Well, nVidia won 44 to 31.. so I'm goin with ATI, lol. I still really appreciate you all for you're input and votes.. so dont think it was all in vein. I just chose ATI cuz all of the 7900 GTX problems I've read compared to the X1900 XTX. Even though most of you voted for nVidia, it seemed like the people that voted for ATI have more valid reasons to buy ATI rather than nVidia. I would like to give a big THANKS to EvilMonkeySlayer for sharing your expirience with me and the other members that viewed this thread! + much karma to you and all others that replied! Now that I've ordered my card on Newegg less than 5 mins ago, I can expect it in about a week here in South Korea, heh. THANKS again ALL!!
Poll
7900 GTX or X1900 XTX
| 7900 Gtx | 61% | 61% - 82 | ||||
| X1900 Xtx | 38% | 38% - 51 | ||||
| Total: 133 | ||||||
no problem mate, u made the right choice, as a 7900gt user, i had an original overclock of 570mhz core and 776mhz mem, i had to downclock to 540core 740mem... 7900series got some wierd shut down isssues, ive heard it was the back of the card thats overheating (voltage regulators)
1900XTX-the Ati has better benchmarks for OpenGL i think
7900GT-better D3d etc...
7900GT-better D3d etc...
doesnt matter that much, 7900gtx cards freeze up a lot... so which one ur gonna take? one with just one less fps and higher stability, or ones thats gonna be fucked every gaming sessionT0tal-Annihilation wrote:
1900XTX-the Ati has better benchmarks for OpenGL i think
7900GT-better D3d etc...
Actually I think the difference in OpenGL is around 10-20 pts in terms of benchmark... must check again.
I haven't noticed any kind of freezing up on 7900GTX cards though I'm not OCing any of them(yet) and when I'm playing using a 7900 it doesn't crash though the system with the 7900 runs on an AMD chip (so iunno if it affects stability of the nvidia card any).
I haven't noticed any kind of freezing up on 7900GTX cards though I'm not OCing any of them(yet) and when I'm playing using a 7900 it doesn't crash though the system with the 7900 runs on an AMD chip (so iunno if it affects stability of the nvidia card any).
the 7900gtx cards are 50/50 chance now, they either work great, or theyll die in 1 week of use
That's not very good...
but I've bought about 7 for customers and 5 of them took the heat during prime95 after OC, one of em started smoking even though temp. was not even close to max, and the 7th one just plain didn't work.
Guess, I was lucky then, eh?
but I've bought about 7 for customers and 5 of them took the heat during prime95 after OC, one of em started smoking even though temp. was not even close to max, and the 7th one just plain didn't work.
Guess, I was lucky then, eh?
hmm, from everything I have read the nVidia 7900gtx cards outperform the x1900xtx. I also haven't read about any of those smoking/failure problems. Meh, I guess that is why I buy from a company with a great warranty (winks at eVGA)
Where have you read that? Not one of the sites where they compare the two, have said the Nvidia outperforms it. As of right this moment, ATI is the fastest single, and multi-card choice.Janus67 wrote:
hmm, from everything I have read the nVidia 7900gtx cards outperform the x1900xtx. I also haven't read about any of those smoking/failure problems. Meh, I guess that is why I buy from a company with a great warranty (winks at eVGA)
I can scan my maximum pc article that compares them directly for you if you wish. the only thing that the ati card beat the nvidia in was in quake4 on ultra-high quality in crossfire mode.
Here are the top scores on 3dMark06 first page: (grant it there are some crossfire cards, nvidia has a ton more and top honors).
3DMark Score: 13263 k|ngp|n 7900gtX SLI | FX-62 AM2
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-6-1
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3632 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2048 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 13203 k|ngp|n 7900gtX SLI | FX-60
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-4-4
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3747 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12989 Inno3D DFI Venus SLI *VR-Zone* Singapore
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-3-31
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3619 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12580 OPPAINTER->,,AM2 FX62,, Foxconn,, and Corsair
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-5-26
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3640 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2048 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12573 *mICKEYmOUSE* 'ATI CF X1900 + AMD FX60' !!
