PDA

View Full Version : ATI versus NVIDEA


Gaalgoth
05-22-2002, 11:05 PM
What's better for gaming? also, when choosing a video card, what are the best things to look for? pixels per second, max resolution, megatercels, what? Speaking of which, what are megatercels?

Vid Gamer
05-23-2002, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Gaalgoth
What's better for gaming? also, when choosing a video card, what are the best things to look for? pixels per second, max resolution, megatercels, what? Speaking of which, what are megatercels?

I would go with Nvidia. If you have the money, the GeForce 4 Ti4600 will work wonders, plus games won't take advantage of its powers for a long time so it will last you for quite a while.

MikeC
05-23-2002, 12:43 AM
Odd you should ask. Just last nght I installed a new g-Force 4 in my machine. :D Added 256 Meg of RAM too. Bring on Galaxies!!

MikeC
05-23-2002, 12:45 AM
Well, I just noticed a new face in here.

Welcome Vid Gamer!

Gaalgoth
05-23-2002, 02:18 AM
Well this is a comparison between a ATI Radeon 8500 and a VisionTek Xtasy GeForce 4 TI4600.

ATI Radeon 8500
-128 mb ram
-2048x1536 max resolution
-125 million polygons per sec
-275MHz clock speed
-Radeon 8500 processor

VisionTek Xtasy GeForce 4 TI4600
-128 mb ram
-nVidea GeForce 4 processor
-350MHz clock speed
-8 texels per clock cycle
-136 million polygons per second

The Radeon is also $150 cheaper. What is better? cause looking at this I'd go with Radeon, especially if I'm getting a new comp next summer. What do you guys think? Is the nVidea worth the extra cash, or will everything run all dandy with the Radeon?

setsuko
05-24-2002, 07:45 AM
I use RADEON too (and older 64mb card), and I'd say things runs smoother with it. My experience in the ATi vs nVidia problem is that ATi's card has better capacity for stunning graphics, while nVidia kicks it's ass when it comes to frames per second. Since I play slower games (RPGs and RTS) in stead of all those Quakes and MoH:AA and such boring games (:D), I like ATi better. Though, nVidia updates its drivers more frequent. But personally, I would not deem it worth $150 extra, no way.

The speed of the card is seen in the processing speed and polygons per second. So the Geforce 4 is faster. But again, I would not say $150 faster. The only reason for going for the Geforce would be that you are really into FPS (First Person Shooters), and well, fps (frames oer second), and that you are made of cash :). Both are good cards, and I doubt you will be dissatisfied with either of them.

edit: oh, yes, and on the subject of playing SWG on it: In MMO games, graphics are more dependent on RAM than in 'normal' games, since the amount of info the card can keep active at the same time (i.e. where everyone is, what everyone is doing) is extremely important. And well, in this battle royale, the cards are tied in this cathegory. Hope that helps some.

Absath
05-25-2002, 08:56 PM
I bought a ti4600 and i have to say it is a godsend. it runs everything at top notch beautifully. and with 768mb of ram backing it up, im set for quite a while.

go with nvidia. they have the compatibility and the supoort. and the power...



-Abs

Com Raven
05-26-2002, 02:34 PM
I prefer NVidia....

look at the vertex, pixel shader things, those will determine how great Galaxies will look...

Darth Simpson
05-26-2002, 02:59 PM
What is better? cause looking at this I'd go with Radeon, especially if I'm getting a new comp next summer.

Next summer both of those cards will be obsolete...

But if you were getting one right now, I would go for nVidia, but not the Ti 4600, it's too expensive. Get the Ti 4200 instead, and overclock it a little. Much more bang for your buck.