Author Topic: New system specs (Read 1444 times)

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #15 on:** December 05, 2006, 09:53:09 AM »

Funny because several tests have reported similar problems I witnessed with Geforce series. Tube screen + 1600x1200 or higher resolution and nvidia screen looked like totally out of focus where Ati produced crystal sharp images.

Nomak · « **Reply #16 on:** December 05, 2006, 09:58:01 AM »

This is from the article I posted a link to for Chimp....

"Here are two images from our testing. The first is the image we get on the ATI X1950XTX at 2560x1600.........

The second (below) is with the 8800GTX with the same settings......

This image is far superior in quality compared to that of the ATI. It looks like the tables have turned in that department. That brings us to other advances Nvidia has made with G80."

Dave

SkyChimp03 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 05, 2006, 11:21:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nomak
This is from the article I posted a link to for Chimp....

"Here are two images from our testing. The first is the image we get on the ATI X1950XTX at 2560x1600.........

The second (below) is with the 8800GTX with the same settings......

This image is far superior in quality compared to that of the ATI. It looks like the tables have turned in that department. That brings us to other advances Nvidia has made with G80."

Dave

Oh but did you know they were about to be release and recalled for repairs? I still will never trust nvidia end of story...

Krusty · « **Reply #18 on:** December 05, 2006, 11:31:35 AM »

Historically, Nvidia has outperformed ATI in the long run. I'm not bashing ATI cards at all, mind you. I consider both to be fair game when looking for a new card.

However Nvidia has the better track record for performance, despite the terrible 5000 series. The 8800 will blow ANYTHING in the world away, at this point and time, and for some time to come (unless ATI already has a card in the works -- unlikely on such short notice) because it has about 40 processors on the card.

It just doesn't compare. It's like comparing a solar-powered calculator to a Texas Instruments graphing calculator. One just has WAY more raw computing power over the other.

Nomak · « **Reply #19 on:** December 05, 2006, 12:54:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SkyChimp03
Oh but did you know they were about to be release and recalled for repairs? I still will never trust nvidia end of story...

Dont be so hard headed Chimp.

I remember when the ATI 9700 series came out to directly compete with the GeForce 4 series. The GeForce 4 was a great card. I still have a Ti4200 laying around here somewhere. However is was no where near as good as the ATI. Then IIRC the 9800Pro surfaced around the time the GF 5 series was released. Thats when I bought a 9800 Pro. I cant say enough about that card. I used it for a long time and was always pleased with its performance.

Than the GF 6 series emerged. It was obvious...... Nvidia was back big time. I bought a 6800GT that is still in my wifes machine and is a better card than the 9800 pro it replaced.

I now have a 7900GT overclocked. I dont think a better card can be had for the money I spent.

I was ALWAYS an AMD guy. Had multiple puters and always ran AMD processors. Than it became obvious that Intel was back big time. I went with Intel on my current rig and couldnt be happier.

The point is...... why be brand loyal? Why not just buy the product that is the best for the money? Nvidia has the best right now. So I use them. I wouldnt hesitate to buy an ATI in the future if I felt it was the best product for the money.

Just my opinion of course.

Dave

Krusty · « **Reply #20 on:** December 05, 2006, 01:16:47 PM »

Well put, Nomak. I agree completely.

SkyChimp03 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 05, 2006, 02:47:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nomak
Dont be so hard headed Chimp.

I remember when the ATI 9700 series came out to directly compete with the GeForce 4 series. The GeForce 4 was a great card. I still have a Ti4200 laying around here somewhere. However is was no where near as good as the ATI. Then IIRC the 9800Pro surfaced around the time the GF 5 series was released. Thats when I bought a 9800 Pro. I cant say enough about that card. I used it for a long time and was always pleased with its performance.

Than the GF 6 series emerged. It was obvious...... Nvidia was back big time. I bought a 6800GT that is still in my wifes machine and is a better card than the 9800 pro it replaced.

I now have a 7900GT overclocked. I dont think a better card can be had for the money I spent.

I was ALWAYS an AMD guy. Had multiple puters and always ran AMD processors. Than it became obvious that Intel was back big time. I went with Intel on my current rig and couldnt be happier.

The point is...... why be brand loyal? Why not just buy the product that is the best for the money? Nvidia has the best right now. So I use them. I wouldnt hesitate to buy an ATI in the future if I felt it was the best product for the money.

Just my opinion of course.

