ATI or NVIDIA

[WongJowo]

SiS6326 4Mb PCi card
.
.
6600
X1650Pro
8600GT
HD4770
I really love my HD4770, so I vote for the red

 

[cloud8521]

one thing i hate about Nvidia is the fact that their physx is built to run best on their card. they use a crippled version for the CPU physics

 

[Lomai]

ATI

 

[Lordbob75]

one thing i hate about Nvidia is the fact that their physx is built to run best on their card. they use a crippled version for the CPU physics

They DO own it... :sarc:

~Lordbob

 

[Darician]

one thing i hate about Nvidia is the fact that their physx is built to run best on their card. they use a crippled version for the CPU physics

They DO own it... :sarc:

~Lordbob

This is true. It could very well have something to do with it. That's actually why I stick to them. It's not fair but the situation is what it is.

 

[Nevakonaza]

Hmm well i think both companies are as good as each other...When upgrading my GFX card i tend to go with what company is offering the best performing card for my budget at the time.

When i last purchased a gfx card it was between the 4890 and GTX 260...the 4890 was cheaper,more powerfull and had more memory so i purchased it.

The cards ive owned that i can remember.

Ati Radeon 9600 Pro 256Mb (This card was a beast at the time)..still got it actualy.
Nvidia 8800GT 512Mb...still got that too
HD 4890 1GB (Current card)

 

[germulvey]

I had issues years back with ati drivers but none with my x1950, currently using an nvidia 9500GT with no issues. Ati twinview seems to work better on my media system connected to a 42" plasma (using the x1950) I am looking at a new gpu and will look at price and power consumption as priority.

 

[Rhammstein]

I've had good experiences with both, but ATI was just too good for the money, performance wise, over the last 2-3 years, well since the 4000 series. Before then I preferred Nvidia.

I like Cuda, but I like Stream. I like Physx, but ATI cards are fully capable of hardware phsyx, it's just not necessary and developers don't really care. It's more of a tool for selling cards, which is why so few games use it, and even fewer use it well.

My history:

3DFX Voodoo 1/2/3
GeForce 2 MX400
GeForce 3
Radeon 9600 Pro
Radeon X800 Pro
GeForce 7800GS (Died)
GeForce 8500GT (Slow and HOOOT)
GeForce 8600GT
GeForce 9800GTX+ (GTS 250 basically, just slightly slower mem clock)
Radeon HD 4890 & 5970

 

[F1FAN]

Nvidia. they made the 4 series good cards. The 460. Low power usage (only needs 450w power requirement), quiet, due to nvidia's stock cooling fan. dx11, good overclocking, first drivers for the card have no reported issues, unlike ati and there 5 series.

 

[A Guy]

I voted nVidia, but that is what I've always used. Tell truth, I wouldn't hesitate to get an ATI GPU. I think most of the problems we see are actually related to CCC issues, rather than the card or it's performance. A Guy

 

[Lordbob75]

I voted nVidia, but that is what I've always used. Tell truth, I wouldn't hesitate to get an ATI GPU. I think most of the problems we see are actually related to CCC issues, rather than the card or it's performance. A Guy

I would agree with this. When I had my 5770, the card was great, the driver sucked.

~Lordbob

 

[kilo52]

i`ve been using Nvidia`s graphics cards for over 6 years and had a few issues but none were serious , Now, Only a month ago i had a new gaming machine built by an IT outlet using ATI`s beast of a GPU the HD 5970, ive been having some problems with driver crashes and such, but after a driver software update using the CCC the GPU seems to be running alot better, i guess only time will tell, On a whole ATI`s beast is a huge graphics card and performance wise it eats almost every game i throw at it, Whether it be flightsim X, Rfactor or crysis at max settings it certainly holds its own, For now i`ll hold firm in saying Nvidia is probably rated just a little bit higher than ATI.....Only by a wee margin.