If you had the choice...ATI v. NVidia

[Guest]

I tank ya fer dat good avize, Ime think you kno cas yu have fried so muchk hardware alredy so as to kno. :)Andk Ime sory, but der WHQL andk no WHQL drivers have all got lots testing, Ime no wher yu get dat from.MSI-FX5950-Ultra run vary cool and no much sownd et all.Whoe ar those guys wit those thinkin?

[Guest]

>Oh great you again......Hello troll police>Vut?

[Guest FPSFREAK]

>Hmm, would you prefer Tom's Hardware over me for facts about>ATI's new egg cooker? Lets not debate facts.Let's, I asked you to provide them and still you show nothing..I could debate facts all day...What makes them true facts..It's a fact that the 5900 beats the 9800. I saw it written down so it must be a fact. The funny part is I could show you just as many reviews that show the 9800 beats the 5900. It's written on the web..must be a fact. Well which is true?? if your talking about this statement from Toms site: "And this is urgently needed, too, because the DDR II memory develops an enormous amount of heat. In operation, the coolers become so hot that you can barely touch them. The GPU cooler is the same as on the 128-MB card. Otherwise, there are no other noteworthy external differences to report." All I can say to this is that they could very well get that hot. Mine do not. Fact. If they got that hot than why can ATI get away with just small passive HS on their cards and the lowly little fan it has? If it runs so hot than why not have the ungodly contraption the 5900 does? Or is it this statement your reffering to.." In addition, the card generates an extremely high amount of heat. This is a peculiarity of the DDR II memory, from which NVIDIA's NV30 (alias GeForce FX 5800 Ultra) also suffers. In any case, ATI now has a product in its program to rival the new NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, which is also equipped with 256-MB memory." I don't know about other users but I would sure love to hear from them. Even at a speed of 420 / 385 I can still rest my fingers on the factory HS's and not get burned. >The DDR-II memory that got nVidia in such trouble is the same>problem that ATI now has with their 9800's. Nowhere did I>state that the pre-nVidia DDR-II attempt was any good as that>would be silly, we all know the card was a complete lemon.Maybe if your posts were clearly stated than I wouldn't be so "SILLY"I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of this "Problem" ATI has with the 9800 that you speak of...>nVidia learned their lesson and smartened up with the 5900FX.>ATI on the other hand pushed further with the 9800 series. ATI>will probably smarten up with the 9900 series or whatever it>will be called, but why on earth would one go down the path of>buying a product that is so obviously wrong that you KNOW it>is going to be completely reworked. nVidia has already learned>their lesson and just as you would not reccomend that nVidia>lemon, how can you stand up for the ATI version of the same>engineering problem?Again, I implore you to provide some proof as to why purchasing this card is such a horrible decision? I see nothing but high praise for it except for maybe the price. But than again you'll probably tell me the 5900 is worth $500. Why would someone go down this "Path" you speak of. Because the card is that good. End of story, the heat is not an issue, if it was were are all the threads about it?>Anyone with ANY electronics background at all knows that heat>kills. The hotter it runs, the quicker it dies.FINALLY, a statement that IS fact. Your forgetting though that with the proper cooling the heat can be controlled and the life of the product not affected.>As for the values of the ATI 9000 series, they are really not>even open to debate, anyone can go out on the internet and>read reviews of these old cards themselves and draw their own>conclusions. By 9000 series, I am not talking about the 9200>series, the 9600 series, the 9700 series, or the 9800 series.>If you wish to debate the values of this POS, I am quite sure>we can scroll back in the old forum and read all the happy ATI>posts (NOT!)From your beloved Toms Hardware and his thoughts on the "POS" as you put it 9000 series.."Without a doubt, ATI will introduce a new standard to the mainstream market with its R9000 series. Thanks to Microsoft's Xbox, there are some new games to be expected this Christmas that make use of or support pixel shaders (v1.3) and vertex shaders (v1.0). ATI is the first to offer a reasonably priced graphics card that is able to render these effects with respectable performance. With the Radeon 9000 series, ATI offers a very solid 3D performance to a reasonable price, and it also takes the technological lead in the mainstream segment ($100 - $150). Besides it's a low budget VC. What was the point of your posting it.What I find amazing is how this thread started off asking about laptops and their respective GPU's and here we are......Oh well such is life in the forum world....Bobby

