Is Nvidia Better Than ATI?

[Cafe_333]

To begin I would first like to state that I am neither a fanboy of either side. I jump on the NV/ATI bandwagon depending which card at the time offered the better value. I have broken down the following cards based on price/class along with comparative benchmarks:

April 2006 - September 2006:
x1600xt vs 7600gs (~$130 range)
Looking at the benchmarks here (http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1856&cid=3&pg=5) show the two cards being quite comparable untill we turn AA on where the X1600XT pulls out in front.

x850xt vs 6800xt (~$180 range)
There hasn't been any new cards in this category for quite some time except for these two. Well there's really no competition here against the x850xt, as these benchmarks will show here (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzI2LDQsLDA=) and here (http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/radeon-x850xt/index.x?pg=4).

x1800gto vs 7600gt (~$230 range)
There's not many reviews that actually compare these two cards however this is what I've found and the x1800gto wins here (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3794971&postcount=13).

x1800xt vs 7900gt (~$300 range)
It should be noted that only the Sapphire x1800xt has been available at this price range since the launch of the 7900gt. With AA on, the x1800xt consistently beats out the 7900gt here (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3794971&postcount=13).

x1900xtx vs 7900gtx (premium range)
Well no need to post benchmarks for this one here, as it is already widely known that the x1900xtx won.

Updated (November 2006):
x1600xt > 7600gs (~$130 range)
x1650xt > 7600gt (~$180 range)
x1900gt > 7900gs (~$230 range)
x19Kxt256 > 7900gt (~$300 range)
x1900xtx > 7900gtx (premium range)

After extensively reviewing several benchmarks, ATI cards are comparable against Nivida counterparts with Anti-Aliasing turned off. Turn on AA and we start to see Nvidia wean behind in performance. While the performance benchmarks currently seem to be favoring ATI, what has been troubling me lately is that Nvidia counterparts seem to be the ones to get. This is in no way a fanboy statement because from a liberal standpoint, the benchmarks tell the story.

The only real benefit I see with Nvidia from a review standpoint is power efficiency, though this becomes more of a moot point when paired with power hungry Nvidia chipsets anyway. So if their products cannot outperform, we can probably chalk it up to superior marketing. With a better naming convention, excellant marketing slogans, lifetime warranties, and heavy influence with game developers (and possibly review sites) is the only logical explaination I can find for the success of their 7x00 cards. With glowing unobjective reviews for Nvidia products rampant around the web, it seems clear their tactful marketing has infiltrated the web to clearly influence the masses and subsequently you the end user.

So be your own judge and do your OWN homework to compare cards on an even playing field. Review sites are meant to serve as a reference to show what hardware is capable of and what they can do, but not neccessarily decide which hardware is better unless you compare hardware in an apples to apples comparison by class. Only then can you compare which is the faster hardware at the same price points. Sometimes the winner will be Nvidia, and sometimes it will be ATI. Just don't let the marketing from either fool you.

EDIT: Updated May 15th, 2006:
- Currently Nvidia is the performance king and Nvidia are the cards to get, and rightfully so. Nvidia has been the one to get in the last 4-5 months without challenge from ATI. As prices fell from Nvidia, ATI has been too busy to do anything with their prices throughout the acquisition. An even bigger kick to the face with the delays to their DX10 lineup. While the Radeon HD 2900XT is only comparable against the 8800GTS, it remains to be seen what WHQL drivers will do. If it remains to be comparable against the 8800GTS both with AA off and on, then I will be back on the Nvidia bandwagon. :D

[Emancipated]

The general rule of thumb is ATI has better image quality than nVidia.

[enko]

The other general rule of thumb is to buy ATI if you like VPU errors. :)

[Jon Lai]

Well MY rule of thumb WAS to always buy ATi to support Canadian stock, but that's no more :(

[sickcars]

The other general rule of thumb is to buy ATI if you like VPU errors. :)


Yes.......Because thats true.

Anyways...


Ati & Nvidia both make good cards. My guess as to why its a better deal to buy an ati card is because since nvidia is doing better then Ati at least for now. That Ati has to provide better/faster cards to sell more since nvidia is doing so well with SLI and so on.

Ciao

[akito925]

My rule of Thumb... Buy the cheapests one with the best performance, with the ability to overclock it to the next level with firmware or a bios flash hack to unlock the locked pipe lines etc. hehe

[akira1971]

recently from Tom's Hardware and the article (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/24/closer_look_at_ati_price-performance_lead/)

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/08/24/060823_gpu_analysis_chart_02.jpg

[Amourek]

I don't know what reviews you've been reading... AFAIK the 7600GT and 7900GT beat the X1800GTO & X1800XT easily.

