ATI vs NVIDIA...

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-08-10 05:11pm

I do alot of 3d stuff as a hobby.

I have to say, I am a big fan of 3d Labs low end cards (all I can afford). My old Oxegen (The entry level model) with 32 Megs of Ram pushed around open GL graphics easier in some apps than my GeForce 4600 with 128 megs of RAM. But I also wanted to play games so I kept with the GeForce. My next card will definately be a 3dlabs.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-08-10 06:52pm

YT300000 wrote:Two questions phongn. When did you buy this card, and for how much?(remember to specific if in Can or US dollars)

I don't recall anymore, I bought my R8500LE/128MB off of Amazon in January or so.

EDIT: It was ~$90.00 before S&H. Pricewatch shows similar cards in the $70 range now.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-08-10 07:01pm

SPOOFE wrote:"Thanks to the numerous tweaks, improvements and refinements, the card is finally able to beat the Radeon 9800 PRO."

Conceded, though I stopped trusting THG a long time ago. Benches off of various other websites were showing closer parity between the two (with the 5900 generally leading, except in Comanche 4).

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-08-10 07:02pm

Sam Or I wrote:I have to say, I am a big fan of 3d Labs low end cards (all I can afford). My old Oxegen (The entry level model) with 32 Megs of Ram pushed around open GL graphics easier in some apps than my GeForce 4600 with 128 megs of RAM. But I also wanted to play games so I kept with the GeForce. My next card will definately be a 3dlabs.

Professional 3D cards are typically designed differently than consumer gaming cards, allowing them much higher performance in applications like modelling, CAD/CAM, etc. I'm not surprised here, though you would do well to check out nVidia's Quadro line and ATI's FireGL line, which are professional adaptations of their GeForce and Radeon lines, respectively.

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2003-08-11 12:12am

That's the Ultra version though, isn't it? Personally I trust THG but the 5900Ultra is just in another price range when compared with the 128MB Radeon 9800PRO. I've always though the non-ultra was about the same as the 128MB 9800PRO.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-08-11 12:26am

It is the Ultra, but as it and the R9800 Pro are the top-of-the-line cards a comparison between the two is more than fair.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-08-11 12:28am

NVidia chips eat more power and are a less elegant hardware solution than ATI. However, their drivers are vastly superior. ATI's Windows drivers have been a nightmare for a long time, and their Linux drivers barely qualify as a sick joke. ATI might as well put "Fuck you Linux users" on their website in order to save us the time and effort of figuring out their Linux strategy for ourselves.

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2003-08-11 02:51am

phongn wrote:It is the Ultra, but as it and the R9800 Pro are the top-of-the-line cards a comparison between the two is more than fair.

Kind of, I think. I guess there is a distinction between the DDRII 256MB models and the DDRI 128MB ones though - mind you, the 5900 Ultra does own the DDRII 256MB version in all reports, so you are right.

Didn't realize the Linux part about ATI, though, so there is that. It's a shame that their motherboard will likely end up the same way.