ATI or NVIDIA? Which is Better?

[Troezar]

Afaik you won't see 4 x 5970 (4x2 gpus) as that would be octo-fire and I think more than three gpus on ATI is a problem. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong! Besides who is going to need that much power? Certainly not value for money!

 

[bridder]

Thanks for all the great comments and advice but the information and opinions you have all provided still hasn't summarised the threads title question "ATI or NVIDIA? Which is Better?" it has however made me question a lot of the loyalties I have for Nvidia. On the other hand with ATI breaking even with Nvidia e.g always ether a step behind or a step in front of the Graphics arms race. So I think I will be staying with Nvidia, at least until ATI holds a clear and noticable lead over Nvidia or unless they supply a must have feature that Nvidia doesn't or can't provide.

I have seen a lot of people mention the 4x 480 sli (and it's issues) but no one has mentioned the 4x 5970 crossfire. I have been searching for a comparison site that compares the two but to no avail. Does anyone know a site that does or know where I could find information that compares the two? The 4x 480 sli or 4x 5970 crossfire two possible set-ups that I am interested in buying, so any help you can provide would be most appreciated.

My understanding of the 5970 series is that it cannot be quadfired as it only has one crossfire bridge connector, as two chips are on each board it is essentially quadfire by just having two. You could look for two board setups of 5970s or four board setups of the 5870s.

It's such a subjective question the "Which is better" thing.

For pure speed the 480s surely have it. NVIDIA
For power consuption the 5870x surely have it. ATi

I aren't that up on NVIDIA at the moment as I am running a pair of 4850s in crossfire but from a visual perspective I think both NVIDIA and ATi have good filtering and aa options so they draw on eye candy. DRAW

You will always get some people who say NVIDIA or ATi are better and each will have valid points. Money no object and with a system that can take it I'd go NVIDIA and get some Fermi love, but I like shooting for the underdog and have gone for ATi although a couple of generations back I'll admit, whatever you choose, happy gaming

take care,
J.

 

[uv]

according to Charlie.

Oh dear, lol. Using anything written by that gibbering bias fool just completely voids any argument you make.

I see people arguing about architecture and die sizes.. Surely what *could* be is completely irrelevant.. The only thing that the average end user cares about is performance/features of the cards you *can* buy. In this respect, neither company are better, the best brand is dependent on the customers budget and/or feature requirements.

 

[413x]

Funny you should mention that!
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/07/12/nvidia-backpedals-gf100gtx480-underfill/

Apparently according to Charlie GF100's appear to have a higher than normal rate of failure in the field, although the problem is unlikely to be as bad as the original 'Bumpgate' due to vastly lower volumes.

this was a gtx 7950 but it put me off nvidia for life

 

[Final8y]

Afaik you won't see 4 x 5970 (4x2 gpus) as that would be octo-fire and I think more than three gpus on ATI is a problem. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong! Besides who is going to need that much power? Certainly not value for money!

There is no problem with 4 GPU crossfire or 4 GPU SLI.

The only thing is the more GPUs you have the less return per GPU you get in scaling allot of the time but not all the time as heaven benchmark shows about 100% scaling on all 4 GPUs so good scaling is possible if the games really have been coded with multi GPU in mind.

 

[Xientie]

Just about to order now, but before I do could someone tell me the difference between the Different makes e.g Asus, Gainward, Gigabyte, MSI, Zotac and OcUK Value?

 

[Razor Time]

Just about to order now, but before I do could someone tell me the difference between the Different makes e.g Asus, Gainward, Gigabyte, MSI, Zotac and OcUK Value?

The main differences are the offered warranty, different coolers, game bundles, price.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Yeah, what Razor said.

Some models come with different clock speeds too, but you pay for the higher clock speed.

Find one at the right price with the right memory, speeds and warranty.

 

[Larrs888]

From personal experience I would go with nvidia, I have found ATI drivers to be horrible when conpared to nvidia. With ATI you are always waiting for the next hotfix to get a new game working properly, bad shadows, AA issues, v-sync issues, stuttering etc.

Stick in an nvidia card and it just works and you can play games without bother, even older ones without the fiddling and tweaking you need to do with ATI.

For sure ATI do make some powerful cards at good prices but I tried them once and never again.


As I said from my own experience.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Yeah, getting back to this arguement. I am definatley with NV at the moment. years back I was a massive ATI fan, but not now. Their drivers seem to be going backwards and all the stuff they do feels second rate to NV (3D, Cuda etc...).

I do hope that series 6 is a return to power for ATI. Series 5 definately just felt like Series 4 with added DX11 (and not exactly good support for it either!).

 

[Final8y]

From personal experience I would go with nvidia, I have found ATI drivers to be horrible when conpared to nvidia. With ATI you are always waiting for the next hotfix to get a new game working properly, bad shadows, AA issues, v-sync issues, stuttering etc.

Stick in an nvidia card and it just works and you can play games without bother, even older ones without the fiddling and tweaking you need to do with ATI.

For sure ATI do make some powerful cards at good prices but I tried them once and never again.


As I said from my own experience.

I have had 1800xt, 1900xt+1900xtMaster CrossFire, 4x3870 QuadFire, 2x5970 QuadFire.

I could not be asking for more possible trouble if i tried & yet i don't get your problems as its sometimes down to more than just the card.

Careful research with compatibility of components is a must & even though we should be able to assume but the case in reality is not to.

