Nvidia or ATI

[masteraa]

The old question, Seems like it hasent been asked here in the last few weeks. Gamers, And professional work users, Whats best?

Nvdia or ATI?
Which has better value?
Which has less issues?
Which is more popular?

 

[Smith6612]

I'm an nVidia person. Yes, ATi has been performing nicely against the GeForce cards, I just stick with nVidia. I've found their cards to handle more load on them, despite them having more of a tendency to like to overheat if your cooling system blows.

Otherwise, I find the nVidia cards to be more common amonst hard core gamers, and ATi for the people who want to have the same performance or close to the GeForce cards, but want to save some money. Also, now that the GeForce 8, 9, and 200 series cards now have CUDA abilities and now have PhysX processing abilities thanks to a new driver, that makes GeForce cards even better.

 

[GBH187]

ati cards are currently cheaper and faster
not sure why smith says nvidia is more reliable there is currently a class action lawsuit against nvidia due to their mobile chips being unreliable

 

[wolfy67]

I've always had good luck with nVidia products. With the unified driver system in place I haven't had much trouble upgrading to a new card. It's truly plug-n-play for me.

The only problem I had was moving from an old PCI card to an AGP. A few hours of searching the net later I found I just had to delete and reinstall a few drivers (MCP Bridge I think?) and it worked like a charm.

I haven't used any ATI products myself but have helped friends install their cards. It's always been a bit of a hassle. Honestly, though, I didn't notice much of a difference between our two machines running nearly the same ram/fsb/chipset. Only major difference was the graphics card. The benchmark programs always reported a very similar score varying just a few points.

 

[Smith6612]

ati cards are currently cheaper and faster
not sure why smith says nvidia is more reliable there is currently a class action lawsuit against nvidia due to their mobile chips being unreliable

The mobile chips are not reliable because of the heating issue. GeForce cards produce a lot of heat and most laptops have no way or dissipating all of that heat, let alone with the CPU, RAM and HDD producing heat as well. nVidia can't do a thing other than make their mobile cards run slower. Laptop makers need to work on their cooling systems for laptops better.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

Up to the Geforce 8-series, Nvidia has been a clear winner. But with the release of the Radeon 4850 and 4870, ATI has taken the lead for value. Heat issues can be overcome with a simple fan-control program or patch, and they are only slightly more unstable than Nvidia cards atm because drivers haven't matured yet. Nvidia cards are still more popular though. And CUDA-based GPU PhysX isn't really a plus on the Nvidia side since it has already been ported to ATI cards as well using modified drivers. Nvidia still holds the top performance spot, but their cards are highly overpriced in comparison, and the few cards below their top-tier GTX 280 are disappointing in performance, actually falling behind ATI's cards.

 

[Spartan Erik]

I'm an nVidia fan, but the Radeon 4850/4870 are giving nVidia a run for its money

 

[galaxyAbstractor]

nVidia since all offewrs from it (first 10 levels of portal, half-life 2 deathmatch, half-life lost coast for free). Then you need it for FPS creator x10. + they sponsor ESWC

 

[componentwarehouse]

NVidia if you play a lot of games (or do pro graphics work) that needs very good graphics, but ATI if your building a cheaper computer that doesnt need the very best graphics (eg. for occasional gaming).

Alex

 

[GG-Xtreme]

NVidia if you play a lot of games (or do pro graphics work) that needs very good graphics, but ATI if your building a cheaper computer that doesnt need the very best graphics (eg. for occasional gaming).

Alex

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your argument. ATI cards are known for superior image quality compared to Nvidia, so if you wanted 'better' graphics, you'd go with ATI. And now that ATI has released the 4870X2, ATI has better performance as well (although it is quite a bit more expensive).

 

[componentwarehouse]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your argument. ATI cards are known for superior image quality compared to Nvidia, so if you wanted 'better' graphics, you'd go with ATI. And now that ATI has released the 4870X2, ATI has better performance as well (although it is quite a bit more expensive).

