Wich card is the king of the hill (nv40 or R420)
- Thread starter Rican
- Start date
- Status
There are myriad factors that play into a decision such as this. For me they are as follows:
1) Heat generation: ATI
2) Power consumption: ATI
3) Framerate: ATI
4) Featureset: ATI
5) Price: Tossup
The reason why I gave #3 to ATI is because I trust ATI's framerate right now to be what the benches say they are. Given Nvidia's track record in the driver shenanigans department, I can't say I completely trust the numbers that are being reported by them atm.
I think it's going to take a few weeks when people are able to get their hands on a card before we know for sure. But right now I'll give the benefit of the doubt to ATI in that regard.
I was tempted to give Nvidia the featureset "win" because of their support for 3.0 and, apparently, unbroken ps2.0 support. But 3Dc is just
in terms of "wow" factor. 3.0 just doesn't appear to have that much of an improvement over 2.0 to warrant my caring about it at this point in time.
Now for those that might ask "Well what did you think when ps2.0 came out?" What wowed me more about the 9x00 architecture was its blinding speed and unmatched IQ at the time, not PS 2.0 support. However, I became interested in that when everyone thought HL2 was due last september. Unfortunately no 3.0 titles are on the horizon that push the IQ envelope much past 2.0, according to the screens we've seen thus far.
I just wish Nvidia would cease all activity which gave even the appearance of driver malfeasance. Lord knows we don't need 100 different threads in 2004 on nvidia's driver shenanigans clogging up this forum again. Unfortunately it'll be a long time before I trust an Nvidia solution in my system. Stability is key for me, with IQ coming second, and performance coming third. 3dfx held that title for me from the Voodoo 1 - Voodoo 2. Then Nvidia took it from the TNT2U to the GF2. Now ATI has my money. Hopefully I can get an X800XT (still can't get over how friggin fast that thing is) to replace my 9800 Pro. I want 6xAA/16xAF@1600x1200
1) Heat generation: ATI
2) Power consumption: ATI
3) Framerate: ATI
4) Featureset: ATI
5) Price: Tossup
The reason why I gave #3 to ATI is because I trust ATI's framerate right now to be what the benches say they are. Given Nvidia's track record in the driver shenanigans department, I can't say I completely trust the numbers that are being reported by them atm.
I think it's going to take a few weeks when people are able to get their hands on a card before we know for sure. But right now I'll give the benefit of the doubt to ATI in that regard.
I was tempted to give Nvidia the featureset "win" because of their support for 3.0 and, apparently, unbroken ps2.0 support. But 3Dc is just
in terms of "wow" factor. 3.0 just doesn't appear to have that much of an improvement over 2.0 to warrant my caring about it at this point in time.Now for those that might ask "Well what did you think when ps2.0 came out?" What wowed me more about the 9x00 architecture was its blinding speed and unmatched IQ at the time, not PS 2.0 support. However, I became interested in that when everyone thought HL2 was due last september. Unfortunately no 3.0 titles are on the horizon that push the IQ envelope much past 2.0, according to the screens we've seen thus far.
I just wish Nvidia would cease all activity which gave even the appearance of driver malfeasance. Lord knows we don't need 100 different threads in 2004 on nvidia's driver shenanigans clogging up this forum again. Unfortunately it'll be a long time before I trust an Nvidia solution in my system. Stability is key for me, with IQ coming second, and performance coming third. 3dfx held that title for me from the Voodoo 1 - Voodoo 2. Then Nvidia took it from the TNT2U to the GF2. Now ATI has my money. Hopefully I can get an X800XT (still can't get over how friggin fast that thing is) to replace my 9800 Pro. I want 6xAA/16xAF@1600x1200
I don't know who the king is yet, but I know who the real winners in this round of video cards will be....
...thee and me. 8)
...thee and me. 8)
Natoma, I'm surprised you give featureset to ATI, given the enormous number of new features (not just PS2.0) that NV40 has over R420, AND the fact that most if not all of what 3Dc does can be achieved today on current hardware by using an adjusted DXT5 compressor. I'm amazed how well ATI has successfully marketed a feature that almost all existing hardware can do.
NVidia has done a really poor job marketing their new features this round.
NVidia has done a really poor job marketing their new features this round.
3Dc isn't 'exactly' the same a DXT5, but attempting to do the same thing with DXT5 isn't going to be much worse.
The difference is that 3Dc uses 2 blocks that are encoded like that DXT5 alpha block, instead of a colour encoded block and an alpha block.
Encoding a single direction into the DXT5 colour block and using the Alpha block for the other component will produce results that are not that much worse than 3Dc
The difference is that 3Dc uses 2 blocks that are encoded like that DXT5 alpha block, instead of a colour encoded block and an alpha block.
Encoding a single direction into the DXT5 colour block and using the Alpha block for the other component will produce results that are not that much worse than 3Dc
I know Colorless, I'm just saying, the end results are not that much different, as ATI's own test results show. The 2-component DXT5 case looks nearly the same as the uncompressed version.
