Move over Nvidia, ATI is king for price/performance!

Yeah, I have to say, that as a Ti4600 GF4 owner, I\'m super happy.  Playing at full res with max details and 4x AA is sweet.  My parents bought a top of the line ATI, and while it has some features that are better (tuner/capturing software), and pricepoint, it certainly doesn\'t get the fps of my 4600, and the driver problems that ATI always has have plagued them from day one.

Originally posted by FatalXception
Yeah, I have to say, that as a Ti4600 GF4 owner, I\'m super happy.  Playing at full res with max details and 4x AA is sweet.  My parents bought a top of the line ATI, and while it has some features that are better (tuner/capturing software), and pricepoint, it certainly doesn\'t get the fps of my 4600, and the driver problems that ATI always has have plagued them from day one.

What ATI card are you referring to?  The Ti4200/4600 isn\'t meant to be compared with the 9100 and below.  Try comparing it with the 9500/9700 Pro and the ATI wins hands down.  Take a look here and I see the 9700 Pro kicking the crap out of the 4600 in fps.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021202/radeon_9500-03.html

At least match up cards that are meant to compete with each other before making claims.

9500 Pro vs Ti 4200
9700 Pro vs Ti 4600

BOTH the 9500 Pro and 9700 Pro > GeForce 4Ti\'s with 4X AA on.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021202/radeon_9500-07.html

Also, what are these driver problems?  They have been resolved in all of the new cards so I don\'t see any validity in that argument.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

9700 vs FX more like it.. DX9 vs DX9 not DX9 vs DX8

like comparing apples and oranges.

I see the 9800 in there against the FX series and I agree you can pit the 9700 vs the FX series, but all the benchmark tests were using DX8.  DX9 wasn\'t even out when the 9700 was made.  Both the 9700 and the Ti 4600 were $400 cards at the time and both top of the line for their respective companies.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

I agree, ATI are a cheaper and right now better card manufacture. Don\'t get me wrong. I get the best out for the cash i have. But, comparing an 8xagp, dx9 card to a 4xagp dx8 card is hardly justifiable. They did it only because the FX wasn\'t out. Compare the 9700/9800 cards to the FX series and compare the GF4ti cards to the 9500 series. It\'s only fair.

I see your point, but the 9500 is a DX9 card as well and was released later than the 9700 as a mid range card.  All I am trying to point out to some is:  If you had $400 6 months ago which card would you have bought?  As your statement above implies Soul you would have bought the ATI

Personally, I like both companies and don\'t find a problem with either manufacturer, but ATI holds the crown right now and if you have the cash and are buying a card immediately, ATI is the way to go.  I didn\'t want to spend $400 myself, but I wanted a DX9 card so I bought the $200 9500.

Oh on a side note... the 9100 Pro is a revamped 8500 - which is a decent card as well.  Guess ATI had some extra chipsets and wanted to get rid of them so the remarketed them as the 9100.

OMFG!!!! soully defending nvidia!!!!

oh no, the apocalypse has begun!!

Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD



for nvidia...   it does.

Not for the FX series, it doesn\'t.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Originally posted by mm
OMFG!!!! soully defending nvidia!!!!

oh no, the apocalypse has begun!!

Not defending ati or nvidia. I\'m not a fanboy. I\'m simply saying it\'s only fair to compare cards that were designed around the same time and series etc.

paul. With any company, you get what you pay for. Budget cards are exactly that. Put aside the nvidia vs Ati crap for now. Nvidia budget cards are cheap compared and lower in performance to compared to their high end more expensive versions. It\'s the same with ATI, their budget cards are cheap and low in performance compared to the more expensive high end cards.. You get what u paid for.  But when it comes to comparing Nvidia against ATI. You get more out of your buck with ATI.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Oh on a side note... the 9100 Pro is a revamped 8500 - which is a decent card as well.  Guess ATI had some extra chipsets and wanted to get rid of them so the remarketed them as the 9100.

Yes, the 9100 is the 8500, but a slightly improved version of 8500, while the 9000 is a slightly inferior version of the 8500.

Amusing video regarding Nvidia drivers...

http://www.giga.de/help/helpnite/grafik2.wmv

A GeForceFX crashing twice in a 5 minute presentation on a German TV show and to make matters worse the last one was a BSOD.  No company is perfect

Originally posted by Paul


Yes, the 9100 is the 8500, but a slightly improved version of 8500, while the 9000 is a slightly inferior version of the 8500.

I am quite happy with the 9500 Pro as I sold my neighbor my 9000 Pro and there is quite a difference.  I did see a difference when I switched out my GeForce 4 MX 440 with the 9000 though and decided to stick with ATI when I bought my midlevel card.  It has enough eye candy for the price

Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD


Not defending ati or nvidia. I\'m not a fanboy. I\'m simply saying it\'s only fair to compare cards that were designed around the same time and series etc.

paul. With any company, you get what you pay for. Budget cards are exactly that. Put aside the nvidia vs Ati crap for now. Nvidia budget cards are cheap compared and lower in performance to compared to their high end more expensive versions. It\'s the same with ATI, their budget cards are cheap and low in performance compared to the more expensive high end cards.. You get what u paid for.  But when it comes to comparing Nvidia against ATI. You get more out of your buck with ATI.

Gigashadow: This i gotta agreed. :cool:  I wouldn\'t mind switching camp back to Nvidia if they do a better job next time. Btw, ATI will be releasing their 2nd gen DX9 card soon...already kicking Nvidia butt\'s in the mid range...now looks all set to take the top performance back and more importantly, a decent DX9 budget card to kick FX5200 to totally eliminate this piece of scrap metal from any buyer\'s mind, and refined mid-range DX9 card with better performance.


=================================
Arnold S. (Terminator 3) - "The time has come."

Originally posted by GigaShadow
I see the 9800 in there against the FX series and I agree you can pit the 9700 vs the FX series, but all the benchmark tests were using DX8.  DX9 wasn\'t even out when the 9700 was made.  Both the 9700 and the Ti 4600 were $400 cards at the time and both top of the line for their respective companies.

Yep exactly. the 9500/9600/9700 is targeted to vs Ti series..and ATI won the round. The FX was supposely Nvidia turn to take back the crown..but instead after much delay, they only managed to churn out some embarrassingly loud and hot cards that still can\'t beat the 9500/9600/9700 series...until the 5900 came along and restore some pride to Nvidia. Frankly speaking, nvidia is already 1 generation behind ATI, now that ATI is getting ready to launch their 2nd gen DX9 cards soon. And seeing how the FX is the 1st cards implemented with 3dFx technology...one can\'t help but thinks anything 3DFx is jinxed....if I remember correctly 3DFx also missed a product cycle which quickly brought their untimely demise...