If You Bought a NV 5950 Which one would you buy?

[Dissolved]

Yes Im an NV fan :|

Anyways, Which 5950 Would you guys get?

Tha gainward looks good, its almost a given to 500/1000 stock from what a few reviews claim..

Anyone tested any?

Thanks:toast:

[saaya]

i havent seen any 5950 yet so i cant help you with this. sorry...

but why do you want to get the 5950 anyways? get the 5700 if your an nvidia fan! its really a nice card, especially for the money, and its really fast even without the optimizations! (it even gains a few points with the 340 patch!!!)

[climbski]

I'm no fan of Companies, just performance..which means ATI for the moment at the high end.

[Dissolved]

Gah, 3 posts, and nothing HELPfull..

YES i know the 9800XT is faster, but i dont care. its an extra 60-80 and i just dont want it..

So back to the topic please..

Anyone know of a good brand?

Thanks :)

[Sovereignty]

Leadtek's 5900 was pretty good. IIRC they have a 5950 out too so I would expect it would be pretty high quality.

[prommy_fan]

hey Dissolved

Didn't you think about waiting for ASUS card on 5950 core? I think it will be nice to overclock :)

[STEvil]

So go 9800 Pro?

[Dissolved]

Originally posted by STEvil
So go 9800 Pro?


pffft i Dont like ATI. i perfer NV.


Flame me all you want. but i stick to amd and NV even if they are cheaper/slower. Just makes it more of a game to overclock..


Anyone have Any NV cards they get?

[st0nedpenguin]

I would just wait for nVidia's next chipset if you wan't to stick with the dark side, all you are getting with the 5950 is a 5900 with slightly increased clocks and improved cooling.

Not the handiest response I know. :D

[Peen]

leadtek always seems to make good NV cards, id look there ;)

[Soltani]

I would pick a TerraTec they always makes some nice products

[drunkenmaster]

i wouldn't go with asus, in teh uk very expensive for a £5 better cooling than other cards but they ad din loads of old software and charge you £30-40 more :( You wanna watercool anyway :p

Most brands seem okay, tbh i'd go for something cheap but with decent warranty, sapphires seem to only have 1 year warranty( for ati cards obviously) and my card died so i'm not happy. Died about 2 weeks outta the year warranty too.

I read something VERY odd yesterday, dunno how accurate, got a copy of pc pro , review on the 5950 said nvidia went with 475 clocks stock in the end, but they are garenteed up to 500mhz, ALL of them, and tehy left a little headroom for the tweakers out there, maybe to keep fans a little quieter and heat output lower was my guess, if that is accurate.
If it is true then Any car dyou buy should do 500Mhz without question.

Nvidia weren't the cheaper card till very recently(in the uk at least) but the 5950 is cheaper now, by quite a margin sometimes.
There ain't that big a diff in performance, lets face it, for any gaming right now the diff will be negligible, in teh future, well dx9.1 might make a big difference, so we'll see.

[Banana_Boy]

if you are completly stuckon getting nvidia. wait. going from a 5900 to a 5950 is pretty useless IMHO. Wait and see if NV40 is worth it

[saaya]

Originally posted by Dissolved
its an extra 60-80 and i just dont want it...


extra 60-80 what? fps? ;)

then just get a 9800xt and underclock it and there you have your 5950-like performing card for a lot less money! ^^

seriously, i dont get it! you get an nvidia card and not an ati card because you dont really care about the performence, but then you wanna know what brand nvidia card you wanna buy?

but the performence diference between the diferent 5950 cards is a lot less than the diference between the 5950 and the 9800xt!

so if you really dont care about the performence then why do you care about the brand? its not really going to make a diference, the only diference i can think of is the noise of the cooling the cards use and i dont think you will use the stock cooling anyways ;)

[Manoj]

I have the Radeon 9800XT and Geforce FX 5950.

Both are nice cards.

Anyway, my leadtek Geforce FX 5950 clocks nicely at 597mhz core and 1060mhz mem with stock heatsink fan.