User: 1034408 Date: 2006-3-22
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3685 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6599
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1024 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 12562 Foxconn AM2 Test *VR-Zone*
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-5-24
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3489 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2048 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12519 kyosen : T2600/dryice & X1900CF/water
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-5-19
CPU: Intel Core 3519 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6601
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 12502 * Overklokk / Kinc * X1900 CF
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-3-19
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3505 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6599
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1024 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 12224 k|ngp|n 7800gtX512 SLI | FX-60
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-2-22
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3552 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX, 810 MHz / 2178 MHz
Display Driver: 8.1.9.8
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12158 Denny CBB OC TEAM
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-4-2
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3605 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12087 *mICKEYmOUSE* '7900GT SLI' !!
User: 1034408 Date: 2006-5-4
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3187 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2032 MB
Video Memory: 256 MB
3DMark Score: 12071 wkmgt
User: 2588552 Date: 2006-5-20
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3476 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11867 Sampsa (www.muropaketti.com)
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-5-3
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3431 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6599
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1024 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 11687 [kyosen] Yonah + X1900CF testing
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-4-10
CPU: Intel Pentium M 3103 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6599
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 11685 DFI nF4 Expert *VR-Zone* Test
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-2-18
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3511 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX, 769 MHz / 2133 MHz
Display Driver: 8.1.9.8
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11663 maverik-sg1 www.ep-uk.co.uk FX60/7900GTX SLI [OCWO...
User: 1756663 Date: 2006-5-28
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3490 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11637 maverik-sg1 www.ep-uk.co.uk FX60/7900GTX SLI [OCWO...
User: 1756663 Date: 2006-5-28
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3484 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2032 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11608 *OPPAINTER* 7900GTX,,Xtremesystems.org 3DTeam
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-3-23
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3330 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11568 Dynasty *XtremeSystems 3D Team*
User: 3320620 Date: 2006-5-16
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3418 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11559 maverik-sg1 www.ep-uk.co.uk FX60/7900GTX SLI [OCWO...
User: 1756663 Date: 2006-5-21
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3485 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2032 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
For 3dMark05 ATI/nVidia seem to be even going about every other score
3dMark03 nVidia holds the entire top 10
Here are the top scores on 3dMark06 first page: (grant it there are some crossfire cards, nvidia has a ton more and top honors).
3DMark Score: 13263 k|ngp|n 7900gtX SLI | FX-62 AM2
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-6-1
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3632 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2048 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 13203 k|ngp|n 7900gtX SLI | FX-60
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-4-4
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3747 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12989 Inno3D DFI Venus SLI *VR-Zone* Singapore
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-3-31
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3619 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12580 OPPAINTER->,,AM2 FX62,, Foxconn,, and Corsair
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-5-26
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3640 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2048 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12573 *mICKEYmOUSE* 'ATI CF X1900 + AMD FX60' !!
User: 1034408 Date: 2006-3-22
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3685 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6599
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1024 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 12562 Foxconn AM2 Test *VR-Zone*
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-5-24
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3489 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2048 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12519 kyosen : T2600/dryice & X1900CF/water
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-5-19
CPU: Intel Core 3519 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6601
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 12502 * Overklokk / Kinc * X1900 CF
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-3-19
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3505 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6599
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1024 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 12224 k|ngp|n 7800gtX512 SLI | FX-60
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-2-22
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3552 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX, 810 MHz / 2178 MHz
Display Driver: 8.1.9.8
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12158 Denny CBB OC TEAM
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-4-2
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3605 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 12087 *mICKEYmOUSE* '7900GT SLI' !!
