• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

now once again ati or nvidia?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

harderclock

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Location
montreal
ATI have just about had it with NVidia, or at least that is what their most recent move shows. Their upcoming chip, expected to be released in September, will essentially ask game developers to choose whether to support ATI or NVidia cards. ATI SmartShader rendering will use Pixel Shader 1.4, a new technology in Microsoft's DirectX 8.1 multimedia standard. NVidia supports Pixel Shader only through version 1.3.

In a recently released and highly controversial white paper, available on the ATI home page, it is claimed that the main difference is that Pixel Shader 1.4 lets graphics chips render up to six textures in a single pass instead of four. NVidia counters that the GeForce3 can render six textures, although it takes more than a single pass.

If a choice of board has to be made NVidia seems confident that its chipset will emerge victorious:
"We're pretty confident that developers are going to support our architecture. I say that because we've had a lot of overwhelming support and excitement," says Geoff Ballew, product manager for the GeForce3 at NVidia.

In reply ATI's technical marketing manager of desktop marketing David Nalasco says:
"We believe NVidia is attempting to spread misinformation about our SmartShader technology in an effort to protect their perceived technology leadership in 3D graphics,"

It is obvious that the gloves are off and full scale war is about to erupt. The usual victim, the consumer, may have to soon decide whether to own both cards in order to be able to play all available games.
 

Pinky

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
Narf City, USA
Talk is cheap. Proof is in the pudding.

ATI needs to put their money where their mouth is, else they're barking up the wrong tree (again).
 

Jon

Just Another Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Location
Lawrenceville, GA
That means when the Radeon came out it was supposed to put an end to nVidia's video card stranglehold with a once and for all answer. It didn't.

Now I own a Radeon VIVO and the card is great, but I also own a GeForce 256 DDR and a GeForce 3 and both of these cards smoke it. The Radeon has terrific picture quality but it's just a naturally slow card. I fear nothing is going to change.

ATI is going to have to just release a card that hands down kicks nVidia's *** outright and I don't think they can do it...
 

Pinky

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
Narf City, USA
Hehe... that's funny Jon, I'm not the only one that speaks Cliche :).

ATI/Radeons need more speed, bottom line. Image quality on geforce cards is nice, but the framerates are what gamers buy the cards for, not whether my blue is better than your. If 2D meant more, Matrox would be the best selling card out of the three.
 

Blue Jester_2112

Member
Joined
May 11, 2001
I wouldn't call the Radeon slow by any means. It isn't as fast as the geforce line, but that don't make it slow necessarilly. Ati added some great features to the Radeon, but it wasn't their fault that no game developers chose to support them. Game manufacturers choose to make games based on the capabilities of Nvidia cards. There is nothing ATI can do about that, ATI put out a quality all aroung good product, one with excellent 2D, 3D and DVD support. That's the reason I bought mine. I wanted a card that could give me the gaming performance I desired as well as top notch performance elsewhere. I'm first and foremost a gamer, but I spend alot of time doing other things with my pc too. I spend countless hours surfing the net, writing papers for class, watching DVD's, etc. etc. and I honestly do notice the difference from my geforce 256. For some people this might not be as much of a priority, for some pure speed and maximum fps is tops on their list of requirements for a vid card. And that's fine, you don't have to like, or even buy, an ATI card. You have options, that's the nice thing about having multiple companies competing in the the same marketplace. I provides a greater selection and lower prices. ATI is trying to compete, they're putting out cards with speed and quality and offer game developers as many options to work with as possible so that you the consumer can feel like you are getting your moneys worth. ATI is trying to push technology as far as they can. They can't compete with Nvidia's hype so have to find other means. Personally I'm for whatever gets me smooth better looking graphics. I don't want to see either company fall by the roadside.

My 2 cents on the subject, and I'm sure I went off on a tangent in there somewhere =]
 

Jon

Just Another Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Location
Lawrenceville, GA
I'm all for options in buying. That's why I have the two best video cards on the market running in the top two systems you can build. Radeon VIVO in my dual P3 1GHz and a GeForce 3 in my TBird 1.4GHz rig. Life is good.

I don't necessarily mean the Radeon is slow. It's just the simple fact that nVidia has set a standard. Just like Intel did with processors. AMD came along and smashed that standard. ATI has yet to do it. And because AMD beat the standard for Intel still does not mean Intel is now a slouch. They just have to work harder...and charge LESS!