[faruquehabib]

i think that gainward golden sample 5950 looks decent

[Dissolved]

Originally posted by Manoj
I have the Radeon 9800XT and Geforce FX 5950.

Both are nice cards.

Anyway, my leadtek Geforce FX 5950 clocks nicely at 597mhz core and 1060mhz mem with stock heatsink fan.

Thanks.. At least Now i have an idea.. getting sick of all thise ATI crap :(

[interman]

gainward is always a good choice, since they pretty much only use high quality chips.. too bad watercooling is included by default, thus making the price insane

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by saaya
extra 60-80 what? fps? ;)

then just get a 9800xt and underclock it and there you have your 5950-like performing card for a lot less money! ^^

seriously, i dont get it! you get an nvidia card and not an ati card because you dont really care about the performence, but then you wanna know what brand nvidia card you wanna buy?

but the performence diference between the diferent 5950 cards is a lot less than the diference between the 5950 and the 9800xt!

so if you really dont care about the performence then why do you care about the brand? its not really going to make a diference, the only diference i can think of is the noise of the cooling the cards use and i dont think you will use the stock cooling anyways ;)
I don't know where you are getting this, if you look here (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890) you will see you are wrong.

Wins:
9800XT - 6
5950U - 4
Tie - 5

That doesn't look like the ATI is dominating to me.

[Dissolved]

Originally posted by Soulburner
I don't know where you are getting this, if you look here (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890) you will see you are wrong.

Wins:
9800XT - 6
5950U - 4
Tie - 5

That doesn't look like the ATI is dominating to me.


Exactly..

I just NV bec there drivers are easy to tweak for me, i tryed a 9500np and i didnt care for it. my games didnt look any better..

if i go ati id get the 9800pro from Guillemot Hercules cuz its blue :)

but i just looked at my bank account, and i dont have enough ATM so hopefully i can gather more info be4 i deside to buy a newer card.

everyone seems Pro ati just bec they bench better in 3dmark and a few games ill never play. so that Does Nothing for me.

but thanks :beer:

[Iridium192_217]

I would go for an Asus.

I recently got a asus 5900 ultra refurb at newegg, very nice card

[Soulburner]

The ATI's do seem to do better in some tests in 3DMark, like Lobby which is pretty much a system only test. The consensus seems to be the Nvidia cards are more of a drag on the system in those tests. However when people were breaking 25-26k, the FX5900 was in those rigs getting the #1 scores. What they lost in some tests they made up for in Nature which is worth a lot of points. I don't know what the new ones would score but im pretty sure if tweaked properly they would be right up there with the 9800XT.

However out of the box and without any volt mods, overclocked or not the 9800 wins every time. It seems the FX cards just need more work to get going.

[Soulburner]

I'd like to see that too...my Leadtek clocked well also despite the crappy cooling so they seem to be good cards.

[Manoj]

Originally posted by MickeyMouse
can I see the 2k3 bench wiht those clocks please totaly stock unmodded fx5950??????

I have no idea how to mod the Geforce FX 5950.

Here is a result which I had 2 weeks ago.


Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.3Ghz and geforce FX 5950 at 597mhz core and 1060mhz mem.

= 7759 3DMarks

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1516956

The system was my daily day to day system. Complete air cooled and in a simple tower case.

[Soulburner]

Cool almost 1000 points over my lowly 490/900.

[Penguin4x4]

Originally posted by prommy_fan
hey Dissolved

Didn't you think about waiting for ASUS card on 5950 core? I think it will be nice to overclock :)

ASUS is producing ATi cards now, :toast:

[drunkenmaster]

saaya, a very good reason for asking about brands is what i highlighted previously. While my sapphire cards clocked better than my other cards, were out first and pretty cheap(they WERE!!, they got too big:( ) they only offer a 1 year warranty, thats on retail boxes. SO that is one huge reason to choose a diff brand, one for $5 more or $15 less that offers 2 or 3 years over one is hugely better value. Another reason is the price diff itself. There may be no perf diff, don't think there ever is personally, 99% of cards are identical anwyay and are luck of the draw on getting good ram more than anything, IMHO(as in good batch of ram, that the chips come from).

