Well Paul and Jim, you can keep on living in your fantasy world where Nvidia is not "teh sux0r" and I'll continue to abode in the real world where ATI produces better hardware, and doesn't have cheats & image quality reductions in their drivers. About the whole "one game thing" once again, I must mention Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, Halo PC, and the scores of DX9 benchmarks out there. Don't just take my word for it, go look it up for yourselves. Really, what can it hurt? You might just learn a thing or two.This topic has been rehashed many times over the past year or so and most people know where they stand at this point. FanATIcs will continue to support ATI and Nvidiots will stand behind Nvidia. Then the rest of us who don't blindly support a corporation will buy whatever graphics solution is the best at the time. If I had the money, right now I'd buy an ATI card. In 6 months, I'd probably still buy an ATI card because R420 is going to kick some serious butt. Beyond that I don't know. Maybe I'll get a Bitboys Ultra Vaporware 100,000,000 ;)-Max Cowgill

I think you lose a bit of credibility when you make statements that imply that those who choose Nvidia over ATI are idiots. You're welcome to attack the argument, but once you attack those making the argument, you lose your credibility.In order to get any real numbers, you have to be rating release games and release drivers. Making a decision based upon beta drivers and beta games is not a wise decision in my opinion. However, if you really want to judge based upon these beta numbers, the Nvidia still stacks up better. The non-Pixel 2.0 images in Tomb Raider look MUCH better on Nvidia (and I don't plan on playing TR), and many of the other shots I've seen are almost indistinguishable. I've also not seen one single beta benchmark that shows Nvidia hardware running below very playable levels. ATI, on the other hand, shows as low as 10fps, and not on some niche game that not many folks will be playing. It shows that dismal result on Doom III, perhaps the most highly anticipated game of all time! In any case, I'll say it again. If someone prefers ATI, by all means get an ATI card. I'll choose my Nvidia and both of us will be happy. We don't all have to have the same hardware!Jim

>Well Paul and Jim, you can keep on living in your fantasy>world where Nvidia is not "teh sux0r" and I'll continue to>abode in the real world where ATI produces better hardware,>and doesn't have cheats & image quality reductions in their>drivers. Max You need to see the nurse, I do not think you really read my post.If you want to talk real world thats great! The one we live with here is FS, If you read any of my post you see Total agreement by me over NV poor DX9 performance and I have stated that it will only get worse (for a NV a really excited user) before it gets better even with NV40.That aside, If you want to talk real world Fs8/9 performance and quality I hope you are prepared to talk the talk ...anyone who would suggest any ATI 9700/9800p card as offering a better image or performance than FX5900-U in FS has either has not seen them side by side running at their best settings or is also not in the "real world" and I do not suggest that is a good thing(cant we have ATIs AA with NV's AF and full scene AA!!!), it is what it is (the details have been spelled out many times here but in case you missed them they are in one of my other post in this thread).>About the whole "one game thing" once again, I must>mention Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, Halo PC, and the>scores of DX9 benchmarks out there. Don't just take my word>for it, go look it up for yourselves. Really, what can it>hurt? You might just learn a thing or two.Dont be a moron Max! :-lol What DX9 game are you playing yet? :-lolSeriously, NV doesn't have a leg to stand on here as the engineers gambled and lost and no driver will make up for that.>This topic has been rehashed many times over the past year or>so and most people know where they stand at this point. >FanATIcs will continue to support ATI and Nvidiots will stand>behind Nvidia. Then the rest of us who don't blindly support>a corporation will buy whatever graphics solution is the best>at the time. If I had the money, right now I'd buy an ATI>card. In 6 months, I'd probably still buy an ATI card because>R420 is going to kick some serious butt. Beyond that I don't>know. Maybe I'll get a Bitboys Ultra Vaporware 100,000,000>;)>>-Max Cowgillor what you might want is this duel GPU unit:http://www.xgitech.com/

