Confusion about shoosing graphics card

[Kungfucow]

Confusion about choosing graphics card

Pretty much it seems that Ati is going up in smoke. Based mostly on the many forumer based opinions, it seems that the Nvidia models are a better value. I've also heard rumors of ATI "Cheating in 3dMark pro by Cutting the I.Q lower", and that the 9200's models might be released this month. In contrast, it seems that ATI has a higher memory speed and GPU speed (which would probably help my single core computer) and that they seem to sync much better than Nvidia models.

So here's the questions
1.) What is it about the Nvidia models(Other than price/power usage) that makes them better?(Power is not a problem when you run 1k power supply like I do )
2.)How can ATI actually cheat a benching program?
3.)which models are better synched?


My system:
Cpu:Intel 3.73 extreme singlecore
Ram :2GB OCZ Gold (I think)
Mobo: Asus P5Wd2 Premium
Power supply: Antec Quattro 1000w(Got it heavily rebated)

 

[Cabbs]

The answer to the first one is that they perform better than similarly-priced ATI cards. Not sure about the 2900GT though, it just came out without a word.

I don't know about 2 and 3.

 

[Kage]

First off, what sort of card would you want? What would you want to run, and at what resolution is your monitor?
Do you want it to run new games (Crysis, etc), and be future proof? Or just run games that you have already, and want some room to expand later?

 

[Kungfucow]

Can you show me some sources for your knowledge of the Nvidia out-preforming the Ati equivalent?

 

[Kungfucow]

First off, what sort of card would you want? What would you want to run, and at what resolution is your monitor?
Do you want it to run new games (Crysis, etc), and be future proof? Or just run games that you have already, and want some room to expand later?

I just want more horsepower and room to expand. Now about Crysis, I've only heard that it has phenomenal graphics and nothing more.

 

[Rudster8161]

1) there cores are better, thats pretty much it. on paper it would look like a 2900XT would destroy a 8800GTX but when you pop open a game you can see a BIG difference. drivers might also be at play here too.
2) they can only put up benchmarks that the ATI cards excelled. there are some games that an nvida card will do better than an ati card just because of the different architecture, and vice versa, but 3dMark is not one of those games\benches. what they could have done is put a crap CPU in the nvidia systems they tested, and a good one in the ATI systems they tested, and failed to mention this.
3) what do you mean "synced"

 

[Kungfucow]

1) there cores are better, thats pretty much it. on paper it would look like a 2900XT would destroy a 8800GTX but when you pop open a game you can see a BIG difference. drivers might also be at play here too.
2) they can only put up benchmarks that the ATI cards excelled. there are some games that an nvida card will do better than an ati card just because of the different architecture, and vice versa, but 3dMark is not one of those games\benches. what they could have done is put a crap CPU in the nvidia systems they tested, and a good one in the ATI systems they tested, and failed to mention this.

1)3) what do you mean "synced"

I mean Crossfired or SLI. Plus on the subject of ATI cheating, it the dude mention that Ati "Cheated the I.Q.". Also I think the 2900hd XT is mean to equal the 8800GTS. Which is better of those two?

 

[Kungfucow]

"2) they can only put up benchmarks that the ATI cards excelled. there are some games that an nvida card will do better than an ati card just because of the different architecture, and vice versa, but 3dMark is not one of those games\benches. what they could have done is put a crap CPU in the nvidia systems they tested, and a good one in the ATI systems they tested, and failed to mention this."

What is architecture. Also, what role does that and drivers play in graphic card strength(other than stability)

 

[BrynF_UK]

its like with Intel and AMD. nVidia brings out exiting new technology with amazing statistics and specification, everyones talking about it and so on - then ATI announces its bringin out something or other with a few pixel pipelines etc. Maybe its because nVidia is just better i dont know for sure, but most people tend to lean towards nVidia either because theyre better or they just have a better reputation and everyone (i mean come on, who hasnt heard of them?) knows theyre good.

edit: my point with Intel and AMD is that Intel brought out the new quad cores, that have a good FSB and clock 'speed' and can be overclock even further, but all I know is that AMD is bringing some quad core out sometime in the near future. IMO is a good product thats backed by an even better reputation that makes some companies better/appear better.

 

[Kage]

Well, Cross Fire, which is ATI's version of SLI (Scalable Link Interface) is to be believed not to be as good as Nvidia's technology, as it is less supported in games, etc offering usually less speed increases with two cards.

ATI do have clever technology, but Nvidia seem to be faster getting there in most cases. Its the same with Intel at the moment. There was a time when AMD was the king, and now, Intel has moved up a notch.

DRIVERS:

Drivers are everything when it comes to the hardware. Without the drivers, the card wouldn't run at all, its what puts the card to good use, talking to everything it needs to.

That is why when a new game comes out, its not unknown for them to release a new driver for the release to fix bugs that can occur with the older drivers, because the drivers aren't working 100% with the games features or whatever.