ATI did what they did very well. It does have excellent DVD playback, better than nVidia's. Picture quality is also better. But like Pinky said...speed and FPS is where it's at. Just like MHz in the processor wars.

I personally don't buy into any of that. I'm just calling it as I see it from a business point of view over the general PC public.

I'd buy it all if it were up to me, haha.
 

Kingslayer

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2001
Location
Port Charlotte, Florida
Speed and FPS is not where it's at. That's just what the consumers are demanding. Everyone has gotten so caught on nVidia publicity that FPS makes your games better, that that is all they know.

I will take a card that offers more features, better quality, superior DVD support, and still have the backbone to play any game today well at half the price over a card that just lives on FPS. As a matter of fact, I have. The RADEON 64DDR VIVO.

And this is just like politics. nVidia has already started to throw mud. And there is only one time when politicians throw mud. When they are losing!
 

Pinky

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
Narf City, USA
I looove a good fight, so long as I'm not in it 8).

Overall, I give the Radeon line equal scores to Nvidia. In gaming, which right now is my major concern, I can't beat my geforce 3 (or an Ultra).

dollar for dollar Radeons are good cards. I don't think anyone can say they're not... like it's been pointed out, for 2D features AND gaming radeon's the best choice; but for sheer gaming, you get the point...
 

Jon

Just Another Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Location
Lawrenceville, GA
Kingslayer (Aug 02, 2001 01:06 p.m.):
Speed and FPS is not where it's at. That's just what the consumers are demanding. Everyone has gotten so caught on nVidia publicity that FPS makes your games better, that that is all they know.

I will take a card that offers more features, better quality, superior DVD support, and still have the backbone to play any game today well at half the price over a card that just lives on FPS. As a matter of fact, I have. The RADEON 64DDR VIVO.

And this is just like politics. nVidia has already started to throw mud. And there is only one time when politicians throw mud. When they are losing!


That's exactly where I was getting at and I agree 100%. That's why I said I don't buy into it. I prefer the picture quality of my Radeon VIVO over my GF3. I still had to have one, though, and it was a gift, hehe.

What's funny to me is, that what puts ATI behind is exactly what they are doing right in the first place...pleasing our eyes.
 

Blue Jester_2112

Member
Joined
May 11, 2001
Jon (Aug 02, 2001 12:56 p.m.):

But like Pinky said...speed and FPS is where it's at. Just like MHz in the processor wars.
But isn't the myth of speed one place where AMD shattered the Intel standard? It was AMD's innovation that forced us to rethink how to measure a processor. Even at stock speeds a 1.2 ghz t-bird, a chip designed to challenge the P3, outclasses a 1.4-1.5ghz P4. Yes, at first it was pure speed that broke through and made AMD a name worth buying, but in the end it was quality of design that gave AMD it's staying power. I think that's what ATI is trying to do. We already have all the FPS we need right now. What ATI is doing is trying to improve the quality of those frames. They're trying to set a new standard in how we view all those fps that get fired off. For now that does mean sacrificing speed, but they're doing it the right way where as they aren't sacrificing so much as to make their product slow. Nvidia just wants to cram 200 fps of good graphics down your throat while ATI is looking for an equilibrium between visual quality and speed. (Which they'll inevitably cram down yer throat.) People are calling for ATI to step up to the challenge now now now. It took AMD years to be able to design a product worthy of rivaling Intel and to find an opportunity to market it right. Nvidia has made tremendous improvements over the last 3 years in graphics technology and, in that time, swallowed up the former king of 3D graphics. They have their own money and technology to back up their products and that of 3dfx to incorperate should they choose to. ATI had very little time to stop rubbing their eyes in disbelief and throw their hat into the ring. They managed to pull off a great product to keep them in the race. They know they have to come up with something great, and I think they're trying to. They've delayed the release of the Radeon II for 6 months to improve upon it and make it ready to compete with the beast that is the GF3.
ATI is working towards making their run for Video card greatness, just be patient, it doesn't happen overnight.

Also, I'd like to add that this argument amusses me. I think we all pretty much agree and yet we keep going =]
 

diehrd

Senior SMP Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Location
NY
Well I have a question I ordered the radon 64meg DDr Vivo Retail,,,If this is compaired to Niviada of equall value what is the real difference in frame rates ???