But if something is $40 more and all you get is commache 4, serious sam 2 and 15 demos, why would you want to pay for it. As has been mentioned teh 9800 XT is in a very loosely based way ahead of the 5950 at teh moment. As is always the case, this is generally only benchmark noticeable. THen as he's stated, the games that show problems aren't the kind he'll play.

AS with people that say buy a ath or intel based on what you want to do, same can go here. I will play most kinds of games, but a lotta people won't.

Refurbs are always good deals, i've had a couple mobo's, speakers, and some other stuff all work fine, though most i think are jsut returned opened and unwanted. 2nd hand is often a good cheap way to buy stuff too.

Hmm, isn't the fan on the 5950 supposed to be quieter than the 9800XT. My 9800 pro is a whiney evil little rude word.

My overall cards chosing advice for anyone is too ignore colours and bundles, look for value buta reputable company. Ones that offer longer warranties are normally more reliable(IMHO) and are worth the extra $20 if thats how much a good warranty would cost you. Personally, i'm not at all impressed with gainward, they had such huge ti 4200 problems, a joke really. Also overpriced for really pathetic garenteed overclocks and serious same 2. Other than that i've never had another card over a gainward that didn't clock the same really. albatron ti4200's seemed to be the best anway.

Also, i have to still laugh at them for selling the 5900 ultra with watercooling, then even more for still ahving it at £500 here when a 5950 with better cores that clock further on stock air, are £180 cheaper :p

[saaya]

Originally posted by Soulburner
I don't know where you are getting this, if you look here (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890) you will see you are wrong.

Wins:
9800XT - 6
5950U - 4
Tie - 5

That doesn't look like the ATI is dominating to me.

i know, i was just kidding :D
the 5950s are not bad at all, the problem is just that its too compley so it needs an extreme amount of optimization work...

i dont get how anybody would want to buy a nvidia card after all the lying and fooling their customers... i really dont get it...

@drunkenmaster ,yeah your right... there is quite some diference in the extras you get, but performencewise i dont think theres a real diference. maybe the leadtek card ocs 5% more than the asus card, but if you dont care about the performence that much like he said then it doesnt matter i think... :)

Originally posted by Penguin4x4
ASUS is producing ATi cards now, :toast:

ati AND nvidia :)

[Dissolved]

Originally posted by Manoj
I have no idea how to mod the Geforce FX 5950.

Here is a result which I had 2 weeks ago.


Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.3Ghz and geforce FX 5950 at 597mhz core and 1060mhz mem.

= 7759 3DMarks

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1516956

The system was my daily day to day system. Complete air cooled and in a simple tower case.


Very nice.. what do u get in 2k1?

[Manoj]

Originally posted by Dissolved
Very nice.. what do u get in 2k1?

Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.3Ghz and Geforce FX 5950 596mhz core and 1050mhz mem (stock air cooling).

3DMark 2001 SE

= 22113 3DMarks


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7185750

For some reason Geforce FX doesn't do that well in 3DMark 2001 SE.

[taco]

Originally posted by Dissolved
pffft i Dont like ATI. i perfer NV.


Flame me all you want. but i stick to amd and NV even if they are cheaper/slower. Just makes it more of a game to overclock..


Anyone have Any NV cards they get?

have you ever used a 9700/9800 series video card? i use to be all for nvidia. now im all for ati, cause its such a better card for the money. i got my 9800 non pro for 250, and im happy.

id give ati a try. :toast:

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by Manoj
Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.3Ghz and Geforce FX 5950 596mhz core and 1050mhz mem (stock air cooling).

3DMark 2001 SE

= 22113 3DMarks


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7185750

For some reason Geforce FX doesn't do that well in 3DMark 2001 SE.
Want to see a huge boost to your score?

Here's a hint: Try Detonator 44.03 :cool:.

[Manoj]

Originally posted by Soulburner
Want to see a huge boost to your score?

Here's a hint: Try Detonator 44.03 :cool:.