User: 1034408 Date: 2006-5-4
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3187 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2032 MB
Video Memory: 256 MB
3DMark Score: 12071 wkmgt
User: 2588552 Date: 2006-5-20
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3476 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11867 Sampsa (www.muropaketti.com)
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-5-3
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3431 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6599
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1024 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 11687 [kyosen] Yonah + X1900CF testing
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-4-10
CPU: Intel Pentium M 3103 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON X1900 CrossFire Edition, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 6.14.10.6599
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 514 MB
3DMark Score: 11685 DFI nF4 Expert *VR-Zone* Test
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-2-18
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3511 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX, 769 MHz / 2133 MHz
Display Driver: 8.1.9.8
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11663 maverik-sg1 www.ep-uk.co.uk FX60/7900GTX SLI [OCWO...
User: 1756663 Date: 2006-5-28
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3490 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11637 maverik-sg1 www.ep-uk.co.uk FX60/7900GTX SLI [OCWO...
User: 1756663 Date: 2006-5-28
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3484 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2032 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11608 *OPPAINTER* 7900GTX,,Xtremesystems.org 3DTeam
User: [email protected] Date: 2006-3-23
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3330 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11568 Dynasty *XtremeSystems 3D Team*
User: 3320620 Date: 2006-5-16
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3418 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 1008 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
3DMark Score: 11559 maverik-sg1 www.ep-uk.co.uk FX60/7900GTX SLI [OCWO...
User: 1756663 Date: 2006-5-21
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 3485 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, N/A / N/A
Display Driver: 8.4.2.1
Driver Status: WHQL - FM Approved
Resolution: 1280x1024 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
System Memory: 2032 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
For 3dMark05 ATI/nVidia seem to be even going about every other score
3dMark03 nVidia holds the entire top 10
Last edited by Janus67 (2006-06-01 19:58:02)
here is an interesting article about the radeon x1900xtx :http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/15/graphics_card_buyers_guide_2006_part3/page38.html
i don't mean to come across as an nVidia fanboy (I had a 9800pro before my current card and loved it) but that article is a bit biased against nVidia seeing how it is an ATI buyer's guide.-=raska=- wrote:
here is an interesting article about the radeon x1900xtx :http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/15/graphics_card_buyers_guide_2006_part3/page38.html
To the people offering benchmarks etc on the two cards.
I did a comparison when I had both and the X1900XTX (BFG 7900GTX OC vs. Sapphire X1900XTX) came out on top, however i'd say the 7900 offers a slightly more consistent framerate whereas the X1900XTX framerate will jump around a bit more.
I did a comparison when I had both and the X1900XTX (BFG 7900GTX OC vs. Sapphire X1900XTX) came out on top, however i'd say the 7900 offers a slightly more consistent framerate whereas the X1900XTX framerate will jump around a bit more.
lol You used the BFG 7900GTX when you shoulda been using the eVGA one.
I think the eVGA is a bit faster than the BFG OCed version.
That might make it a better for comparison.
@Janus
I have the same max pc article you have xP
I think the eVGA is a bit faster than the BFG OCed version.
That might make it a better for comparison.
@Janus
I have the same max pc article you have xP
ATi's drivers are just fine, and having both ATi and NV products, over the years from the 8500 on up, I've had far more driver issues with NV cards.
Don't like the CCC, use ATi Tools or ATi Tray tools. Oh, and have you seen NV's new control panel? It looks an aweful lot like the CCC. I'm guessing that it is because of Vista, where the whole OS is .NET based.
And to the poster that said the ATi draws a lot more power, they do draw more, but not a lot more. And it's not due to a smaller process. ATi is manufacturing the X1900XT/XTX on 90nm low K process, and in fact moved to 90nm before NV did. Also, he is talking about the 7900GTX, which is exactly the same length as the X1900XT/XTX cards. If you are going to give information, at least make sure that you know what you are talking about.
My recommendation would the Radeon because it will continue to show its power as games become more shader intensive. It can also do HDR+AA, where the NV cards cannot.
Not to mention that ATi cards are faster in BF2...even though BF2 is a TWIMTBP title.
Don't like the CCC, use ATi Tools or ATi Tray tools. Oh, and have you seen NV's new control panel? It looks an aweful lot like the CCC. I'm guessing that it is because of Vista, where the whole OS is .NET based.
