ATI v. NVIDIA

[muchadoaboutnothing]

So NVIDIA cancelled mainstream Fermi cards

This is bad. ATI is going to be way ahead in every segment except in the hottest/power hungriest card segment, which NVIDIA has with the 300W+ GTX 480.

I think you'd have to have a skull thicker than a mollusk to buy NVIDIA right now. The worst part is it gives ATI less of an incentive to drop prices.

What is Geekhack's opinion on this?

[Mars]

I'm staying with ATI, I don't want my house to burn down.

[audioave10]

I'm not so sure this is a serious problem. Nvidia has some time to reduce the power and heat of the Fermi cards-for the mainstream cards. ATI did a great job reducing heat and power requirements. Nvidia is in the middle of a new architecture and that always takes alot of time. Remember when the 8800 series came out, ATI didn't have an answer for a year and a half. I have a 470 GTX and its by far the best card I've ever had and does not run hot. I run Afterburner for a fan control scheme and its not any hotter than my other cards have been. Too many sites just tested it in a average case and gamed the hell out of it. Both card companies run a default fan speed of about 33% which was never enough for me. My cards last a long time because of temp control and good cases...never a failure. I still prefer their driver team over ATI. I read alot of forums about video cards and they both suffer driver/game issues at times but I still like both companies and the competition is good.

[muchadoaboutnothing]

I have a 470 GTX and its by far the best card I've ever had and does not run hot.

When I saw benchmarks of the 480, it idled at 90C due to the need for a higher memory clock for the card to not flicker. And it consumed over 300w.

That strikes me as a disastrously bad architecture. You wonder how much a die shrink is going to help.

[audioave10]

The 480 probably does need a die-shrink but the 470 has no problem (at least not for me). My temp has never gone over 75c. If I didn't run the fan profile it probably would run hotter, but the ATI would too.
Also...why run benchmarks?? I just play my games.

[muchadoaboutnothing]

The 480 probably does need a die-shrink but the 470 has no problem (at least not for me). My temp has never gone over 75c. If I didn't run the fan profile it probably would run hotter, but the ATI would too.
Also...why run benchmarks?? I just play my games.

Benchmarks during games.

The 480 exceeds 100 Celsius when you run a torture test like FurMark.

[audioave10]

Some so-called testers need to run a fan profile too. I see no need to torture a new video card to "make a point". If that's the case, why would you buy it? I purchase a video card to enable high graphics for my games and get what I pay for. Playing Just Cause 2 at 1920 x 1080 with all settings at "high" is a joy. My temps still never go over 75c. I'm not into "fanboyism" much as is doesn't add anything positive to the subject. Most are full of passion whether its for ATI or for Nvidia. I've had good luck with both.
Sorry, but "burning the house down" is just silly talk.

[Mars]

So you're implying that everybody has the same ambient cooling circumstances in their houses? The room I have my computers in reaches 80 degrees from time to time, which could push something that gets that hot into a state of complete failure.

[audioave10]

That is serious...and I do keep my room cool. You should get an ATI if you are worried about any more heat. I would still advise using a fan profile to be safer.
An 80 degree room will make the ATI run hot too. Like I said, I'm not against one, just to favor the other. Peoples needs are different.

[gr1m]

People's needs are different, yes, but what kind of "need" is satisfied by buying a GTX 470 instead of a 5850? The need for higher power bills and increased heat? The need to spend more?

[audioave10]

Research...the 470 gives me things the 5850 cannot. Its doing so this very minute. I won't bother to explain. It depends on what type of games you like and what features are offered. It also depends greatly on drivers. I don't have to worry about power bills. A few bucks a YEAR don't bother me where I live (your bills may vary).

[gr1m]

I won't do your research for you. Nvidia cards hold the advantages in CUDA but that's all I can think of. ATI cards can beat Nvidia cards even in TWIMTBP titles.

[audioave10]

Its obvious that you will believe everything on the interwebz that you choose to. I do my own work.

[SpatiallyAware]

Ati drivers STILL royally sucks.  Catalyst control center looked like a 5 year old designed it with a box of 8 color crayons.


Aside from that; Ati drivers tend to 'not play well' with systems.  I've been doing corporate IT (in a CAD environment) for a long.. long.. time, and have seen WAY too many systems end up borked from botched driver updates and etc.

On a clean install they work fine, but all too often ~6 months after the format you install an updated... audio, or network driver which somehow screws up the Ati drivers, which means trying to roll it back or worse - re-image/format.  Nvidia drivers just work..  I've never had them mess up an install or update improperly.  


That's my .02 unrelated to the topic, lol..

[ch_123]

I think the OP was being a bit sensationalist -

Nvidia's mainstream Fermi generation got cancelled. It's not tragic, as the promising GF104 architecture takes over and Nvidia's future mainstream as well as entry level chips will be based on this improved architecture.

nVidia drivers tend to be better across different platforms - Linux's ATI drivers were practically unusable for a very long time, and there are operating systems like FreeBSD that, AFAIK, don't have proper ATI support yet but handle the standard nVidia driver set. So I'm sticking to nVidia for the forseeable future even if ATI's cards perform better in games.

Besides, I only buy the midrange stuff (I have a 9600GT, and my previous card was a 6800GT which I purchased when the 7800GTX/GT were released on the market) so I don't tend to get over-hot cards anyway.

[gr1m]

Ati drivers STILL royally sucks.  Catalyst control center looked like a 5 year old designed it with a box of 8 color crayons.


Aside from that; Ati drivers tend to 'not play well' with systems.  I've been doing corporate IT (in a CAD environment) for a long.. long.. time, and have seen WAY too many systems end up borked from botched driver updates and etc.

On a clean install they work fine, but all too often ~6 months after the format you install an updated... audio, or network driver which somehow screws up the Ati drivers, which means trying to roll it back or worse - re-image/format.  Nvidia drivers just work..  I've never had them mess up an install or update improperly.  


That's my .02 unrelated to the topic, lol..

Well, for me, ATI drivers have "just worked". Does that make them perfect? No. But your bad experience with them doesn't make them horrible either.

[microsoft windows]

I don't use ATI or Nvidia. I just use the cheap old integrated video or whatever I can fish out of an old computer.

[didjamatic]

I don't use ATI or Nvidia. I just use the cheap old integrated video or whatever I can fish out of an old computer.

Many of which may use an ATI or Nvidia chipset

[microsoft windows]

I don't care which company made them. I know my video cards are all so old that if they burnt up, they would've about 7 years ago.

[J888www]

I have both ATI and NVIDIA in different desktops, I always have an impression that the build quality of the ATI are a little better. After having a bad experience with the GeForce 8400M GS, future purchasing of another NVIDIA product is highly improbable, but each to their own preferences.