It is okay. I sold my Geforce FX 5950 Ultra just 2 hours ago.

He He!!!

I bought two to choose the best one. I made my choice and decided to stick with the Radeon 9800XT.

[st0nedpenguin]

Originally posted by Dissolved
everyone seems Pro ati just bec they bench better in 3dmark and a few games ill never play. so that Does Nothing for me.

I'm pro ATi because it's cheaper, performs better, has better image quality, and doesn't cheat insanely in benchmarking.

Enough for me.

[Dissolved]

Originally posted by Soulburner
Want to see a huge boost to your score?

Here's a hint: Try Detonator 44.03 :cool:.


shhhh :P

[saaya]

44.03=t3h che4t

[Manoj]

Originally posted by saaya
44.03=t3h che4t

Most of Nvida drivers are optimized for benchmarks.

I thought 52.16 drivers were good but with the new 3DMark 2003 build 340, it didn't turn out to be.

However, in games I hardly find any difference between Geforce FX 5950 and Radeon 9800XT. It is pretty close.

[saaya]

that totally depends on what games you play!

the drivers are not only optimized for 3dmark but also for some games. there are a lot of games that the drivers are not optimized for and the ati cards are up to 50% faster with aa and af.

the greatest strength is always the greatest weakness... the complexetivity allows the fx to make great use of its resources because it can work in very diferent modes and is very adaptive.
BUT it needs to be optimized to be able to use all its resources and power, wich takes a lot of work for every game...

the ati cards ARE fastwith any game, the fx cards need new drivers for every new game to show their performence! just think of half life 2, a completely new game engine, but on atis cards it was running just fine while the fx cards showed terrible performence and needed completely new drivers to get at least acceptable fps.

fx cards are not bad, as i said before they are superior in some means but they need specialized drivers, and since i dont play most mainstream games wich their drivers are optimized for anyways, and i dont want to loose image quality in the few mainstream games i play just because nvidia wants to increase the fps to make their cards look better i chose an ati card...

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by Manoj
It is okay. I sold my Geforce FX 5950 Ultra just 2 hours ago.

He He!!!

I bought two to choose the best one. I made my choice and decided to stick with the Radeon 9800XT.
Darn. Well I noticed your Nature was only 126. With the 44.03 driver you would have had at least a 180-190 Nature with those kinds of clocks.

[Manoj]

Originally posted by Soulburner
Darn. Well I noticed your Nature was only 126. With the 44.03 driver you would have had at least a 180-190 Nature with those kinds of clocks.

What would I get in return if I used older drivers to get better 3DMark 2001 SE results.

I will not be number 1 nor will I get $1000000 in my bank account for being number 1.

3DMark is losing taste now.

[Soulburner]

Well on my system the difference is about 1000-1500 points.

[Manoj]

It is silly to get better 3DMark 2001 results we have to use older drivers and use newer drivers for better 3DMark 2003 results.

That is stupid.

Why not have one driver for good performance in very game and benchmark?

[Soulburner]

Because the newer drivers have better quality, but at the cost of performance (at least in 3DMark).

At least I can tell Nature does look better.

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by climbski
I'm no fan of Companies, just performance..which means ATI for the moment at the high end.

Ditto ... NV just doesnt have it lately... Maybe the NV40 will be ok, but until then, forget it !

Originally posted by Soulburner
I don't know where you are getting this, if you look here (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890) you will see you are wrong.

Wins:
9800XT - 6
5950U - 4
Tie - 5

That doesn't look like the ATI is dominating to me.

Come on guys... What this DOESNT mention is that Nvidia "dumbs down" the image quality to get those nice scores... THAT is why you shouldnt get Nvidia, until maybe the NV40, and only IF Nvidia fixes the image quality/cheating issues.

Nvidia's IQ just isnt as good, especially with 4xAA . Its all blurry compared to ATI's. And if you are spending the cash to get either a 9800 or 5900 or higher, you are totally wasting your $$$ if you arent using 4xAA . Any mid range card is fast enough without it.