And to the poster that said the ATi draws a lot more power, they do draw more, but not a lot more. And it's not due to a smaller process. ATi is manufacturing the X1900XT/XTX on 90nm low K process, and in fact moved to 90nm before NV did. Also, he is talking about the 7900GTX, which is exactly the same length as the X1900XT/XTX cards. If you are going to give information, at least make sure that you know what you are talking about.
My recommendation would the Radeon because it will continue to show its power as games become more shader intensive. It can also do HDR+AA, where the NV cards cannot.
Not to mention that ATi cards are faster in BF2...even though BF2 is a TWIMTBP title.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-06-02 09:56:35)
Just stop there...Janus67 wrote:
I can scan my maximum pc
Ok, stop right now.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
ATi's drivers are just fine, and having both ATi and NV products, over the years from the 8500 on up, I've had far more driver issues with NV cards.
Don't like the CCC, use ATi Tools or ATi Tray tools. Oh, and have you seen NV's new control panel? It looks an aweful lot like the CCC. I'm guessing that it is because of Vista, where the whole OS is .NET based.
And to the poster that said the ATi draws a lot more power, they do draw more, but not a lot more. And it's not due to a smaller process. ATi is manufacturing the X1900XT/XTX on 90nm low K process, and in fact moved to 90nm before NV did. Also, he is talking about the 7900GTX, which is exactly the same length as the X1900XT/XTX cards. If you are going to give information, at least make sure that you know what you are talking about.
My recommendation would the Radeon because it will continue to show its power as games become more shader intensive. It can also do HDR+AA, where the NV cards cannot.
Not to mention that ATi cards are faster in BF2...even though BF2 is a TWIMTBP title.
I can't say i've tried the just newly released nvidia drivers, I did use the previous driver versions.
Tone down the fanboyism, they're only graphics cards and i've used both so I think I can speak with a decent amount of knowledge of this subject. (note I currently own a Sapphire X1900XTX)
There are a few flaws in your logic fella, one of the reasons people like me get annoyed by CCC is partly because it's a resource hog and partly because the AVIVO file encoder etc can only be used by having CCC installed which is somewhat annoying. Something which by having the ATT installed does not allow you to do. (if you choose to use ATT and not install CCC)
Allow me to do a scientific proof that ATI do not write drivers that are as good as nvidias... Googlefight! (this is a joke)
And ATI loses (or wins depending on your pov) with 170,000 more results of ati driver problems. I don't know about you but I consider that conclusive proof! (this is a joke)
Everybody has mixed experience with drivers, I personally have gotten most of my graphics card driver issues on ATI cards. The same can also be said of friends who've owned nvidia/ati cards too. However, that's just conjecture and by no means conclusive proof.
Also, your mention that Vista is entirely .net based... this is wrong, very little of Vista is written in C#. It's C++, somehow I doubt the kernel and ui etc runs on the .net vm. I believe at an early point they did give a go at writing the shell (ui) with .net but came across some pretty serious memory and performance problems.
Currently waiting back on MS to see if I can get in the beta program for Vista, currently a beta tester for Office 2007.
If memory serves they have written some of the control panel apps in C#. I'd have to double check on that though.
7900, I lurve nvidia!
I'm running an X1900 Crossfire setup with a 1080p Westinghouse 37" LCD monitor. Avivo works well when playing 1080p source material (Windows HD stuff), and is fully prepped to take advantage of h.263 encoding. But where it REALLY shines right now is what it can do with non-HD source material (normal Divx, AVI, etc) files, and also does a great job with DVD.T4rd wrote:
You happen to have a 1080P HDTV to try the AVIVO out on, EvilMonkeySlayer? Hah.. or anyone else for that fact? This is what I'll be using with my card here soon so it'd help me out a lot.
Also, it kinda pisses me off that Vista comes out late this year along with DX 10 and these cards dont support it (supposedly, I cant find proof). If I pay $500 for a card, it's retarded if it doesn't last for at least a year or two before you should need to replace it to run the newest software/games.
Edit: Oh, and you dont HAVE to d/l the Catalyst Control Center with the ATI drivers. You can just d/l the drivers and control all those settings in the "settings" tab in the display tab when you click the "advanced" button. That might help out a lil with your resources.