[DirtyLude]

7900GT OC variants get close to the 1900XT for less cost. I've always owned ATI, but 7900GT KO for $320.00 is a better value than ATI has out right now in that range.

[shabby]

7900GT OC variants get close to the 1900XT for less cost. I've always owned ATI, but 7900GT KO for $320.00 is a better value than ATI has out right now in that range.

After owning both i would say the distance is far from close which is why you pay a premium for the x1900.

[Tijuana]

just because it can oc to the 1900xt speeds,it doesnt mean itll PREFORM at those speeds nicely

[Evil Baby]

I haven't owned an Nvidia card in a while so I can't comment on their device manager but ATI's is pure crap, stuffed with bloat and ads. I already bought the card, please stop with all the ads.


Also my other friend wont buy ATI because of their poor support with Linux

[Cafe_333]

I don't know what reviews you've been reading... AFAIK the 7600GT and 7900GT beat the X1800GTO & X1800XT easily.I don't know what reviews you've been reading either... :) AFAIK the benchmarks all seem to consistently agree that the x1800xt with AA on beats the 7900gt in almost every benchmark I've seen. Anandtech did not have a review that includes the two cards against each other except for in Oblivion, although AA was not on.

Xbit Labs
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/7games-gpus.html
VR-Zone
http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=3335&s=13
Hexus.net
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2956021&postcount=24
Legit Reviews
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/322/5/
Anandtech
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1262/oblivionhighendvv9.jpg

As for the x1800gto, there doesn't seem to be enough reviews with this against the 7600gt with AA on, but oblivion benchmarks from DriverHeaven gives an idea how the two would stack up. LegitReviews however show that with AA on, the x1800gto beats out the 7600gt in every single benchmark there is.

DriverHeaven
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/gtgto/oblivion.jpg
Legit Reviews
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/313/6/

Again I reilliterate that if anyone wishes to disagree on my benchmark claims, you are welcome to but not without basis to disprove me first thank you. ;)

[Cafe_333]

7900GT OC variants get close to the 1900XT for less cost. I've always owned ATI, but 7900GT KO for $320.00 is a better value than ATI has out right now in that range.I don't know about that, the reviews I've seen with AA on has the 7900gtx edging the x1900xt and you're telling me an oc'd 7900gt can come close to that? Maybe true, but not only are there major problems across all oc'd 7900gt's but I think comparing an overclocked card against a stock one is a bit of a moot point because I can easily oc an x1900xt as well to beat out the more expensive 7900gtx to get more value out of it. ;)

I haven't owned an Nvidia card in a while so I can't comment on their device manager but ATI's is pure crap, stuffed with bloat and ads. I already bought the card, please stop with all the ads.If you're talking about their bloated Catalyst Control Center, I have to agree, along with thousands of end users who are on the same page and countless review sites as well. You can just install the drivers and use something else like ATI tray tools instead. Btw, if you haven't updated to 6.8 drivers yet do so, I've read they've drastically improved OpenGL scores some by as much as 20-30% which is pretty insane.

[Syn3rgy]

nvidia > ati

ati is expensive but very veyr good but nvidia is cheap and good but also dpeends on different situations for example sum games run better with ati sum with nvidia for example is HL2

[DirtyLude]

I don't know about that, the reviews I've seen with AA on has the 7900gtx edging the x1900xt and you're telling me an oc'd 7900gt can come close to that? Maybe true, but not only are there major problems across all oc'd 7900gt's but I think comparing an overclocked card against a stock one is a bit of a moot point because I can easily oc an x1900xt as well to beat out the more expensive 7900gtx to get more value out of it. ;)
I'm talking about factory overclocked cards here, with full lifetime warranties, not home overclocked. The 7900GT has crazy potential for overclocking and that's reflected in the companies eVGA putting out OC cards with full lifetime warranties.

I'm don't even know why I'm posting as this whole original post makes no sence. Just posting a list of cards in generic classes means absolutely nothing without a proper cost benefit analysis. I'm generally an ATI fanboy, but I can't even call what you've posted reasoning, as there is none. People would want to buy nVidia because at certain price points nVidia gives more value than ATI.

Personally I don't find AA all that great. I'm hard pressed to tell the difference in games when I turn it on.

[x86asm]

I think the image quality differences between ATI and nVidia cards are negligable at best (that's if you notice it).

[x86asm]

I'm talking about factory overclocked cards here, with full lifetime warranties, not home overclocked. The 7900GT has crazy potential for overclocking and that's reflected in the companies eVGA putting out OC cards with full lifetime warranties.

I'm don't even know why I'm posting as this whole original post makes no sence. Just posting a list of cards in generic classes means absolutely nothing without a proper cost benefit analysis. I'm generally an ATI fanboy, but I can't even call what you've posted reasoning, as there is none. People would want to buy nVidia because at certain price points nVidia gives more value than ATI.