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by retrospooty
Come on guys... What this DOESNT mention is that Nvidia "dumbs down" the image quality to get those nice scores... THAT is why you shouldnt get Nvidia, until maybe the NV40, and only IF Nvidia fixes the image quality/cheating issues.

Nvidia's IQ just isnt as good, especially with 4xAA . Its all blurry compared to ATI's. And if you are spending the cash to get either a 9800 or 5900 or higher, you are totally wasting your $$$ if you arent using 4xAA . Any mid range card is fast enough without it.
I don't think so....if you check out those reviews (including the one I got those numbers from), they did not note any "dumbing down image quality" on the NV card.

BTW I have a 5900 and I don't use AA. Why? Because I run max resolution instead - it looks better and runs faster that way. When there is nothing aliased to begin with, you don't need AA to try and fix it.

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by Soulburner
I don't think so....if you check out those reviews (including the one I got those numbers from), they did not note any "dumbing down image quality" on the NV card.

BTW I have a 5900 and I don't use AA. Why? Because I run max resolution instead - it looks better and runs faster that way. When there is nothing aliased to begin with, you don't need AA to try and fix it.

Its a pretty well known fact by now that Nvidia's image quality is not up to par, and just because those reviews don't mention it, doesn't make it a fact (or not). The best thing to be sure is compare the image quality on the 2 cards for yourself.

I have a 9800 and I run it at 1600x1200@4xaa in most games a few newer ones at 1280x1024@4xAA... As you said, to you, it looks better without it , you are right, with an Nvidia card, it looks crappy with AA ... thats because Nvidia dumbs down the image quality and makes it all blurry. If its done correctly, any 3d game looks better with AA . ALL 3d games have nasty jagged edges, there is no such game that it not "aliased" as you say.

But, whatever, if you like Nvidia, go for it, I am only trying to help. :D

[luihed]

Originally posted by retrospooty
And if you are spending the cash to get either a 9800 or 5900 or higher, you are totally wasting your $$$ if you arent using 4xAA . Any mid range card is fast enough without it.

Exactly....... the most fun I had tweaking a card was with the ti4600 and back then I didnt wanna switch to ATI........ but after playing with the 9700pro and 9800pro, I must say that Ive got not one regret having and ATI card....... I wish you can play with lods on this thing though.....

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by retrospooty
Its a pretty well known fact by now that Nvidia's image quality is not up to par, and just because those reviews don't mention it, doesn't make it a fact (or not). The best thing to be sure is compare the image quality on the 2 cards for yourself.

I have a 9800 and I run it at 1600x1200@4xaa in most games a few newer ones at 1280x1024@4xAA... As you said, to you, it looks better without it , you are right, with an Nvidia card, it looks crappy with AA ... thats because Nvidia dumbs down the image quality and makes it all blurry. If its done correctly, any 3d game looks better with AA . ALL 3d games have nasty jagged edges, there is no such game that it not "aliased" as you say.

But, whatever, if you like Nvidia, go for it, I am only trying to help. :D
Well I like both companies, in fact I am buying myself a 9800 Pro as soon as I can sell this card, have been planning on it for a while now. It is an awesome card though, extremely fast in any game you can throw at it.

On my system, when I run say Return to Castle Wolfenstein, I run it at 1600x1200 w/AF (application controlled). I notice literally no jagged edges whatsoever. It is a very crisp image. If I were to turn on AA I don't think it would do anything.

Maybe the 9800s work differently and their high rest doesn't look as good, I don't know. I'll find out and ill be able to compare when I get one.

[Nookie420]

yeah, i remember when i got my ti4600. i was like, man, ATI cant touch this. then out comes 9700 pro. im like, oh well, the FX 5800ultra will 0wn it...............then im like, the 5900ultra will be king, but 9800pro comes out, and im like, DANGIT, WTH, nVidia j00r slax0ring. So although for long times i would have said "i will never own an ATI card" i find myself here.

