ATI or NVIDIA???

the sad thing is nvidias marketing schemes actually work, i was in pc world today over heard a sales assitant trying to sell some old guy a geforce mx440 (this old dude was wandering why he couldnt play flight sim 2004 on his pentium 333 lol had 2 laugh) the thing is this guy from pc world was claiming he would be able to run the game at high framerates and full graphics with this geforce 4 piece of shite he said something like "you have to look for the nvidia logo its a sign of quality" i bet they have shed loadsa people comming in there buying nvidia gear because they dont know any better, its pushed in your face wherever you go internet shops wherever. if you dont know your stuff you are gonna get ripped off hell a couple of years ago i was the same........holy shit its called geforce it must be fast as

Originally posted by IdiotWithAStick@Apr 3 2004, 06:54 PM

Well, the ATI also has twice as many pixel pipelines.
(Eight intead of four)

They quit the 9500 Pro cos of that, and bumped the 9600 in at 4 pipelines...,.. although the 9700 pro and upwards has 9 pipe lines (but the 9800se has 4 open, and another for you can Mod unlock).

Oh dear i think sum 1 failed to see the point, yes ATI sponsors games true, but, it does not buy into them!!!

Clicked the link u gave up there m8 to see what u were on about and 'bang' oh dear were the first wrds that went through my head. See there is a prime example of what nvidia are doing, on that site (part of the ati website i know) it shows games which that company feel are good and well played on their cards although most of those games there, ut2003 being main example, have an nvidia logo displyed when u first boot em up (ut has gorge bust through their logo) so u see ATI are sponsoring and not buying into the games e.g givin that one company/game money to place their logo all over the box,startup,ending screens etc.

Dope-fish i also agree wiv above, i mean before i got my latest piece of kit i was afraid i culd be makin a big mistake by an ATI product becuz of the hype nvidia was gettin i believed anything else to be rubbish, my new pc came with and ATI Radeon 9200 which was good and the way that played games was great for its time and then i realised that nvidia wasnt all that great and it was better to go wiv wot u feel is good/great and not wot the advertisements say. Now i got a good ol Radeon 9600 and untill i see proof wiv my own eyes that nvidia has got summin better or the feel of it when u play summin like ut or far cry etc i dont feel like steppin back anytime soon.

So far ATI keep up the good wrk! :thumbup:

well so far 19 out of 26 people have agreed wiv you so ATI must be doing something right

All I know is that the next gen cards by both Nvidia and ATI are shaping up to be pretty damned sweet, and according to here it looks like Nvidia might have abit of an advantage when these new cards come out. ;)

Originally posted by SkUnKmAsTeR@Apr 2 2004, 11:11 PM
ATI Pixel Shader 2.0 calculated at 16/24-bit - Nvidia Pixel Shader 2.0 calculated at 32-bit, thats where the ATI speed comes from...

How many times have you seen texture corruption fixes for the latest games for Radeon chipsets? TWIMTBP/Detenator - No patches necessary, works out of the box - Catalyst/ATI Radeon patches ahoy!

I have both cards by the way. Nvidia spec as in my sig, ATI spec as follows:

AMD Athlon XP 2200
512Mb PC2700 DDR
ATI Radeon 9800 (256Mb AGP 8x)

Actually, that's not entirely true.

Nvidia uses 16 and 32bit precision. ATI uses only 24bit, which is basically what the dx9 specification dictates. Nvidia didn't know that the dx9 specs would use 24bit when they designed their CineFX architecture, so that's essentially nvidia's reason for not being as fast in dx9 apps.

the interesting thing about the upcoing nv40/r420 fight is that now nvidia has made an entirely new architecture WITH 24bit precision support, so that might turn the tables.

Yes, interman you are right of course.

I could of looked up where I first read that info, but I was too stoned to care to be honest! Sorry... :bucky!:

Anyway, my main issue is to do with the end-user experience... I have had a far easier gaming life playing with Nvidia hardware than I have ever had with ATI, this covers 12 years of PC gaming, so I believe I am in a postion to say so. Many people here are probably only using their first or second graphics card and do not understand ATI's history in the market.

I have used many manufacturer's products, from Trident, Cirrus Logic, Number Nine, S3, SIS, 3DFX, ATI and Nvidia...(oddly never Matrox...) and I have never been a happier PC gamer! Which is surely what this thread is all about, no?

Lastly, Could people stop whining about nvidia game sponsorship, afterall we wouldn't have much of a market if nvidia dont open their deep wallets and support software development, Half-Life 2 is the only AAA game ATI are willing to help with...Nvidia on the other hand have paid thousands of development houses sponsorship to keep their projects alive...most of them 2003 and 2004 AAA titles...

T.N.B.A.F:

Deus Ex 2: IW
S.T.A.L.K.E.R
Call of Duty
Doom III
Far Cry
Splinter Cell
UT2003/4
Prince of Persia, etc, etc, etc...

SIMPLE

ATI OWNED

NVIDIA IS Expensive and it sucks

basically people who've forked out for nvidia stuff are going to praise nvidia personally if i get a nice high framerate and decent graphics i couldnt care less

I can't understand where all this, "ATI rules, Nvidia sucks" or vice versa stuff comes from. ATI has a better current generation of cards, the generation before that Nvidia was the clear winner, next generation who knows? Honestly, doesn't it just make more sense to go with whatever card offers the best performance at the moment? All this "FanBoy" crap is just stupid and uninformed.