Most small monitor/lower native resolution people may not appreciate what Avivo can do, but trust me, on a large panel with a native 1920x1080 resolution, standard definition source material, and highly compressed mpegs (like torrent movies/TV shows) can look like total ass, since the high quality large sized LCD panel makes all the compression flaws and noise stick out like a sore thumb..shit you'll not notice when watching it on a 20" low-resolution CRT or LCD. Avivo (or PureVideo for that matter) can reduce the ass-factor quite a bit.
I wouldn't sweat DX10 too much amigo, keep in mind that DX9 was released "way back" in 2002, along with SM 2.0, and then DX9c with SM 3.0 in 2004. Four years later there are still very few games out there that take full advantage of DX9's feature set and hardware, most are just using DX8 features with a few DX9 bits tacked on. Games like Oblivion, FEAR, and GRAW are the exception, and FarCry was a rolling tech demo for Shader Model x.0 features...but every one of those exception games will work fine and still look good with the SM 2.0/3.0 features disabled, basically running in DX8 mode.
Expect the same sort of backward compatibility with DX10, it'll run all DX9/DX8/DX7 titles just fine, most games released between now and 2008 will still just be DX9 titles, working under both XP or Vista, with possibly a few extra bells and whistles available to Vista/DX10 users. There might be one or two "flagship" heavily subsidized titles out (by that, I mean MSFT, ATI or Nvidia pays an ASSTON of money to a dev studio to make a DX10 exclusive title, to offset the sales loss by not being able to sell to the much larger DX9/XP user base).
Keep that in mind..XP was released over 4 years ago, and it took something like 2 years for it to supplant ME and 2k as the most widely used Windows-based OS. We'll see the same sort of slow adoption with Vista (some critics say SLOWER), so the majority of users will still be running XP for at least a couple of years. Since that's where the market is at, that's who the studios will target...DX9 has a lot of life left in it.
And your DX9 card you're using today will work just fine in Vista...Vista's Aero interface doesn't use any DX10 hardware features, just a new DX10 driver model, that any Nvidia or ATI DX9 card will support. You'll just be missing a few possible DX10 eye candy bits and performance improvements when playing DX10 games. In that regard, the X1900 is more future proof than the 7900 series, those 48 shader pipes will translate into generally better DX10 performance.
The big thing that DX10 supports over DX9 is a unified shader model, which lets DX10/drivers determine what pipe is used for what, giving greater flexibility. Lots of times, in today's cards, shader pipes can be idle while raster pipes are overloaded, or vice versa...making it so that all pipes can do the same job means less idle time, which can lead to greater performance, or allow the developer to add more eye candy to a given scene.
But, the reality is that SM3.0 games (and most DX10 games will support SM3.0 features like HDR, etc) will still tend to perform many more shader ops than raster ops...so the X1900's massive amount of shader pipes will help a great deal, even if they can't be programmed to do raster ops as well. That's why the X1900 tends to outperform the 7900 in most SM 3.0 heavy games today (while still being more than competitive in "old tech" games like BF2)...and as more and more games go that route, the X1900 will have more "wins" against the 7900.
Not saying the 7900 is a bad card, it is not, it's a great card. Nvidia just made a different choice with the architecture than ATI did...without so many shader pipes, it is a smaller transistor count chip, which means it runs cooler and uses less power (which can translate into higher possible clock speeds, as the massive OC's of 7900's are showing). It also keeps production costs down and yields higher, which is always good for the end user. Higher core and RAM timings can offset fewer shader pipes, and lets face it, other than for the four games I listed above, most people don't really NEED the extra shader pipes on the X1900 series today.
It's just less forward looking than the X1900. And for many people, that's no big deal, they'll pony up again next year for Nvidia's DX10 part...which suits Nvidia just fine.
I use Omega Drivers for all of my Video Cards, Nvidia and ATI Alike.