>I think you lose a bit of credibility when you make>statements that imply that those who choose Nvidia over ATI>are idiots. You're welcome to attack the argument, but once>you attack those making the argument, you lose your>credibility.>>In order to get any real numbers, you have to be rating>release games and release drivers. Making a decision based>upon beta drivers and beta games is not a wise decision in my>opinion. However, if you really want to judge based upon>these beta numbers, the Nvidia still stacks up better. The>non-Pixel 2.0 images in Tomb Raider look MUCH better on Nvidia>(and I don't plan on playing TR), and many of the other shots>I've seen are almost indistinguishable. I've also not seen>one single beta benchmark that shows Nvidia hardware running>below very playable levels. ATI, on the other hand, shows as>low as 10fps, and not on some niche game that not many folks>will be playing. It shows that dismal result on Doom III,>perhaps the most highly anticipated game of all time! >>In any case, I'll say it again. If someone prefers ATI, by>all means get an ATI card. I'll choose my Nvidia and both of>us will be happy. We don't all have to have the same>hardware!>>Jim>Jim, "Nvidiot" is not a personal attack, it's a very common phrase for people who are Nvidia fans (just as FanATIc is for ATI fans). You keep going back to that "release games and release drivers" statement. Your statement implies that there are no release drivers for GFFX hardware (that's odd, the GFFX has been out for quite some time now, how do they work without "release drivers"?). Also, you imply that the benchmarks of HL2 released by Valve (developers of HL2) are somehow invalid because the game has not yet been released. The HL2 benchmark, which is the exact same piece of software used to produce the infamous GFFX & Radeon HL2 numbers, will be released shortly. So, using WHQL drivers in a game benchmark that is for all intents and purposes finalized, somehow invalidates the results? Sorry, I just don't follow your logic (perhaps it's because it's nothing more than Nvidia PR BS?)On the subject of TR:AOD, I find it interesting that a supposedly "built from the ground up DX9 GPU (GFFX)" is forced to run PS 1.4 (DX 8.1) to produce playable results. You don't find it sad that DX8 looks better on the GFFX than DX9? As I've stated earlier, I feel sorry for anyone who pays $400-$500 for a "DX9 card" that is forced to run DX9 games in DX8 mode in order to maintain playability. AS far as Doom III is concerned, why would anyone take seriously the results of a benchmark from a *PRE-ALPHA* version of a game? A pre-alpha that was never supposed to be leaked, BTW. You won't accept the results of a benchmark from a "beta" version of HL2 (hardly beta, it's more than likely a release candidate) yet you gladly flaunt the results of the Doom III benchmark. Hmmmm, what's that smell? Oh, I know, it's hypocrisy!-Max Cowgill

>I think you lose a bit of credibility when you make>statements that imply that those who choose Nvidia over ATI>are idiots. You're welcome to attack the argument, but once>you attack those making the argument, you lose your>credibility.No, you lose credibility when you have fried as much brand new hardware as Max has just trying to set it up to run and then have the nerve to tell people what choices they should or should not make on hardware! :-lolHi Max! :)

>>I think you lose a bit of credibility when you make>>statements that imply that those who choose Nvidia over ATI>>are idiots. You're welcome to attack the argument, but once>>you attack those making the argument, you lose your>>credibility.>>No, when you lose credibility it is when you have fried enough>brand new hardware as much as Max has just trying to set it up>and then have the nerve to tell people what choices they>should or should not make on hardare! :-lol>>Hi Max! :) LOL Paul, I wasn't "setting it up" I lost my CPU and vid card due to massive amounts of fiddling (read: voltage changes, HSF changes, thermal paste applications/removals, ram sink applications). That and the stupid POS MS PCI network card I bought that fried my video card :( The CPU isn't truly fried, it's just a bit unstable in Windows is all ;)-Max Cowgill

