ati vs nvidia

[thepizzaman]

lol, no problem

he called me yesterday and said he was gonna give it to me.... haha :D so i'll have another card this week prolly.... the only thing is it had some sort of problem..... oh well sure that can be fixed :D

 

[kiddieboy12]

wait, how much is the 2900xt, and what games can it play, lot of ati cards look good in paper in reality they suck.

 

[thepizzaman]

well the list price is $400 for the one he has, and its about as good as a HD3870 depending on the manufacture..... this is a diamond Hd2900xt so its prolly a little better than a 3870 but its a workstation card so it can put out larger res than most others haha :D

 

[thepizzaman]

here are some benchmarks for the 512mb 2900xt compared to the 768mb 8800gtx
Overclock3D.Net :: News :: Radeon HD2900XT Benchmarks
and as you can see the 8800 gets the higher 3Dmark score but when it actually comes to the performance it falls behind

 

[kiddieboy12]

O.o so 3dmark is kind of a nvidia fanboy? Oh la la

 

[thepizzaman]

O.o so 3dmark is kind of a nvidia fanboy? Oh la la

haha it appears that way :D haha

 

[MDA400]

ATI loses most of the time because even though they pack their shaders onto the cards (BEEF EM UP), they dont have a seperate shader clock like NVIDIA does and so the shaders are tied to the core clock on ATI GPU's, making them twice to 2/3's slower than an NVIDIA GPU.

That's NVIDIA's secret. Individually clocking the shader....

 

[kiddieboy12]

wait i dont get it, so ati has 120 steam processors running at 800mhz

nvidia is 32 running at 1200mhz

 

[MDA400]

wait i dont get it, so ati has 120 steam processors running at 800mhz

nvidia is 32 running at 1200mhz

Exactly.

Nvidia's Stream Processors aren't tied to the core clock of the GPU, which doubles or 2.5 times increases the speed of the normal core clock.

And with that being said, the Core Clock on NVIDIA's GPU's basically add the extra mhz to the shader clock to further increase the acceleration power.

Nvidia, i think, has a patent on that technique. So dont think that ATI might try that method as well and if you even TRY 800 stream processors (HD 4870) at something like 1500 mhz, you'd need something like 3 to four 8-pin PCI-E connectors for 1 CARD....

 

[kiddieboy12]

lol, and/ATi fails much?? i get it now..uughh, ima go shopping again, 2600Xt not going well for me..

 

[JimJoe]

I use either one.

However, I did have a Windows XP computer 5 years ago that wouldn't work with a NVidia GeForce card in it. But that same computer did work with no problems with an ATI card in it.

 

[thepizzaman]

lol, and/ATi fails much?? i get it now..uughh, ima go shopping again, 2600Xt not going well for me..

hm..... whats your budget :D haha......

 

[kiddieboy12]

what about 9400gt? looks VERY slow..

and the 8600gts, i dunno, i cant find any 8800, all i can find is water cooled ones..

 

[smarteyeball]

what about 9400gt? looks VERY slow..

and the 8600gts, i dunno, i cant find any 8800, all i can find is water cooled ones..

Did you even try the advice given to you here:
http://www.vistax64.com/graphic-cards/240828-just-asking.html#post1105983

You may not need to even replace your card.

All you are doing is jumping from low spec card to low spec card and hoping for miraculous performance. I've got news for you - it ain't gonna happen.

 

[DJ Andrej]

No way, I have MSI R4670 512mb DDR3 (Core clock 750Mhz and memory clock 1000Mhz)...and I download driver from this site: Drivers & Tools | GAME.AMD.COM

I play every game at High with no problems



My spec: AMD Phenom 9550 Quad-Core 2.2Ghz
5GB DDR2
MSI R4670 graphic card
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit

 

[fieseler]

ATI you get more performance per $, but nvidia has much better drivers & support.

 

[thepizzaman]

but..... ati support is geting better so there are less issues and you do get better performance per $