[Guest]

Just now farfignoogin dictates that @$299 der FX5900 (BFG)is a vary good deal, even chapper soon wit der NV38/40 necks month.Hey! Wach it! Don burn yerselv!

[Guest FPSFREAK]

Shadow,No profile, no location, no name?? where is it your from. And that ohh sooo annoying language you speak. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's not how you really spell is it. To read it makes you sound like the chef from the muppets...But than your probably not old enough to remember them. Why don't you, if you don't have anything good to offer the discussion, crawl back under the rock in the swamp where all the other forum trolls live and just make like your not there....... We would all really appreciate it. I'm tired of getting notified of posts that contain the cr** that you type in.Thank you,Bobby

[Guest FPSFREAK]

Just some history for you guys to read about...From Gamedev.netOpenGlOpenGL was originally developed in 1992 by Silicon Graphics, as a descendant of an API known as Iris GL for UNIX. It was created as an open standard (not open source, as some people incorrectly believe), and is available on many different platforms. (Now that you know what "Open" refers to, you may also wonder what the "GL" stands for; not surprisingly, it's "Graphics Library".) OpenGL is overseen by a committee known as the Architecural Review Board (ARB). The ARB consists of representatives from major companies involved with the graphics industry, including 3D Labs, SGI, Apple, nVidia, ATI, Intel, id Software, and yes, even Microsoft. There are two major implementations of OpenGL for Windows: One from SGI version and one from Microsoft. The Microsoft version is based on the SGI implementation. Since the latter is no longer supported, it is recommended that you use the Microsoft version. It corresponds to OpenGL 1.1, but there are no newer headers and libraries available anywhere else (you can, however, access newer OpenGL features using the extension mechanism, which is beyond the scope of this article). There is another, unofficial OpenGL implementation available known as Mesa3D. I haven't actually tried it, but it is very stable, it's open-source, and it's available on many platforms. The creators of Mesa3D do not own an OpenGL license, so it cannot legally be called an OpenGL implementation, but it uses the same syntax. The only disadvantage to it is that it cannot always take full advantage of hardware. OpenGL has been used for many years in all different sectors of the tech industry. It was developed from the beginning with a clear vision of the future, and as such, it has remained stable and consistent. On the other hand, the way the ARB operates has caused the core OpenGL specification to evolve relatively slowly. For years, this was fine, since it was designed for high end graphics workstations using professional level graphics cards. But as consumer level cards have caught up with and surpassed that which was cutting edge 10 years ago, developers have been required to rely on the extension mechanism more and more to keep up with new hardware features. Extensions are powerful, but they can make for very messy code. The ARB seems to recognize this problem, and is now updating the core specification more frequently. DirectX up to DX8Well after the debut of Windows 95, the overwhelming majority of games were still being made for DOS. Microsoft wanted game developers to move away from DOS and make games for Windows, in turn making Windows a more popular platform. Windows, however, did not provide a good gaming platform. The many layers of abstraction meant that access to video and sound hardware was very limited and slow. They decided to create an API that would allow game developers more direct access to the hardware to allow games on Windows to run at acceptable speeds. Rather than develop their own 3D API from scratch, they noticed a very promising 3D API being developed by a company called RenderMorphics. It was a small project the company had written and was showing at a trade show when Microsoft discovered it. (As an interesting side note, the API was submitted by the creators as a college project and flunked for having deviated from the assignment somewhat.) They integrated it into their own sort of mini-Graphics Library known as the Game SDK. They expected it to be the perfect solution for game developers. They were wrong. What later became known as DirectX 1.0 ended up not being very widely accepted. It was buggy, slow, badly structured, and overly complex. Of course, Microsoft wasn't about to just give up. They kept working at it, asking the community for ways to improve it. The first truly viable version of DirectX was DirectX 3.0. A few years later, they released DirectX 5 (skipping 4 entirely), which was the first truly useful version. Incremental improvements were made with version 6. Then came DirectX 7.0. DirectX 7 was the first one to actually be embraced by game developers. It worked well, making game programming reasonably easy, and a lot of people liked the interface. Now here's where the big one hits. Up to and including DirectX 7, DirectX included two components for graphics: DirectDraw and Direct3D. DirectDraw was pretty much 2D only, but quite powerful. Direct3D was built on top of DirectDraw. With DirectX8, the deprecated DirectDraw interface, which hadn't changed much for several versions, finally got thrown out as a separate component. Although this was a controversial action, Microsoft wanted to focus on the 3D aspects of the API. Most things that are done in 2D can be duplicated using 3D techniques, with the advantage of being faster due to the use of hardware acceleration. In addition, the older DirectDraw interfaces would still be available due to the nature of COM. And that's pretty much where we are today. Happy reading........ :)Bobby