Like I said, I own products from both companies. I've always bought was the best available for the money I had to spend when I went shopping. However, I do get upset with nvidiots that constantly claim ATi drivers are crap. They are living in the Rage days, and just can't admit that drivers are no longer an excuse to not use ATi products.EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
Ok, stop right now.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
ATi's drivers are just fine, and having both ATi and NV products, over the years from the 8500 on up, I've had far more driver issues with NV cards.
Don't like the CCC, use ATi Tools or ATi Tray tools. Oh, and have you seen NV's new control panel? It looks an aweful lot like the CCC. I'm guessing that it is because of Vista, where the whole OS is .NET based.
And to the poster that said the ATi draws a lot more power, they do draw more, but not a lot more. And it's not due to a smaller process. ATi is manufacturing the X1900XT/XTX on 90nm low K process, and in fact moved to 90nm before NV did. Also, he is talking about the 7900GTX, which is exactly the same length as the X1900XT/XTX cards. If you are going to give information, at least make sure that you know what you are talking about.
My recommendation would the Radeon because it will continue to show its power as games become more shader intensive. It can also do HDR+AA, where the NV cards cannot.
Not to mention that ATi cards are faster in BF2...even though BF2 is a TWIMTBP title.
I can't say i've tried the just newly released nvidia drivers, I did use the previous driver versions.
Tone down the fanboyism, they're only graphics cards and i've used both so I think I can speak with a decent amount of knowledge of this subject. (note I currently own a Sapphire X1900XTX)
There are a few flaws in your logic fella, one of the reasons people like me get annoyed by CCC is partly because it's a resource hog and partly because the AVIVO file encoder etc can only be used by having CCC installed which is somewhat annoying. Something which by having the ATT installed does not allow you to do. (if you choose to use ATT and not install CCC)
Allow me to do a scientific proof that ATI do not write drivers that are as good as nvidias... Googlefight! (this is a joke)
And ATI loses (or wins depending on your pov) with 170,000 more results of ati driver problems. I don't know about you but I consider that conclusive proof! (this is a joke)
Everybody has mixed experience with drivers, I personally have gotten most of my graphics card driver issues on ATI cards. The same can also be said of friends who've owned nvidia/ati cards too. However, that's just conjecture and by no means conclusive proof.
Also, your mention that Vista is entirely .net based... this is wrong, very little of Vista is written in C#. It's C++, somehow I doubt the kernel and ui etc runs on the .net vm. I believe at an early point they did give a go at writing the shell (ui) with .net but came across some pretty serious memory and performance problems.
Currently waiting back on MS to see if I can get in the beta program for Vista, currently a beta tester for Office 2007.
If memory serves they have written some of the control panel apps in C#. I'd have to double check on that though.
As for the CCC, it isn't that big of a resource hog. Is it as small as a standard control panel? No, but it uses less resources than most AV software. I've used the CCC and didn't mind it. I haven't tried it for awhile, but I stopped using the CCC because the profile creator wouldn't work with games like HL2; basically HL2 points to the HL2.exe file, but then uses switches to launch HL2 based apps, like CS:S. Since I couldn't specify switches, this just wasn't going to work. Since then I've used ATi Tools, and ATi Tray Tools. As I said, I haven't used it in awhile, but if the CCC gave me the option of the ATi Tray Tools I'm currently using, I would go back to it and not even worry about it.
As for Vista, you better check again. While the core code isn't .NET, much of the peripheral program support is in fact .NET based.
By CCC I mean CCC + .NET VM. I have no background tasks which run any C# or VB.NET code, so the .NET VM isn't loaded. So therefore whenever I run CCC it starts up the .NET VM which is a memory hogging lurver.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Like I said, I own products from both companies. I've always bought was the best available for the money I had to spend when I went shopping. However, I do get upset with nvidiots that constantly claim ATi drivers are crap. They are living in the Rage days, and just can't admit that drivers are no longer an excuse to not use ATi products.EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
Nuh uh!Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You smell!