Personally I don't find AA all that great. I'm hard pressed to tell the difference in games when I turn it on.

Agreed. I've never used it since 2001 or 2002 when I got the GF2MX.

[Amourek]

Summarizing the reviews you linked, the 7900GT seems to win in Oblivion, Half Life 2, Rise of Nations, Prey, and Quake 4. The X1800XT wins in Hitman, Titan Quest, Tomb Raider, Splinter Cell, FEAR, Call of Duty 2, X3, and Serious Sam 2. I've highlighted in bold the games that are being played currently by people I personally know. Those not in bold I'm ignoring, so I'm declaring the 7900GT the winner based on what's important to me: games people actually play. As for price, where can you find a X1800XT for the same as a 7900GT ($280)? I've looked around and the closest I've found in Canada is $340.

The X1800GTO & 7600GT upon further review seem pretty even, but the 7600GT, $180 after rebate. X1800GTO? $240.

And DirtyLude makes a good point about warranty. nVidia's got partners like BFG, eVGA, and XFX offering lifetime warranties. ATI's warranty is down from 3 years to 1 year, and Sapphire, IRC has always only had 1 year.

[TigerEROS]

Never used anything but ATI. It's the best!

I still use the ATI All-In-Wonder 8500DV ... been the best card ever!

[ShadowVlican]

As for price, where can you find a X1800XT for the same as a 7900GT ($280)? I've looked around and the closest I've found in Canada is $340.

The X1800GTO & 7600GT upon further review seem pretty even, but the 7600GT, $180 after rebate. X1800GTO? $240.
QFT

[Deimos]

The general rule of thumb is ATI has better image quality than nVidia.

Ah ha ha ha
LOL
(rolling around, wiping tears from eyes)
LOL

[Deimos]

I think the image quality differences between ATI and nVidia cards are negligable at best (that's if you notice it).

Now, I'm no expert, and I only have about a dozen video cards in my house, and have only owned about 50 from Voodoo2 (never had satisfaction of original voodoo) up to 6800/x800 series, but I think the image quality differences between ATI and nVidia are negligible at best, and price/performance is very close, considering you're taking a snapshot of a dynamic market.

So, in conclusion, you guys are all completely [color=red]NUTS[/red].

EDIT: example
You scrutinize the difference between X1800XT and 7900GT. Both cost about the same (+/- 10%). And depending on benchmark, game, game settings, AA, AF, drivers, system, OS, and bias of the reviewer, the performance is also (+/-10%). And in a few years, that argument will be as meaningless as wether K6-2 is faster than P2 (ie both ancient and obsolete).

Simple instructions:
Focus on your price range, as wallet dictates. And then pick red or green depending which best matches your home decor, or if color blind toss a coin. If you're really really into games, then pick the one that is better at the game you play all the time.

[jm20]

...

I disagree with the mid-high end. Those 7900GT's can be seriously volt modded. Otherwise I agree. And I just got a x1900XTX for $440. Retail ;)

Too bad the x1950XTX will command a huge premium for months (until G80 at least), and the x1900XTX will be discontinued shortly. The time to jump is now ;)

[jm20]

I think the image quality differences between ATI and nVidia cards are negligable at best (that's if you notice it).

Actually there is a difference. NVIDIA's cards shimmer like none other unless tweaked to 'balance' them out.

That aside, ATI ships its drivers in HQ while NVIDIA ships them in Performance. When both set to HQ, NVIDIA's benchmarks start to wean in the performance ;) Check AT forums or LegitReviews and see.

I'd still pick ATI over NVIDIA just for the shimmering textures .

[Deimos]

Actually there is a difference. NVIDIA's cards shimmer like none other unless tweaked to 'balance' them out.

That aside, ATI ships its drivers in HQ while NVIDIA ships them in Performance. When both set to HQ, NVIDIA's benchmarks start to wean in the performance ;) Check AT forums or LegitReviews and see.

I'd still pick ATI over NVIDIA just for the shimmering textures .

shimmering in many games is the developers fault for using negative LOD on mipmaps (ex HL2, WOW). Simple to fix by checking of "clamp negative LOD bias" in the driver. There were several beta drivers with the feature broken or disabled.

However, like ATI, nVidia uses optimized pattern for the anisotropic filtering. By default mim-map optimization is always disabled. But sample optimization should probably also be disabled. Its typically responsible for 3/4 of the shimmer in games with high density pattern textures, like sand on beach in Far Cry. Finally, if the shimmering is still too much to bear, you can use high quality mode, at the expense of a lot of performance.

