ATI VS NVIDIA

I choose which one based on performance and price. Since saying with a single brand is not a very good way to get the best bang for buck. Also, the 480 GTX runs hotter, uses more power, not as fast as the ATI 5970, and you pay more. Just don't see the value there. Hence it's not a very good idea to stick to one company.

I've seen threads like these where they turn out to be a complete flame war. Luckily on Fakku, people here are less fanatical and more reasonable than on some other forums that I have seen. Job well done people.

As for my preferences, I tend to prefer Nvidia more. Although ATI products perform similarly, from my experience, I have had less trouble with Nvidia than I have ATI. Also a few features in Nvidia cards stand out to me:

1. Nvidia drivers have better support in Linux. Although in Ubuntu, it is easy to install ATI drivers, in some other distribution, it is far more difficult. For example, Arch Linux. Using proprietary catalyst drivers in Arch Linux is unsupported, and this is similar for many other distros.

2.ATI has no effective equivalent of Nvidia's CUDA. Although it isn't generally used in everyday operation, it is really convenient in specific tasks. If I wanted to convert a video file, using the GPU's stream processors using Badaboom will make converting videos convert significantly faster. Also if you are an avid Folding@Home person, you cannot go without Nvidia CUDA. You end up building up so much more points as a result of having an Nvidia card.

With that said, ATI cards still perform similarly in gaming, and with the recent 4-series, generally cost less. So, it is really just a matter of preference....

Also PhysX is complete crap if it is only supported by a few select games. It's not even worth considering if you are deciding between ATI and Nvidia.

I GO for NVIDIA
It's not that expensive. Also i use NVIDIA

I have just one thing to say about this thread:

Spoiler:

FUCK YO FANCY EXPENSIVE ASS DEDICATED GRAPHICS CARDS!! CHEAP ASS, SHITTY, INTEGRATED GRAPHICS UNITS FTW!!

But on a more serious note, I really do need to get a newer, better computer that has something other than this lame ass Intel integrated graphics chip in it: it sucks diseased moose wang. I can't even watch the high quality Bluray movies with my comp, because it can't keep up with the HQ graphics with my processor and integrated graphics chip.

I suppose that is the bane of most laptops, integrated graphics. The problem with dedicated graphics in a laptop is that they take up extra power and reduce battery life. Fortunately my laptop has Nvidia 9400m integrated graphics, so it gets a little better battery life.

So you are comparing something that does not even exist...that does not help with purchasing something now.


I have to disagree as I am comparing the cards that are offered by both currently is their best hence it is a valid comparison. I am not picking the lowest Nvidia card and the best ATI card and comparing them.


I would certainly hope so after all it is the next generation card that they are offering. In addition, running hotter and consuming more power does not make a card better when you look at the 5970 which out performs it while it uses less power and runs cooler.

And if you think that I am some ATI fan boy well I am not as I have purchased both ATI cards and Nvdia cards (currently running 2x8800 GTS 640 sli). I'm just looking at it from an objective point of view.

Oh rly?



The HD5850 and the 280 GTX is the same generation of their respective card maker. I wouldn't trade my HD5850 for any other card on the market (well, except for maybe a HD5870, 5950 or a 5970 =P).

Actually, it is quite impossible to say that one is the best kind of card. Both makers top each other all the time, their latest card being better or worse changes with every one they make.

The only fact that always will be true is that ATI is cheaper, even the times they're better.

Poor comparison. You are comparing a card that is almost 2 years old to a card that is less than six months old. They aren't in the same generations... The 5850 is a DX11 card and the GTX 280 is a DX10 card. You are comparing a current generation card to a previous generation card.

Now... if you compared the GTX470 with the 5850, you will see that they are both DX11 cards and fairly new. Although the GTX 470 is ~$50 more, it is the card that is made to compete with the 5850 and 5870.



Although in DX10, the 5850 has a slight edge over the GTX 470, it is in the newer DX11 when the GTX 470 really shines, like in the Unengine benchmark and Metro 2033. These cards are in the same generation, the GTX 280 and the 5850 are not.

Shortly; im NVIDIA fan, but indeed ATI is on the strong side atm. GTX 480 which is gonna come out, seems to have bit more boot than then ATI's 5970, but we'll see better results later.

Whatever.

What I meant by the same generation is that HD5850 is more and less ATI's answer to the GTX 280/285. GTX470 will be ten times more expensive than the HD5850, but hardly ten times as good. Not even if you step up to the HD5950 will the price cover the difference, ATI will still be cheaper, but with enough power to run any game you want for a couple of years.

I also picked that example cuz most people are thinking of buying either the HD 5850 Or the GTX 280, cuz they're almost in the same price range.

Ethil is right that ATI has power atm;

Thou, i was reading something liek this cuz of boredom:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/30297-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480-review.html

It seem it's pretty much a bit more effective than 5870 and sometimes gets 5970's tail, but is not as good as 5970, thou it is cheaper than 5970.

Whatever. I don't have money for such.

If you use GNU/Linux, then NVidia is still mostly the way to go. Probably because NVidia sells to some large Linux-using companies and made the effort to write good enough drivers in the past. ATI tries to support their newest cards with moderate success, but overall still lacks behind in that department (experience both personal and in company environment).

On Windows platforms I notice only marginal differences between priorities of the two companies' cards' performance, so it really comes down to an inconsequential choice.

Some Internet sources concerning GNU/Linux performance:

source: http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/118497
"Broadly speaking, free drivers for ATI and Nvidia tend to lack 3-D support, while the proprietary drivers of ATI tend to be slow and buggy and those for Nvidia fast but variable in quality. In other words, none are completely satisfactory."

source: http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/peripherals-hardware/158195-ati-graphics-cards-2010-a.html
"the ATI open source drivers are not yet "up to snuff" and their proprietary drivers don't support older hardware well - they tend to drop access to the drivers for cards after an unpleasantly short period of time."

Video: There're still problems with the whole proprietary drivers situation, though

Update May 2nd: Valve has a new hardware survey with results: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ - btw 61% nVidia

Quality shouldn't be mistaken for performance. There are other things than that, too. For example NVidia has much better drivers and I am sure that the card won't get damaged so easily. Plus stuff like "PhysX","CUDA" or "3D Vision" shouldn't be negated so easily, too, since such technologies are driving the development of graphic cards fastly forward while ATI does not really give a fuck in these aspects.

But really guys... I kinda hate this "speed speed speeeeeeeed!"-argument.

Actually ATI is has a Cuda equivalent called Stream.
But right now it's still too young to go up against Nvidia's Cuda.

I don't believe that ATI will be going down the 3D screen technology road at present but they're developing more on Multiple monitor technology with Eyefinity.
Gotta say it's a boon for surround gaming enthusiast like myself, native support for surround gaming without having to rely on softTH is a god send.

People remember to please fact check your statements instead of throwing them out like that.

In regards to cards dying and such it depends on how much abuse the card has endured over its lifetime ect ect.
Or you could have just gotten a dud end of story.

I usually go with price to performance ratio, which means I'd usually go with ATI.