>>>I think you lose a bit of credibility when you make>>>statements that imply that those who choose Nvidia over ATI>>>are idiots. You're welcome to attack the argument, but>once>>>you attack those making the argument, you lose your>>>credibility.>>>>No, when you lose credibility it is when you have fried>enough>>brand new hardware as much as Max has just trying to set it>up>>and then have the nerve to tell people what choices they>>should or should not make on hardare! :-lol>>>>Hi Max! :) >>LOL Paul, I wasn't "setting it up" I lost my CPU and vid card>due to massive amounts of fiddling (read: voltage changes, HSF>changes, thermal paste applications/removals, ram sink>applications). That and the stupid POS MS PCI network card I>bought that fried my video card :( The CPU isn't truly fried,>it's just a bit unstable in Windows is all ;)>>-Max CowgillI know Hulk, err I mean Max, I know. Just Razin yah! Hang in there bro! :)

I'm not flaunting anything, Max. I'm saying that if you want to stand on pre-release statistics, don't ignore the ones that don't support your position. That's not hypocrisy. It's pure logic. As I said, I only go by what we're playing today and what today's drivers produce. In that arena, the image quality of Nvidia is better than ATI, and performance is pretty much equal. No one can predict how games will run when they haven't yet gone gold.Jim

>I'm not flaunting anything, Max. I'm saying that if you want>to stand on pre-release statistics, don't ignore the ones that>don't support your position. That's not hypocrisy. It's pure>logic. >>As I said, I only go by what we're playing today and what>today's drivers produce. In that arena, the image quality of>Nvidia is better than ATI, and performance is pretty much>equal. No one can predict how games will run when they>haven't yet gone gold.>>Jim>Argh!!! I had a nice post all typed up and then stupid IE gave me the "page not found" error when I tried posting it :( Oh well, here's the gist of it:Jim, if you can't see the difference between *officially sanctioned* benchmarks of a game that's almost gone-gold and unsanctioned benchmarks of a pre-alpha version of a game then I don't know what else to say... They're simply not the same thing. Anyway, no hard feelings mate :-beerchug, I'm gonna go watch some cartoons and go to bed now *:-*-Max Cowgill

No hard feelings, no way! We have more in common than not in common, Max. I can see how you'd have a bad feeling about Nvidia running that 5200! That's what I'm running while I wait for my new Asus 9950. It's a bargain, but not a stellar performer by any means.Anyway, I'll be sure to post my thoughts again when all goes gold. It ain't final until RTM, and none of what we're talking about is there yet.Jim

Just be aware that from a price standpoint, the very top of the line costs roughly double what the second from top of the line costs.If you spec the absolute best then step down one notch on things like CPU and graphics etc, you will have a great system which performs almost exactly the same as the cream of the crop for far less money.eg: (parts)P4 3.2 800 $605, step down P4 3.0 800 $383GF 5900FX $381, step down GF 5600FX $126(thats $986 vs $509 which is enough of a difference to pay for your motherboard and a gig of ram)If you go through all the big ticket parts, you'll see you just saved youself some SERIOUS money and it reality since you are asking for advise on what to buy, you are probably not a user that will even notice the difference between the two machines.Computers are similar to new cars, the lastest model looses half it's value as soon as you drive it off the lot because you are paying for the *new* factor.Look at some systems then go to www.pricewatch.com and look up the parts. Computer sales are a buyer beware sport where people make their livings off stupid people who know no better ;)

I'll agree with that! The price difference between a 3.2 and a 3.0 P4 is definitly not worth the minimal performance increase. So why did I get the 3.2? I just finished writing a book, and I spent some of my advance money on a new PC. I've never been in a position where I could afford to pick and choose the very best components all the way down the line, so I did it! It was a blast, I'll tell you what. ;)Jim

I've been reading quite a bit about this topic recently. I have a correction to make on my previous assertions.I originally said that Doom III performance on the 5900 indicated that the DX9 debacle with Nvidia is trumped up. That assertion was based upon my statement that Doom III was also a DX9 game. In fact, it is not. It uses OpenGL and proves nothing regarding DX9 performance. Jim