OK, I have to agree with the 4870X2, maybe ATI are changing, however I have always seen NVidia as superior in many ways, and ATI as slightly behind but much cheaper. I do not think NVidia has a better image quality in DX10 games.

Alex

 

[Mitch]

Nvidia or ATI? I voted for Nvidea
Which has better value? I would think Nvidea.
Which has less issues? I would not know. But i like nvidea cards better because the names are better. Like Geforce 8800 GTS / 9800 GTX. (easier to see what is a newer card ) ATI card names: Radeon HD4850 / Radeon HD3850X2
Which is more popular? Nvidea is very popular videocard under gamers

 

[moreuse]

i vote ATi

i always been using ATi but now i use Nvidia.

the first thing i notice is the bad image quality, the textures. its blurry.
ATi have better texture.

then i also got nv4_disp infinite loop BSOD on my GF 8600 GT. its causing windows loss its connection to Graphic subsystem.
i only can make this card stable by lowering the shader clock.

when i use ATi X1600, i never got BSOD regarding display card.

and ATi is cheaper

Also, now that the GeForce 8, 9, and 200 series cards now have CUDA abilities and now have PhysX processing abilities thanks to a new driver, that makes GeForce cards even better

err, only a few use PhysX,
many developer still use HAVOK for physics computing. and ATi already can do that

 

[JKnife]

My Vote AMD/ATI.

Which is really different from lets say the start of last year.
AMD/ATI now has the fastest card on the market. (the 4850X2 is the fastest card out right now). and if you look at the prices AMD/ATI is cheaper then nVidia. New top of the line GeForce can go for like 500-700$ (The GTX280) while the 4870 X2 goes for about 550$ and if you get the 4870(not the X2) it is only like 200-300$. Oh and AMD/ATI releases the specs for their cards \o/ (prob something nVidia will never do )

 

[xPlozion]

I voted nVidia simply because they've had official drivers for linux for a while, where ATI has just started offering them. That and every computer we had had an nVidia/Intel GPU, so why not stick with it

 

[lotius]

Well as far as laptops go, you get whatever vidcard is in the laptop you want, especially in an apple. Now that amd and ati are together I'd imagine there'll be a lot of amd based computers that will come with an ati card in them. I myself like amd computers, because most of my intel computers have been flamethrowers save for my toshiba which has proven to be nigh invulnerable, and it still works even though its ac adapter got fried in a lightning storm. Many pc games prefer one brand over another, but in games like World of Warcraft I've not really seen much difference between it on a amd athlon64 with an Nvidia geforce 7300 GS versus a Macbook pro intel dual core and an ATI Radeon X1600. So I think the real question is which nvidia vs which ati card which is pretty much true in all choices.

 

[dwd2000]

My current computer is a cheap Presario. It doesn't even have pci-e or agp. The only pci card I could find was a Nvidia 6200. XP doesn't like it, or it doesn't like XP. I have to use system restore to have all the little icons near the clock to show up, and the system crashes if I play certain types of videos. I've never had any problems with ATI and I will stick with ATI in the future.

 

[jhnrk]

I picked ATI, but I'm not 100% sure about my answer.
I have had mostly ATI cards in all my previous desktops after 3dfx Voodoo2.
From Radeon 7000 to current X800XL. So I've been pretty loyal customer.
(btw. that Radeon 7000 is still working!)
Current choice of desktop GPU would be performance/price wise - yes Ati again, but I don't like their current business style.
Nvidia has developed the CUDA api, so you can get more out of your (too) expensive GPU(s). Ati has nothing similar to offer.
Nvidia has aquired Ageia, so they are in lead with physics calculations (PhysX)... Which I believe to be the key to more realistic animation and game worlds.
In order to get everything out of PhysX, I'd need SLI, which hasn't been available to Intel chipsets. Sad because Intels are better than Nvidia chipsets... Ati has better relations with Intel, and Crossfire with intel chipset has been available for long time. But then again, what would I do with Crossfire setup, if I can buy 4750 X2 and I don't have similar option like with Nvidia cards to use one adapter to crunch physics (or could I?)

So I got mixed feeling towards both companies.