Unfotunately shimmering happens in each and every single video card out there due to nyquist sampling theorem, and insuffcient sampling frequency, thus causing moire patterns and other aliasing effects. The issue is particularly noticable on nVidia cards. Its like both are making guesses, but although nVidia is right 9/10, ATI is like 29/30. And worst of all, the one nVidia misses is the important one. Back in FX5900 days, in a single driver overnight, nVidia both dramatically improved AF performance as well as caused these problems. So the hardware is certainly capable. Like with the infamous DXTC corruption problem in GeForce1 cards, they should just add/modify hardware and resolve the issue with brute force.

EDIT
change the title of the thread from the obviously biased "is ATI better than nVidia?" to something like "what strengths and weaknesses do either competitors bring" and we might just have a chance of intelligent conversation showers.

[Cafe_333]

I'm talking about factory overclocked cards here, with full lifetime warranties, not home overclocked. The 7900GT has crazy potential for overclocking and that's reflected in the companies eVGA putting out OC cards with full lifetime warranties.So was I. From the benchmarks I have seen a stock 7900gtx edges out the X1900XT, and you're telling me an oc'd 7900gt can come close to that? I don't know... Oh no don't get me wrong, I am not doubting your claim at all, but I would like to see some benchmarks that support this. Anyway, not only are there are major issues across all factory overclocked 7900gt's, but the X1800XT also has crazy potential for overclocking as well. You can overclock the X1800XT and it will beat an overclocked 7900gt. With the X1800XT you can push it up to 725/1600 and I would like to see any oc'd 7900gt beat an oc'd x1800xt at that. X1800XT is also very easy to overclock with adjustable voltage. I heard the 7900gt's need to be hardmodded? I could be wrong on that. Regardless, when you can get either cards for the same price, I have yet to see why the 7900gt is so popular as a single card solution. The way I see it is this:

Stock X1800XT > 7900GT
OC'd X1800XT > OC'd 7900GT

So I would like to hear your take on why the 7900GT is so successful. Your input is appreciated.

[hybrid.09]

nVidia > ATI

7950 GX2 > 1900XTX

[Cafe_333]

Summarizing the reviews you linked, the 7900GT seems to win in Oblivion, Half Life 2, Rise of Nations, Prey, and Quake 4. The X1800XT wins in Hitman, Titan Quest, Tomb Raider, Splinter Cell, FEAR, Call of Duty 2, X3, and Serious Sam 2. I've highlighted in bold the games that are being played currently by people I personally know. Those not in bold I'm ignoring, so I'm declaring the 7900GT the winner based on what's important to me: games people actually play. As for price, where can you find a X1800XT for the same as a 7900GT ($280)? I've looked around and the closest I've found in Canada is $340.

The X1800GTO & 7600GT upon further review seem pretty even, but the 7600GT, $180 after rebate. X1800GTO? $240.

And DirtyLude makes a good point about warranty. nVidia's got partners like BFG, eVGA, and XFX offering lifetime warranties. ATI's warranty is down from 3 years to 1 year, and Sapphire, IRC has always only had 1 year.Well I don't know about Oblivion, the only benchmarks i've seen out there did not include AA. However, Anandtech here (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2746&p=8) seems to think the X1800XT runs Oblivion better than the same classed 7900GT according to their own benchmarks. Actually in HL2, the two cards look like they are neck and neck except at 1920 resolution where 7900gt edges out. Either way I wouldn't declare 7900gt a clear winner in HL2. I can conceed that 7900gt will at least beat the X1800XT in Rise of Legends, but not by very much.

Prey and Quake4 do not count as legitimately fair benchmarking platforms since it is based off the Doom3 engine - which is known that it is written to drastically favor NV cards with a performance boost. This matters to me because I've seen inferior NV cards beat out faster ATI cards in Doom3 benchmarks. For example, the inferior 7800gt even beat the X1800XT in Quake4... yeah right. However I will conceed that if you are buying a videocard to specifically play games based on the Doom3 engine (which is why such benchmarks exist), then even I would say Nvidia is the way to go. Otherwise in the end it still seems to me that the X1800XT is the faster card over the 7900GT in almost every benchmark, except in ones based on the Doom3 engine.

As for pricing, the Sapphire X1800XT was marked down to the same price as the 7900GT since its launch. In fact 2-3 weeks ago it was still available from NCIX for just $290. It is now no longer available there. The cheapest I can find the X1800XT in canada now is about the same as yours, however I haven't seen the 7900GT go as low as $280, link please? Anyway, stock for the X1800XT can still be had for the same price if not lower than the 7900GT in the US. I know this may not affect Canadians as much but I am looking at the graphics market as a whole.

EDIT: nevermind found it. Albeit that you can no longer find the X1800XT for the same price as the 7900GT anymore in Canada, it doesn't reflect what has been happening in the past 6 months when you could.

