posted by SKD_Tech

Because I am a big gamer also so I know it will play Digital Video well and I will be able to have great graphics on the gaming side of the story.

Are you making this generalised comment that ATI cards are no-good gaming cards?

Originally posted by SKD_Tech
Well I am not sure yet. If the GeForce 5 comes out within the next 6 months I will go with that. If not I will go with the 4.

Geforce FX would be the successor to the GF 4 lines. That is effectively your GF 5 series.

[SKD_Tech]

Nvidia is more of a gamers card (even though it has the same power of ATi), ATi is more built for what people of this board would use it for, not to mention has better quality

I went by this I am not saying anything about ATI gaming

[Enchanter]

Originally posted by SKD_Tech
I went by this I am not saying anything about ATI gaming

Ah, I forgot about that statement.

I personally think that the current Radeon cards have the grunt to take on their nVidia equivalent in the different price ranges. Until the GeforceFX, the GF 4 cards and below have always had more frame rates than their ATI nemesis. One of the known possibility is that they run graphics at lower quality settings, hence the higher frame rate.

If I were a framerate whore, I would go for a Geforce. However, given that Radeon cards are perfectly capable gaming cards and possessing good-to-excellent 2D quality (in colour vibrancy, desktop crispness and cleanliness in displays), I would choose them over any Geforce cards.

20 cents worth of thought from an ATI lover.

[SKD_Tech]

I don't know I might go with ATI

Before I wasn't thinking that I am going to have to buy a capture card seperatly. Maybe a 9000 series All-In-Wonder shall be in order?

[Enchanter]

Originally posted by SKD_Tech
I don't know I might go with ATI

You are totally unsure about which brands to go for, are you? It is not a hard choice actually. Both will serve you well; it's just the (slight) differences between them that make the decision harder.

Try asking in a gaming forum as to which card is better. State your budget and gaming needs (along with any others that are related to the card's use) and I'm sure you will be flooded with responses. Who knows you might get the satisfaction of being able to start an 'ATI vs nVidia' flame war between the fanboys of both companies.

Originally posted by SKD_Tech

Before I wasn't thinking that I am going to have to buy a capture card seperatly. Maybe a 9000 series All-In-Wonder shall be in order?

Sounds good, especially if you are looking at killing two birds with one stone.

I do not know how well ATI's AIW cards compare to stand-alone cards. You might want to ask for opinions from many (not just one) AIW users and how they find their experience with its recording features.

Edit:
Here is a link to a forum section dedicated to ATI AIW series cards. Happy browsing and querying.

[chickeneater]

I have calculated it that you only need 7mb of graphic RAM to be able to have a nice 2D images running at 1280x1024. since movies are 2D, you don't really need a graphic card over 8MB. If you are going to have a computer that will be using 3D graphics, then you should get the higher end graphics card like a 128MB DDR card.

[chickeneater]

I personally like the nVidia cards because they are a bit smaller and are more lightweight compared to the bulkier ati cards. being bigger doesn't appeal to me because of the latency. It wouldn't be much latency though, but it just seems that way to me...

I had an ATI card in my old computer and we always had problems with it so we had to get a nVidia card and it was all better.

[Enchanter]

Originally posted by chickeneater
I have calculated it that you only need 7mb of graphic RAM to be able to have a nice 2D images running at 1280x1024. since movies are 2D, you don't really need a graphic card over 8MB. If you are going to have a computer that will be using 3D graphics, then you should get the higher end graphics card like a 128MB DDR card.

Do not forget that you will need a good RAMDAC and 2D filter (along with other electronic on-board components) to ensure enjoyable image quality. This is something most older cards do not possess.

Originally posted by chickeneater

I personally like the nVidia cards because they are a bit smaller and are more lightweight compared to the bulkier ati cards. being bigger doesn't appeal to me because of the latency. It wouldn't be much latency though, but it just seems that way to me...

Did something just hit your head? Or did you just have too much drink?

First of all, what does the size of the card have anything to do with latency? As far as I am concerned, it is the RAM that determines latency, NOT the size of the board.

Secondly, when was the last time you took a look at recent graphics board? If being bigger was made a competition, nVidia cards easily take up the crown. My Radeon 8500 is a normal sized card, with a humble HSF on it. The (then) newer Ti4200 came in much bigger with its monster of GPU+RAM-sink. A baby should have no problem lifting the ATI card, but will definitely drop the Ti4200 card to the floor, 'shattering it to pieces'. The newer GeforceFX cards are even bigger space hoggers, with the most of them taking up an extra or, worse, two adjacent PCI slots, leaving you with only the remaining PCI slots for use (bad news for those with a lot of PCI expansion cards). The Radeon9700 and 9800, in comparison, are of the same humble size as the Radeon8500, while being faster than any of the GeforceFX cards. To add salt to the wound, the Radeon cards are comparatively quiet when compared to the wailing (think vacuum claner) Geforce FX cards.

[Comberman]

Have to agree with Enchanter here. I have a Leadtek Ultra A280 VIVO (nvidea G4ce 128Mb with all the bells and whistles). Believe me it's big - it's got two cooling fans - but awesome power. I sometimes wish I had percevered and waited for the ATI All in Wonder Radeon 9600 pro though - damn ATI for their Gawdawful production planning and misinforming Publicity Dept.

[t3ch]

I personally like the nVidia cards because they are a bit smaller and are more lightweight compared to the bulkier ati cards. being bigger doesn't appeal to me because of the latency. It wouldn't be much latency though, but it just seems that way to me...

Large ATi cards... like the FX?

What I was saying a out nividia being more of a gamers card is, ATi is more concerned with power while giving good quality. Nvidia is raw power to pump out frames. I can guarantee you 9/10 quake players have a geforce. I tell you, 250fps is a lot better than 245fps.

ATi performs fine as a gamers card, don't get me wrong. I was merely stating nvidia is power without bells and whistles. In case you haven't read any recent reviews, nvidia chipsets perform slighty better at lower resolutions without anything special turned on. ATi does better with higher resolutions and all quality settings turned on (AA, etc).

I would not advise getting an all in wonder. The all-in-wonder's core is slower than it's respective non AiW. Also, what about when you get a new video card? Unless they start making double AGP motherboards, you're up a creek without a cap card. Newegg has a leadtek card on sale right now, and it's supposed to be a real good card.

edit >> spellering

[Enchanter]

I tell you, 250fps is a lot better than 245fps

I doubt you, or anyone else, can spot such tiny differences in the frame rate.