Dave

Ok my point now. Why spend $300 more on a CPU when you can overclock a amd dual core to the spec of a intel? At that you can overclock it with STOCK heatsink lol... Wow i wasted $300 for nothing i could of bought my kid something better for Christmas with that money huh?

Again with the video card why spend 250-350 more when you can overclock to 8800 spec and still not overheat as much as a stock 8800? Maybe even further if you get a better VGA cooler and if you get a decent water cooling kit or even make your own from DD gear you can go well over intel and 8800. Goes both ways intell and 8800 can be OC'd but why spend so much on something you can get for 500 less?

Krusty · « **Reply #22 on:** December 05, 2006, 03:04:46 PM »

Chimp, you don't get it... You really don't get it..

The 8800 is NOT a typical vid card, but with faster speeds. It's not even comparable to typical vid cards, that have 1 GPU, 1 HS/fan, and 12 pipelines, and 6 shaders. It has LITERALLY over 100 processors on the card (128 for the GTX), any one can process a shader, a material, a whatever!

There is just NO WAY to overclock any other card out there to do this, because they still only have 12 pipelines and 6 shaders. No matter HOW fast they run.

Your AMD overclock analogy doesn't work, either. AMD chips overclock, yes, but not without big heat costs, and Intel chips overclock way way more (for the same price) and at a fraction of the heat (using stock heatsinks). Also, you get any AMD dual core and get a Conroe of the same price, and the conroe overclocks better, cooler, using less juice. So I wouldn't be too fast to rush to the "AMD only" or "ATI only" camps. Nomak's right. Go with what's best, ignore brands for the moment. The 8800 can't be beat until ATI totally forgets everything they ever knew about designing vid cards and starts from the ground up like Nvidia did.

EDIT: For the record I can't afford either card. But you can't say "get this card, overclock it, and it's the same" -- especially since those high-end cards don't overclock, and overheat at load already. Not to mention you fry the card you have to get another.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #23 on:** December 05, 2006, 04:32:26 PM »

SkyChimp, you really have not been keeping up with the times.

You can buy any desktop AMD CPU you want right now, overclock the stuffing out of it, and it will still be slower than the fastest Conroe available.

You can pay the same amount of money for any AMD desktop CPU and a Conroe, and the Conroe will start out faster, then overclock better, and run much cooler.

Intel has the edge right now. That is not my opinion, that is just the way it is right now.

AKDogg · « **Reply #24 on:** December 05, 2006, 04:51:38 PM »

Check this website out.

http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=0

I use this site for any video card ever made for comparison. Goes back even to the matrox, s3 and even the trident chipsets. This site is constantly updated with the latest and greatest video cards. Lots of spec info on every card.

Th site may take alittle to load as it has a large table to view. 1st page is all ATI, 2nd page is all Nvidia etc..

Just for comparison:

ATI x1950 crossfire has a 10400 MTexels/s fill rate and 64 GB/s bandwidth in memory. It also has only a 256 bit memory bus width.

The GF8800GTX has a 36800 MTexels/s fill rate and 86.4 GB/s memory bandwidth. It also has a 384 bit memory bus width.

SkyChimp03 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 05, 2006, 06:03:46 PM »

Hmm ok odds on your side but ill stick with my amd and ati.

Good luck with new system!

MOIL · « **Reply #26 on:** December 09, 2006, 04:04:37 AM »

I use the 8800GTX and the x1950 is not even in the same ballpark, this is not opinion or preference, it's fact.

Not saying the x1950 is not a good card, it is, it just can not compete with the 8800

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #27 on:** December 10, 2006, 06:01:36 AM »

Heh I'm talking about image quality not rendering speeds here.

My 8800GTS is obviously much faster than the ATI card but the 2D desktop image quality _is_ inferior and the drivers are the buggyest piece of crap I've witnessed in the last 5 years. Obviously they were in a great rush to introduce the 8800 and didn't have time to finalize the drivers.

Also the new command window of the drivers sucks royally (the html based). Settings get reset by their own etc.

Schutt · « **Reply #28 on:** December 10, 2006, 06:54:00 AM »

Hey Reschke, you have your system yet?

38ruk · « **Reply #29 on:** December 10, 2006, 11:07:25 AM »

Quote

Historically, Nvidia has outperformed ATI in the long run. I'm not bashing ATI cards at all, mind you. I consider both to be fair game when looking for a new card.

I would have agreeded with that statement until the 9700 series came out , before the 9700's nvidia had an big advantge but that is no longer the case . Now it goes by which games you like to play and who releases what and when .