Regarding X1800gto vs 7600gt, I do agree that the two cards are about even - with AA off. However with AA on (as has been my point all along), the X1800gto drastically beats the 7600gt in every benchmark there is. Therefore between the two, I would say the x1800gto is the superior card. As for the pricing, the two cards have been similarily priced for the last six months. NCIX posting an evga rebate for the 7600gt as of last friday doesn't adhere to my argument. If I were to buy now, then yes the 7600gt does look more attractive. However for the most part, these two cards have been in competition with each other for the last 6 months and similarily priced at that.

I agree, the Lifetime warranties are an attractive selling point - as was stated in my original post. However is lifetime warranty more of a deciding factor over better performance from ATI cards?

[Cafe_333]

I disagree with the mid-high end. Those 7900GT's can be seriously volt modded. Otherwise I agree. And I just got a x1900XTX for $440. Retail ;)

Too bad the x1950XTX will command a huge premium for months (until G80 at least), and the x1900XTX will be discontinued shortly. The time to jump is now ;)I read in another forum that the 7900GT's need to be hard modded (though I don't know for a fact) whereas the X1800XT is easier to overclock with adjustable voltage. There is also a flashmod to bump the speeds too! Although the 7900GT's have excellant overclocking potential, so does the X1800XT. It can get 725/1600 and I'm pretty sure that would kill any overclock a 7900GT can do! :)

Btw, good price on the X1900XTX - thought I remember reading somewhere that you were going to wait for R600?

[Cafe_333]

You scrutinize the difference between X1800XT and 7900GT. Both cost about the same (+/- 10%). And depending on benchmark, game, game settings, AA, AF, drivers, system, OS, and bias of the reviewer, the performance is also (+/-10%). And in a few years, that argument will be as meaningless as wether K6-2 is faster than P2 (ie both ancient and obsolete).I agree, it is a very dynamic market. It used to be that people were able to easily distinguish which graphic cards were clearly better. However the recent market trend currently favors Nvidia cards in spite of (what I think anyway based on the benchmarks I've seen) better performing ATI cards at the same price points. The only logical reasoning I can see (other than SLI) is that Nvidia is simply a much larger company than ATI and more powerful (or simply better) marketing than ATI has. I'm trying to see if successful marketing and strong influence to reviewers is the real reason why in the last six months Nvidia is doing so well in spite of better performing ATI competition.

EDIT: change the title of the thread from the obviously biased "is ATI better than nVidia?" to something like "what strengths and weaknesses do either competitors bring" and we might just have a chance of intelligent conversation showers.Fair enough. I'm trying to be unbiased and going by the numbers that benchmarks provide. I figured a biased/controversial thread title would attract more opinion, but that might turn out counterproductive.

[DirtyLude]

So was I. From the benchmarks I have seen a stock 7900gtx edges out the X1900XT, and you're telling me an oc'd 7900gt can come close to that? I don't know... Oh no don't get me wrong, I am not doubting your claim at all, but I would like to see some benchmarks that support this. Anyway, not only are there are major issues across all factory overclocked 7900gt's, but the X1800XT also has crazy potential for overclocking as well. You can overclock the X1800XT and it will beat an overclockedd 7900gt. With the X1800XT you can push it up to 725/1600. It is also very easy to overclock with adjustable voltage. I heard the 7900gt's need to be hardmodded? I could be wrong on that. Regardless, when you can get either cards for the same price, I have yet to see why the 7900gt is so popular as a single card solution. The way I see it is this:

Stock X1800XT > 7900GT
OC'd X1800XT > OC'd 7900GT

So I would like to hear your take on why the 7900GT is so successful. Your input is appreciated.
Lurking here for a while and seeing many of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you really like to just see your own typing. Otherwise this is just a blatant troll post, or you are really that blind.

Benchmarks AF, No AA:
http://www.pureoverclock.com/article635-4.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/28/evga_7900_gt_ko_superclock/1.html

AnandTech 7900GT OC benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2812&p=14

If you will quote AnandTech, then this is their price point recommendations.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2812&p=16

Most bechmarks show with AF, no AA. Not certain why that is, but like I said earlier AA is not important to me.

[Cafe_333]

Lurking here for a while and seeing many of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you really like to just see your own typing. Otherwise this is just a blatant troll post, or you are really that blind.