[Guest]

>>What I find amazing is how this thread started off asking>about laptops and their respective GPU's and here we>are......>>Oh well such is life in the forum world....>>BobbyBobby,It has been interesting following this thread. Yeah, I was interested in the takes about the video cards, and after a lot more research, I finally decided to go with the Dell Inspiron 8600 with the 1.7Ghz Centrino processor, 512 RAM, and the 128 Mg NVidia GeForce FX Go 5650. After all is said and done, I feel that the NVidia heritage is good, and most any near term problems (if there are any) can be solved through software fixes. I like direction the Centrino goes with laptop energy efficiency, heat management and performance as well. I hope it will handle FS9 great, but I know it'll handle my other digital video, audio, and graphics software with no problem. Thanks again to you and others for the various takes and web site references. Larry (aka Wheels...no snake-wake here)

[Guest FPSFREAK]

Larry,Glad I could help..( I think I helped Lol) Doesnt sound like a bad little laptop to me. One question. I know it is new but did they offer you the otpion of the new 9600M from ATI. From what I have read so far it's a sweet Mobile GPU?Good luck with it though.Bobby

[Guest]

Bobby,No ATI. It was a just those I stated in the first message. Honestly, I don't know who else is offering a mobile 128Mg chip. Larry

[Guest]

>Shadow,>>No profile, no location, no name?? where is it your from. And>that ohh sooo annoying language you speak. Correct me if I'm>wrong but that's not how you really spell is it. To read it>makes you sound like the chef from the muppets...But than your>probably not old enough to remember them. Why don't you, if>you don't have anything good to offer the discussion, crawl>back under the rock in the swamp where all the other forum>trolls live and just make like your not there....... We would>all really appreciate it. I'm tired of getting notified of>posts that contain the cr** that you type in.>>Thank you,>>BobbyFrom I come yu are a ignoramus, andt I hav red more of yer post wer yu gets alot rong ald da time! so yu hav alots a arogance and are stupid fer yer ramarks.Fer da info my name is Gertrude Alexes Holderbradt and help program some FS from along times, I own mor business then yu can probly count to, if yu wer nere my face I wood let my grandaughtir beet yu to some pulp!I never E-mail yu and yu said to me first so I think yu shud apalogize for dat.

[Guest freequest]

Well I usueally go Nvidia but I wanted a card that would last a long time (i dont upgrade often) my choices were the GF FS5600 or go with a Gigabyte GV-R96P128D Radeon 9600 after looking at a lot of reviews I decided for my particualar needs to go for the R9600 I beleve performance wise I will be slightly better off.The reviews for this card were based on the card with just SDRAM but surprisingly enough the card im buying uses DDR ram...My 2c