As for the CCC, it isn't that big of a resource hog. Is it as small as a standard control panel? No, but it uses less resources than most AV software. I've used the CCC and didn't mind it. I haven't tried it for awhile, but I stopped using the CCC because the profile creator wouldn't work with games like HL2; basically HL2 points to the HL2.exe file, but then uses switches to launch HL2 based apps, like CS:S. Since I couldn't specify switches, this just wasn't going to work. Since then I've used ATi Tools, and ATi Tray Tools. As I said, I haven't used it in awhile, but if the CCC gave me the option of the ATi Tray Tools I'm currently using, I would go back to it and not even worry about it.
As for Vista, you better check again. While the core code isn't .NET, much of the peripheral program support is in fact .NET based.
Define what "much of the peripheral program code" means please. (error phrase not found)
Tell you what, i'll start up Vista when I get the time and see what uses the .NET VM. (pity I can't use this atm)
Get a "normal" video card for now and wait until Windows Vista comes out with directx 10.. It will be awesome..
What I mean is that while the core code of vista (e.g. the kernel) may not use .NET, the interfacing software will use .NET.EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
By CCC I mean CCC + .NET VM. I have no background tasks which run any C# or VB.NET code, so the .NET VM isn't loaded. So therefore whenever I run CCC it starts up the .NET VM which is a memory hogging lurver.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Like I said, I own products from both companies. I've always bought was the best available for the money I had to spend when I went shopping. However, I do get upset with nvidiots that constantly claim ATi drivers are crap. They are living in the Rage days, and just can't admit that drivers are no longer an excuse to not use ATi products.EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
Nuh uh!
As for the CCC, it isn't that big of a resource hog. Is it as small as a standard control panel? No, but it uses less resources than most AV software. I've used the CCC and didn't mind it. I haven't tried it for awhile, but I stopped using the CCC because the profile creator wouldn't work with games like HL2; basically HL2 points to the HL2.exe file, but then uses switches to launch HL2 based apps, like CS:S. Since I couldn't specify switches, this just wasn't going to work. Since then I've used ATi Tools, and ATi Tray Tools. As I said, I haven't used it in awhile, but if the CCC gave me the option of the ATi Tray Tools I'm currently using, I would go back to it and not even worry about it.
As for Vista, you better check again. While the core code isn't .NET, much of the peripheral program support is in fact .NET based.
Define what "much of the peripheral program code" means please. (error phrase not found)
Tell you what, i'll start up Vista when I get the time and see what uses the .NET VM. (pity I can't use this atm)
Interfacing software?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
What I mean is that while the core code of vista (e.g. the kernel) may not use .NET, the interfacing software will use .NET.EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
By CCC I mean CCC + .NET VM. I have no background tasks which run any C# or VB.NET code, so the .NET VM isn't loaded. So therefore whenever I run CCC it starts up the .NET VM which is a memory hogging lurver.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Like I said, I own products from both companies. I've always bought was the best available for the money I had to spend when I went shopping. However, I do get upset with nvidiots that constantly claim ATi drivers are crap. They are living in the Rage days, and just can't admit that drivers are no longer an excuse to not use ATi products.
As for the CCC, it isn't that big of a resource hog. Is it as small as a standard control panel? No, but it uses less resources than most AV software. I've used the CCC and didn't mind it. I haven't tried it for awhile, but I stopped using the CCC because the profile creator wouldn't work with games like HL2; basically HL2 points to the HL2.exe file, but then uses switches to launch HL2 based apps, like CS:S. Since I couldn't specify switches, this just wasn't going to work. Since then I've used ATi Tools, and ATi Tray Tools. As I said, I haven't used it in awhile, but if the CCC gave me the option of the ATi Tray Tools I'm currently using, I would go back to it and not even worry about it.
As for Vista, you better check again. While the core code isn't .NET, much of the peripheral program support is in fact .NET based.
Define what "much of the peripheral program code" means please. (error phrase not found)
Tell you what, i'll start up Vista when I get the time and see what uses the .NET VM. (pity I can't use this atm)
You mean the UI? MS tried recreating the explorer shell with .net when they first started on longhorn but came across a number of memory and performance issues so scrapped that idea.