Benchmarks AF, No AA:
http://www.pureoverclock.com/article635-4.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/28/evga_7900_gt_ko_superclock/1.html

AnandTech 7900GT OC benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2812&p=14

If you will quote AnandTech, then this is their price point recommendations.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2812&p=16

Most bechmarks show with AF, no AA. Not certain why that is, but like I said earlier AA is not important to me.Okay, with AA off an oc'd 7900GT can match the performance of an X1900XT in a handful of games. However in most benchmarks it *doesn't* and therefore I wouldn't really say an oc'd 7900GT can perform like an X1900XT. While I do agree that overclocking a 7900GT offers great returns in value, this argument is pointless to me when a similarily priced X1800XT can overclock even higher and outperform any overclocked 7900GT. I can see how you and perhaps a number of others would think this is a troll post, but I am trying to be liberal here and unbiased. I base my opinions on the facts available and sometimes NV > ATI, and at other times ATI > NV. Try to put yourself in my shoes for a bit. One day looking at the benchmarks I realized hey, ATI cards seem to do better than their competing counterparts from Nvidia in benchmarks, but what I don't understand is why Nvidia is still more successful? I know this can be a touchy subject with the many ATI vs NV flaming in the past, but I am asking people to put into perspective why the trend seems to be off lately. If ATI cards are in fact better performing than NV competitors, then why is NV doing better than ATI in the last 6 months? What am I missing something here? Maybe the benchmarks from all the review sites are wrong???? I highly doubt that. So please everyone help me understand.

[DirtyLude]

I dd a price network search for the X1800XT and best price I could find was $379.00 vs EVGA 7900GT KO for $283.00 ($20 MIR). That's quite a price difference for 2 cards you are trying to compare side by side. Not including the warranty and SLI ability. I would hope the X1800XT could perform better based on the price alone.

Wow. It's like you completely gloss over anything other than the benchmarks and the card numbers. They sell because the price/performance. I'm not certain how much simpler it can be put to you.

[DirtyLude]

BMW 330 > Honda Accord
BMW Z4 > Honda S2000
BMW X3 > Honda CR-V

Why does anybody buy Honda? It makes no sence. According to my all encompassing, highly analytical chart above, BMW is by far the better performer, therefor the better buy.

[Cafe_333]

I dd a price network search for the X1800XT and best price I could find was $379.00 vs EVGA 7900GT KO for $283.00 ($20 MIR). That's quite a price difference for 2 cards you are trying to compare side by side. Not including the warranty and SLI ability. I would hope the X1800XT could perform better based on the price alone.

Wow. It's like you completely gloss over anything other than the benchmarks and the card numbers. They sell because the price/performance. I'm not certain how much simpler it can be put to you.Look, the Sapphire X1800XT was marked down to the same price as the 7900GT since its launch. In fact 2-3 weeks ago it was still available from NCIX for just $290, however it is now no longer available there. Although we may not be able to find the X1800XT for the same price as the 7900GT now, it doesn't reflect what has been happening in the past 6 months when you *could*. Canadian market aside, you also have to take into consideration of the US market where the X1800XT can still be found for the same price if not cheaper than the 7900GT. The fact is, these two cards have been similarily priced. Considering they are the same price, and the X1800XT performs better than the 7900GT at stock AND overclocked, please explain how the 7900GT brings more value when it seems to me that it brings less? ;)

[chaego]

here are reasons why nvidia is doing better....

1. their manufactures have LIFE TIME warrenty

2. they have better marketing schemes i.e. "the way its meant to be played" most games have nvidia logo on it

3. SLi is widely known...ppl are like wtf is crossfire?

4. the cards look more attractive/powerful?

that's all i can think of

[Deimos]

Add to that:
Name brand recognition. Many people know what GeForce is.

CLear concise elegent naming scheme. Many folks are too confused to figure out X1300 and X300, or X800 and X1800. ATI insistance on suffixes doesnt make it any easier. X1800GTO, X1800XT, X1900GT, X1900XT, X1900XTX... its all pretty confusing. Versus nVidia 7900GT and7900GTX... thats it.

ATI has no compact elegent efficient mid-market competition. nVidia has their lineup spaced out with something at every price point and each performance range. 7600GS (which outperforms even X1600XT in some games) and 7600GT (the next "6600GT": just the rigth amount of performance, and getting cheaper on the streets every day)

here are reasons why nvidia is doing better....

1. their manufactures have LIFE TIME warrenty

2. they have better marketing schemes i.e. "the way its meant to be played" most games have nvidia logo on it

3. SLi is widely known...ppl are like wtf is crossfire?

4. the cards look more attractive/powerful?

that's all i can think of

[sfu_lifer]

Cos the image that ATI drivers suck is still around?
ATI drivers still do suck. Esp for Vista and XP x64.