But still hoping, deep down inside, nvidia will sweep the competition.........:2cents:

[STEvil]

1600x1200 without AA is plenty fine to me.. killer fps and if you are sitting around counting jaggies you deserve to die.. 8-)

[Manoj]

Originally posted by Nookie420
yeah, i remember when i got my ti4600. i was like, man, ATI cant touch this. then out comes 9700 pro. im like, oh well, the FX 5800ultra will 0wn it...............then im like, the 5900ultra will be king, but 9800pro comes out, and im like, DANGIT, WTH, nVidia j00r slax0ring. So although for long times i would have said "i will never own an ATI card" i find myself here.

But still hoping, deep down inside, nvidia will sweep the competition.........:2cents:

Anything can happen in the future.

It could even happen that I may choose not to bother too much about computers.

It is important is to know which card is the best now.

[retrospooty]

I have had, and built many systems on both GPU's and I can see that ATI has a much better, sharper, clearer image quality with or without AA or AF . Pretty much no matter what way you slice it ATI has a better image.

Most reviews I have read also agree. A few review have no preference or mention of image quality, but none ever prefer Nvidia's image quality.

[HaLDoL]

It's simple: buy an ATI card for benchmarking, buy a NV card for games.

As for games, NV drivers are more stable and more supported (opengl, linux, ...) than ATI drivers.

What's the use of the fastest card if you can't use them for gaming? Remember cats 3.8 and 3.9 do not work properly with (probably) the best game of the year, Call of Duty. ATI should be ashamed, building fast cards is one thing, but drivers are as much as important.

As for the image quality: do you play games for strolling around, looking at the landscapes, the trees, the houses, ... ??? I don't think so, they are games, you have no time for this! You need to kill and shoot everything that moves. I never saw someone say "Wow look at that beautiful trilinear rendered blood, glad I bought an ATI".
Any difference in image quality should be resolved with the 5x.xx drivers, and if not, you'll need to make some screenies, zoom in 500% for discovering any differences. But when playing, you won't see them.

Again, I will always choose stability over performance, anytime, anywhere.

My opinion of course.

[st0nedpenguin]

I haven't had a crash, bug or error of any kind whilst gaming from my 9800Pro since I bought it abnout 4 months ago, the whole ATi driver thing is pretty much a moot point now, they used to be terrible, but are a damn sight better than that now.

I don't see the point in buying a card that offers poorer image quality for gaming, what's the point? We may as well all start playing pong again if you follow that argument to it's natural conclusion...

[saaya]

lol HaLDoL. theres a bug in the game wich makes radeon cards crash at a certain point of the game when you play in highe res and aa and af settings with the latest drivers. its probably a bug in atis gpu compiler since it works fine with the 3.2 catalyst...

talking about driver incompability, what about half life 2? it took nvidia weeks to get at least acceptable fps and fullscreen aa working...

and buying a card for gaming because it can run on linux doesnt make any sence to me... :confused:

btw ati has some nice linux drivers as well ;)

[CrashOv3r1De]

the gainward is pretty nice......

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by HaLDoL
It's simple: buy an ATI card for benchmarking, buy a NV card for games.

As for games, NV drivers are more stable and more supported (opengl, linux, ...) than ATI drivers.

What's the use of the fastest card if you can't use them for gaming? Remember cats 3.8 and 3.9 do not work properly with (probably) the best game of the year, Call of Duty. ATI should be ashamed, building fast cards is one thing, but drivers are as much as important.

As for the image quality: do you play games for strolling around, looking at the landscapes, the trees, the houses, ... ??? I don't think so, they are games, you have no time for this! You need to kill and shoot everything that moves. I never saw someone say "Wow look at that beautiful trilinear rendered blood, glad I bought an ATI".
Any difference in image quality should be resolved with the 5x.xx drivers, and if not, you'll need to make some screenies, zoom in 500% for discovering any differences. But when playing, you won't see them.

Again, I will always choose stability over performance, anytime, anywhere.

My opinion of course.

No offense meant at all buddy, but .... Where do you get your info ?