I there is no need to do any fiddling or to tweaking with NV or ATI cards if you don't choose to, both have extensive control tweaking options if a users wishes & some NV users say that ATI do not have enough option in that department.

I don't tweak my ATI card besides setting the overclock & AAA & that's it.

AA issues, v-sync issues, stuttering etc. happens on both brands.

Stick in an nvidia card and it just works and you can play games is false as there are plenty of NV users having issues & the current is the 460 with the most & there are plenty of hot fix drivers released by NV all the time.

What conclusion should i come to if the 460 was that first NV card that i have ever used & i was one of the people who where having the issues, say never again no i would not.


Personal experience of having no issues or having issues does not mean the opposite does not exist for others & is no guarantee that any one person may not have a good or bad one when based on your own.

 

[Final8y]

Yeah, getting back to this arguement. I am definatley with NV at the moment. years back I was a massive ATI fan, but not now. Their drivers seem to be going backwards and all the stuff they do feels second rate to NV (3D, Cuda etc...).

I do hope that series 6 is a return to power for ATI. Series 5 definately just felt like Series 4 with added DX11 (and not exactly good support for it either!).

Most of the ATI issues with drivers ATM are with multi GPU users, that point is forgotten too often.

 

[Phoenixdancer]

It's such a subjective question the "Which is better" thing.

For pure speed the 5970 surely has it. AMD
For power consuption the 5870x surely have it. AMD


J.

Fixed mate.

 

[An Exception]

Oh dear, lol. Using anything written by that gibbering bias fool just completely voids any argument you make.

Lol!, come on I thought we had all learnt by now Charlie was at least semi-accurate, and with certain subjects spot on.

I see people arguing about architecture and die sizes.. Surely what *could* be is completely irrelevant.. The only thing that the average end user cares about is performance/features of the cards you *can* buy. In this respect, neither company are better, the best brand is dependent on the customers budget and/or feature requirements.

The reason it wasn't irrelevant was because others were trying to suggest the 'Space Age Fermi' architecture was a generation ahead, citing Fermi had the fasted single GPU.
When comparing GPU Architectures your not comparing Apples to Apples unless you take into account die size.
The reason it is important is because die size also plays a part in how much the Vendor (Nvidia) would like to charge you (as observed with release prices, and that was with tough competition present), due to their exponentially higher manufacturing cost's, however with Fermi not many people wanted to buy Fermi based chips so they began to stock pile and Nvidia was left with no choice but to discount their stock each month (At least it seemed that way) until it got to the point where Nvidia products actually offer better value.

 

[Nemeses]

It is not so much an argument for ATI as it is a brilliant illustration that fanboyism obliterates intellgent debate each and every time.

Could not agree more, pathetic that people feel, the need to spam.

Don't see the new ATI from what I have seen/read being faster than the 470, never mind the 480.

I have used both cards and will continue to do so normally go for the best bang for bucks card, but one thing that has not changed over the years is that Nivida drivers are still quite a bit better than ATI drives.

If you need a card for now , I would recommend buying the 460, 1GB, and when the new ones come out if you fancy them you can always sell the 460 on, as they tend to hold there value quite well.

 

[Rroff]

The reason it wasn't irrelevant was because others were trying to suggest the 'Space Age Fermi' architecture was a generation ahead, citing Fermi had the fasted single GPU.
When comparing GPU Architectures your not comparing Apples to Apples unless you take into account die size.
The reason it is important is because die size also plays a part in how much the Vendor (Nvidia) would like to charge you (as observed with release prices, and that was with tough competition present), due to their exponentially higher manufacturing cost's, however with Fermi not many people wanted to buy Fermi based chips so they began to stock pile and Nvidia was left with no choice but to discount their stock each month (At least it seemed that way) until it got to the point where Nvidia products actually offer better value.

None of which is relevant if your comparing a core generation wise on the merit of its technical capabilities. Its not even directly related to performance - the design itself is a different generation. None of which actually matters except as a mechanism to dispute the point someone put forward that Fermi is behind Evergreen generation wise.

Love your use of the term "space age Fermi"... no one suggested anything of the sort lol - no one was suggesting Fermi was some mythical design head and shoulders above Evergreen.

 

[Final8y]

None of which is relevant if your comparing a core generation wise on the merit of its technical capabilities. Its not even directly related to performance - the design itself is a different generation. None of which actually matters except as a mechanism to dispute the point someone put forward that Fermi is behind Evergreen generation wise.

Love your use of the term "space age Fermi"... no one suggested anything of the sort lol - no one was suggesting Fermi was some mythical design head and shoulders above Evergreen.

Lets just say its your matter of opinion.

 

[An Exception]

None of which is relevant if your comparing a core generation wise on the merit of its technical capabilities. Its not even directly related to performance - the design itself is a different generation.

Freddy Krueger: "Might be your dream, but it's my RULES!"

'Technical capabilities' like compute?
Oh, and performance has everything to do with judging an architecture.

Love your use of the term "space age Fermi"... no one suggested anything of the sort lol.

I was just having some fun...

 

[Mr Krugga]

Which is better, red or blue?

 

[Rroff]

Performance can make or break the relevance of a design - its no good having a design thats technically 10 years ahead of the current one if it only performs at 1/25th of the current performance level, but if theres a smaller variation in performance it doesn't really have much impact on the relevance of a design.

Compute is just one aspect.