[Cafe_333]

I would first like to apologize to anyone who thought I trolling. My intention is to figure out why Nvidia's current generation of cards is still so successful and I have been trying to view this from a neutral standpoint. I know my arguments seem biased in favor of ATI, but I am merely judging the performance based on the benchmarks review sites have provided. If it were the other way around where ATI is dominating in the market in spite of better performing Nvidia cards, I would be asking that same question in reverse and my arguments would seem biased for Nvida. That aside, I have rewritten my original post to reflect that if anyone cares.

here are reasons why nvidia is doing better....1. Would you say that the lifetime warranty is better value over better performing ati counterparts?
2. Good point. I'm not sure if ATI has a slogan like Nvida does. Also a smart idea to be affiliated with game creators to have their logo on the game boxes. Or perhaps they simply pay them to....
3. I would have agreed with you maybe a year ago, but by now if you know what SLI is, then you would know what Crossfire is. I don't think there are many people who know what SLI and not know what Crossfire is - at least not by a large scale.
4. Looking more attractive is subjective unless you are referring to those drawings of girls on them. Nvidia has had new faces at different intervals with that mermaid, the fairy, and that asian chick. ATI's only had Ruby which I think has gotten old by now, lol.

Add to that:
Name brand recognition.
CLear concise elegent naming scheme

ATI has no compact elegent efficient mid-market competition.I doubt name brand recognition. I would agree if we were talking about Intel and AMD, but when it comes to videocards I think both brands are equally recognized. As for the naming scheme, I absolutely 100% agree though I'm hard pressed to believe that is the deciding reason why Nvidia is doing better than ATI. Something must have made people prefer Nvidia cards over ATI and if it isn't the performance benchmarks (which seem to favor ATI), then what is? ATI has a competing card against Nvidia at every level of the graphics market in the last 6 months and according to the benchmarks all appear to outperform them. I don't think there is anything Nvidia has that ATI doesn't have a competitor for except for the 7950gx2.

Cos the image that ATI drivers suck is still around?
ATI drivers still do suck. Esp for Vista and XP x64.I don't see how they really suck at all unless you were referring to their notoriously lacking OpenGL performance. However I've read that their latest 6.8 drivers drastically improved performance benchmarks across all OpenGL games by as much as 20-30% gains!! Pretty insane driver update to give such performance boosts IMO.

[Deimos]

You're ignoring my post.

At every major price point, and performance level, nVidia cards are cheaper, use less power, and put out less heat. There are many more vendors selling nVidia cards. And coupled with clear concise naming scheme (just a quick glance at the naming scheme tells you everything: 7300, 7600, 7900). Unlike ATI, nVidia quickly emptied inventory of previous generation, and is benefiting from low cost to produce on 90nm, and hence high profit margins.

[terrybear]

here are reasons why nvidia is doing better....

1. their manufactures have LIFE TIME warrenty

2. they have better marketing schemes i.e. "the way its meant to be played" most games have nvidia logo on it

3. SLi is widely known...ppl are like wtf is crossfire?

4. the cards look more attractive/powerful?

that's all i can think of

1. I disagree .... not all of there manufactorers offer lifetime warrenty

2. I agree with you there .. If ati did more adversudung they would be more sucessfull

3. I agree as well ... late to market crossfire & high preformance hardware affected that.

4. I disagree ... I have seen some UGLY azzed geforce cards before !! :D

For every argument a nvidia fanboy can make against ati the same thing applies back to nvidia cards.

I can say for all that I have about nvidia over the years:

- chips produce heat like intel's cpu's did back in the day
- cards where ugly & usualy had poor cooling solutions so they burnt out quickly.
- chip design flaws (Geforce FX series) causing them to to have to hurry up & rush out updated chips that also appeared to have flaws in them as well to cover there tails (Geforce 6600 series)
- 2D & 3D quality not up to snuff with Ati's (thought will admit within the last yr or so it has improved alot.) Ergo image quality is not required to put out the fastest framerates. Always been the way it is .... if ya game & want quality looks from it then ya buy a Ati card .... ya want faster framerate more then image quality ... ya buy nvidia.

A example for me would be the game EVERQUEST II .... seen images of it on nvidia cards & it looks like crap but on a ati card the game looks so georgous.

I know my reply might make me sound like a ati fanboy type but honestly IF I seen nvidia with a better solution that would make me not buy another ati card then I would consider it for shure.

[Cafe_333]

You're ignoring my post.

At every major price point, and performance level, nVidia cards are cheaper, use less power, and put out less heat. There are many more vendors selling nVidia cards. And coupled with clear concise naming scheme (just a quick glance at the naming scheme tells you everything: 7300, 7600, 7900).How am I ignoring your post? I've replied to it in my post above that at every price point/performance level ATI has had a competiting card - as this was pointed out in my initial thread post as well. The following are similarily priced cards that have been in competition with each other for the past 6 months and when we compare the benchmarks, Nvidia's cards seem to dwindle behind in performance with AA on.
x1600xt vs 7600gs (entry level)
x1800gto vs 7600gt (mid range)
x1800xt vs 7900gt (high end)
x1900xtx vs 7900gtx (premium)

As for power consumption, here I will agree that generally Nvidia cards do consume less power - however unless you pair it with an ATI motherboard then this argument is almost meaningless. While NV cards do consume less power, their chipsets are horrendously power hungry. In fact, so power hungry that an SLI 7900GTX setup will actually consume more power than an ATI X1900XTX crossfire setup.