And then what is the difference in Image Quality realisticly between the 2 companys..
 

supraway

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Location
SLC, Utah
I would compare my 2D quality on my Gainward Cardex Geforce3 to Radeons any day. DVD may not be quite as beautiful, but everything else in the Geforce is good. Even the TV-in is very crisp. Ok, ok, TV-out sucks really bad, but that isn't the point... I like the idea that games are going to support the Geforce3's special features, and I feel safe paying $340 for a card that should last me a LONG time.
 

Blue Jester_2112

Member
Joined
May 11, 2001
Well, the Radeon was made to compete bsicaly with the Geforce 2 line. The diference in fps between a 64 meg GF2 and a 64 meg Radeon is hard to say, it realy depends on the system, how much eye candy you like and what game your running. I'd say you would probably be looking at a 5-15fps difference with the gap getting wider at lower res. 15fps is alot, but isn't all that significant when your already pulling 80.

Gf cards tend to be slightly darker, but it's not that big of a deal. It can be slightly annoying in exceptionally dark games but nothing major.
There is a noticable difference in the 2D quality again, it won't blow your mind. It's just nice to have if you have it.

There is a difference in DVD quality, the Radeon is hands down better.
 

Pinky

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
Narf City, USA
off discussion,

jester... this is a purely beautiful quote, which Seuss is this from?!

"How did it get so late so soon?
Its night before its afternoon.
December is here before its June.
My goodness how the time has flewn.
How did it get so late so soon?''
-Dr. Seuss
 

FerrariF50

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Location
Greenwich,CT,USA
God thats so true...... Now I don't mean to flame here but i'am watching all of you buy these $399 + video cards and then get pissed because it's not as fast as you thought it was or you try and overclock it to get the LAST Fram Per Second out of a game. I mean man be happy what you got.

Kingslayer (Aug 02, 2001 01:06 p.m.):
Speed and FPS is not where it's at. That's just what the consumers are demanding. Everyone has gotten so caught on nVidia publicity that FPS makes your games better, that that is all they know.

I will take a card that offers more features, better quality, superior DVD support, and still have the backbone to play any game today well at half the price over a card that just lives on FPS. As a matter of fact, I have. The RADEON 64DDR VIVO.

And this is just like politics. nVidia has already started to throw mud. And there is only one time when politicians throw mud. When they are losing!
 

FerrariF50

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Location
Greenwich,CT,USA
Well if you look around on some site some of them will point out that Amd was never a "leader" just a follower....

Blue Jester_2112 (Aug 02, 2001 02:05 p.m.):
Jon (Aug 02, 2001 12:56 p.m.):

But like Pinky said...speed and FPS is where it's at. Just like MHz in the processor wars.
But isn't the myth of speed one place where AMD shattered the Intel standard? It was AMD's innovation that forced us to rethink how to measure a processor. Even at stock speeds a 1.2 ghz t-bird, a chip designed to challenge the P3, outclasses a 1.4-1.5ghz P4. Yes, at first it was pure speed that broke through and made AMD a name worth buying, but in the end it was quality of design that gave AMD it's staying power. I think that's what ATI is trying to do. We already have all the FPS we need right now. What ATI is doing is trying to improve the quality of those frames. They're trying to set a new standard in how we view all those fps that get fired off. For now that does mean sacrificing speed, but they're doing it the right way where as they aren't sacrificing so much as to make their product slow. Nvidia just wants to cram 200 fps of good graphics down your throat while ATI is looking for an equilibrium between visual quality and speed. (Which they'll inevitably cram down yer throat.) People are calling for ATI to step up to the challenge now now now. It took AMD years to be able to design a product worthy of rivaling Intel and to find an opportunity to market it right. Nvidia has made tremendous improvements over the last 3 years in graphics technology and, in that time, swallowed up the former king of 3D graphics. They have their own money and technology to back up their products and that of 3dfx to incorperate should they choose to. ATI had very little time to stop rubbing their eyes in disbelief and throw their hat into the ring. They managed to pull off a great product to keep them in the race. They know they have to come up with something great, and I think they're trying to. They've delayed the release of the Radeon II for 6 months to improve upon it and make it ready to compete with the beast that is the GF3.
ATI is working towards making their run for Video card greatness, just be patient, it doesn't happen overnight.

Also, I'd like to add that this argument amusses me. I think we all pretty much agree and yet we keep going =]
 

Zuck Gou :)

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2001
At 32-bit colors and everything maxed the Radeon is Equal to any of the Geforce2 line.

Geforce 3 I dont know.