If you want to do a fair comparison in reviews, show DXT5 2-component compressed normalmaps vs 3Dc, because the reality is, if developers go through the trouble of adding 3Dc, they could just as easily support DXT5 2-component as well.
If you want to do a fair comparison in reviews, show DXT5 2-component compressed normalmaps vs 3Dc, because the reality is, if developers go through the trouble of adding 3Dc, they could just as easily support DXT5 2-component as well.
And ATI even has a whitepaper outlining using 2 component DXT5 for normals maps on their site
I think it the winner is which which vender you like.. so there is no clear winner this time. Things are too close to really tell - but of course we really don't know until they in peoples hands.
If had to pick one then it would be NV40 for SM 3.0 support and better OpenGL support.
If had to pick one then it would be NV40 for SM 3.0 support and better OpenGL support.
I myself am real impreessed with the nv40 for been 120 mhz slower than the R420 and it still keeps pretty close the the R420XT.The nv core looks to be verry efficient and the iq is in par with atis and just like a lot of people the only thing i dont really like is the ps req or the card
Nebuchadnezzar
Legend
I say they're tied.
R420 is fast and all but I don't know why but NV40 seems just more robust to me. :?
R420 is fast and all but I don't know why but NV40 seems just more robust to me. :?
jimmyjames123
Regular
Anyone can create a certain set of criteria that can be molded towards their favorite IHV.
An NV fan could say:
1) Open GL performance: NV
2) Feature set: NV
3) Doom 3: NV
4) AF image quality: NV
5) PS 2.0 performance: tie
...but then this would also ignore many of ATI's strong points, such as Direct3D performance, efficiency with AA/AF, Half Life 2, 6xAA and temporal AA, single slot/single molex flagship etc
I mean, come on...it's quite obvious that the X800 series excels in some games, while the 6800 excels in some games, with X800 and 6800 being very comparable in the remaining games.
It is true that ATI has the leg up with respect to power requirements. However, the 6800 GT and variants below all seem to be single slot/single molex designs that do not require extremely large power supplies.
An NV fan could say:
1) Open GL performance: NV
2) Feature set: NV
3) Doom 3: NV
4) AF image quality: NV
5) PS 2.0 performance: tie
...but then this would also ignore many of ATI's strong points, such as Direct3D performance, efficiency with AA/AF, Half Life 2, 6xAA and temporal AA, single slot/single molex flagship etc
I mean, come on...it's quite obvious that the X800 series excels in some games, while the 6800 excels in some games, with X800 and 6800 being very comparable in the remaining games.
It is true that ATI has the leg up with respect to power requirements. However, the 6800 GT and variants below all seem to be single slot/single molex designs that do not require extremely large power supplies.
I am actually opposed to new standards being created by IHV's if an older more general standard does the job almost as well.
However the exposure 3Dc brings to compressing normal maps (via DXT5) is a win for developers and consumers. If in the end it means that only people with Radeon X cards get the benefit of compressed normal maps then I dont see it a a big win at all.
And Natoma I have to agree with Democoder as on the featureset implemented NVIDIA owns ATi this generation. It is however not worth it to me if you need a 480W PSU, two molex connectors and 222 million transistors to acheive.
The really interesting batlle for me and most people is the X800 Pro vs the similar priced 6800 GT (or whatever it is going to be called), especially because to me it means the power consumption figures will enable a single slot, single molex, standard PSU to be used for the high/mid-range cards.
Currently my vote goes with ATI and the X800 Pro... I am waiting for the mainstream NVIDIA cards before I make a purchasing decision.
Edit: typo
Plus yes I do not completely trust NVIDIA and their drivers at this stage but that is NVIDIA's own fault but I have a feeling NVIDIA does not need to cheat anymore and so will cease and desist for this generation at least. That is my optimistic, positive side speaking. The other side of me at this time can shut up
However the exposure 3Dc brings to compressing normal maps (via DXT5) is a win for developers and consumers. If in the end it means that only people with Radeon X cards get the benefit of compressed normal maps then I dont see it a a big win at all.
And Natoma I have to agree with Democoder as on the featureset implemented NVIDIA owns ATi this generation. It is however not worth it to me if you need a 480W PSU, two molex connectors and 222 million transistors to acheive.
The really interesting batlle for me and most people is the X800 Pro vs the similar priced 6800 GT (or whatever it is going to be called), especially because to me it means the power consumption figures will enable a single slot, single molex, standard PSU to be used for the high/mid-range cards.
Currently my vote goes with ATI and the X800 Pro... I am waiting for the mainstream NVIDIA cards before I make a purchasing decision.
Edit: typo
Plus yes I do not completely trust NVIDIA and their drivers at this stage but that is NVIDIA's own fault but I have a feeling NVIDIA does not need to cheat anymore and so will cease and desist for this generation at least. That is my optimistic, positive side speaking. The other side of me at this time can shut up
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- PC Hardware, Software and Displays