I heard you the first time - and I've already agreed that ATI's naming convention is absolute garbage which can easily confuse consumers.

[Cafe_333]

I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this thread. Based on the responses here it seems that better marketing is simply the only logical reason as to why Nvidia is currently doing better in spite of better performing ATI counterparts at the same price points. I have yet to see anything that contradicts this so therefore I can only assume it is superior marketing by Nividia's part. They are affiliated with (or simply pay) game creators to have their logos on game boxes. They have a better naming convention which is simplistic and easy to understand unlike ATI. They also have excellant marketing slogans like "The Way It's Meant To Be Played". This may be a shot in the dark, but it is conceivable that Nvidia being a larger company with more money would have greater influence to review sites. With glowing reviews like factory overclocked 7900GT's beating the X1800XT and coming close to the performance of the more expensive X1900XT in some games is simply breathtaking for such a card with people thinking there is so much return in value with these cards. Well my question is why are they even comparing overclocked 7900GT's to stock cards? That's a bit of a moot comparison isn't it? Sure it demonstrates return in value but my question is why aren't there reviews showing how well you can overclock a similarily priced X1800XT either? Clearly the X1800XT is the superior card over the 7900GT at both stock speeds and overclocked speeds. Yet the 7900GT continues to be the current mainstream card of choice. Be your own judges and do your OWN homework and compare cards on an even playing field. Don't always go by what review sites tell you. Review sites are meant to serve as a reference to show what hardware is capable of and what they can do, and not neccessarily decide which hardware is better than what unless you compare hardware in an apples to apples comparison. Only then can you compare which is the faster hardware at the same price points. Sometimes the winner will be Nvidia, and sometimes it will be ATI. Just don't let the marketing from either fool you.

[Deimos]

How am I ignoring your post? I've replied to it in my post above that at every price point/performance level ATI has had a competiting card - as this was pointed out in my initial thread post as well. The following are similarily priced cards that have been in competition with each other for the past 6 months and when we compare the benchmarks, Nvidia's cards seem to dwindle behind in performance with AA on.
x1600xt vs 7600gs (entry level)
x1800gto vs 7600gt (mid range)
x1800xt vs 7900gt (high end)
x1900xtx vs 7900gtx (premium)

As for power consumption, here I will agree that generally Nvidia cards do consume less power - however unless you pair it with an ATI motherboard then this argument is almost meaningless. While NV cards do consume less power, their chipsets are horrendously power hungry. In fact, so power hungry that an SLI 7900GTX setup will actually consume more power than an ATI X1900XTX crossfire setup.

I heard you the first time - and I've already agreed that ATI's naming convention is absolute garbage which can easily confuse consumers.

X1800's are in phase-out stage for several months now. Thats half of your list. The only recent noteworthy ATI cards are the X1900 AIW and the X1900GT. By comparison all other high end ATI X1800's and X1900's consume huge amounts of power, and consequently produce tons of heat. The fan noise is nothing to trivialize either.

ATI CCC, although leaps and bounds better than what it was, still sends shivers down some people's spines.

And, although ATI (now AMD, mind you) tries its best to woo developers, clearly most of them are on nVidia side. Although X1800/X1900 are competitive in popular titles, once you venture of the well treaded track, you find performance and support lacking on ATI cards.

The truth of the matter is that there is no encompasing bestest of everything out there. Engineers make compromises. Driver software developers make compromises. Marketing makes compromises. For many games, and various other applications I would whole heartedly recommend ATI cards to people, but that doesnt mean they are the best choice for everybody.

Another topic: R600, G80
I'm already sensing people hyper-ventilating on forums. DX10 will no more change anything than DX9. ie.. nothing dramatic will change... at least in the short term. 9700pro came out Aug 2002. Months later, Microsoft finally made DX9 available. And then, years later, Crytek made first DX9 game.. Far Cry... well, 99% of it was DX8, with a few shadow shaders and "ultra quality" water effects done using DX9 shaders. And even years there-after games have yet to take full advatage of DX9. Even, Battlefield2 for instance is still based on DX8 compatibiliy.

To the best of my knowledge Crysis (follow up to Far Cry), will be built from ground up , pusing limits of DX9, and requiring SM2 hardware. Thats 4+ years for the API to get fully utilized.

PS: top secret info about G80 and R600. G80 will be green. R600 will be red! (dont tell anyone)