ATI for benching and NV for games ? Thats rediculous. :stick: Nvidia's drivers cheat, and lower image quality to gain performance in games, and in benchmarks, therefore any bench data is invalid. They have also been cought improving the image quality when a screenshot mode is detected to give the appearance of better image quality. highly uncool actions by NV !

And as for image quality in games, its highly important. If you dont care about image quality then you should not have bought a 9700 or 5900 or higher GPU, you can play just fine with any 5600U or 9500pro... You just wasted $200 bucks nothing but better image quality. The ONLY thing that the high end cards get you over mid range cards at all is IQ !

And where do you get the idea that image quality should be resolved with the 5x.xx drivers ? All they do is add more cheats to more games, and benches. The image quality problem is not any different, just more universally widespread.

I have a 5900 256 meg card, and a 9800pro128 meg card ... Believe me, the IQ is way better on 9800 with or without AA and AF , its just crisper, and cleaner.

All over the web you will find reviews... Most agree ATI's IQ is way better, some make no mention of IQ at all (not examined), and a small percentage say they appear equal (reviewers either skewing data, or are color blind) ... You will not see any review at all say NV is better.

I have always bought Nvidia cards, ever sinve they passed 3dfx in speed and IQ many years ago... I do have high hopes for the NV40 chip, hopefully its a winner, but the current products are just not up to par with ATI, not in speed, or IQ... Sorry. :toast:

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by retrospooty
All over the web you will find reviews... Most agree ATI's IQ is way better, some make no mention of IQ at all (not examined), and a small percentage say they appear equal (reviewers either skewing data, or are color blind)
That is your own opinion. If you look at any recent benchmark with the 52.16 drivers you will find IQ is pretty much identical between the cards. I have also seen this myself. The only time ATIs IQ wins is in some games the AA/AF work better than the NV cards. Otherwise the rendered image is comparable.

[Dr.Demonic69]

I wish if bill gates signs a deal with Texas Instruments to make a sick fast video card so it blows away ati and nvdia so like this i dont have to read crap about ATI vs Nvidia. Just think about how far we've moved ahead with technology and we're lucky to experiance it because even just 10 years ago wtf did we play on?
Ohh yeah our cpu's used to render graphics and most of the game work. We should thank both ati and nvidia for designing such powerfull GPU's.

[Manoj]

Nvidia has released new drivers which fixes what Futuremark did with the 3DMark 2003 build 340.

ftp://evga.com/5303XP.exe

Nvidia is back in the game now. Speed > image quality as usual.

[QuadDamage]

Dissolved,

try MSI if you can get one. IMO, MSI are the best clockers.

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by Soulburner
That is your own opinion. If you look at any recent benchmark with the 52.16 drivers you will find IQ is pretty much identical between the cards. I have also seen this myself. The only time ATIs IQ wins is in some games the AA/AF work better than the NV cards. Otherwise the rendered image is comparable.

I have a 5900 with 52.16 drivers, and I disagree about the IQ... but thats cool, we can disagree. Either way I am waiting for the next round. Hopefully Nvidia can pick it back up with the NV40, although their CEO has announced that graphics chips will no longer be the companies main focus.

[saaya]

ever since people found out that nvidias drivers detect screencapture commands and render a special frame with higher detail IQ on nvidia cards is no longer an argument for me... sorry, but i really dont care if some people say nvidia even has better IQ than ati...

[buff]

ya agree with saaya

[retrospooty]

Yup, your right . Nvidia cheats on benchmarks, and screenshots, thus making any speed or IQ Comparison totally invalid.

Clever buncha worms aren't they ?

[saaya]

i really dont know if nvidia underestimates the intelligence of their customers or i overestimate it...

so far it seems i was wrong, most people keep buying nvidia cards and dont care at all ^^

[retrospooty]

I'd say its due to the fact that most people dont hang out on forums, or read reviews. They arent even aware that Nvidia is cheating, and lying about speed and IQ at all.

Lets face it... It takes a special kind of dork to know all this stuff ;)

:D

[wicktron]

Both good. Pick what you like. Who are we to judge people's preferences.

I could go either way, both companies have great cards.