http://img7.abload.de/img/gtx480bu3r.png
Printable View
621 mm˛ die size? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by mapel110
The images are correct. There's no point in nitpicking over it, they did some analyzing at B3D and there's nothing up with either on the benchmark
Yep, they made a chip that's bigger than what TSMC is physically capable of ;)
900MHz memory can't be right.
memory only 900MHz ???,
the screen shot looks legit
GPU-Z does not support Fermi yet, it is a fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by icecpu
Well, if the GTX 470 is indeed 800 MHz GDDR5, then 900MHz from the 480 isn't out of the realm of possibility
Strange to see that a 256-bit 5870 might have matching bandwidth capability
Wrong word, it's real! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Why not? It's the frequency which HD 4870 used. Remember it's first time NVIDIA has GDDR5. They can be just careful.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
nvidia already used 850mhz GDDR5 on GT240.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behemot
Is this real?Quote:
Originally Posted by mapel110
yeah that pretty obvious 5870 1 gb s_cks for ultra high res now weird part is company that made this card had eyefinity tech as ad :ROTF: at least nvidia did smart move in tam choice kudos to them :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
The final clocks are not out yet, im sure the memory will be at 1100mhz minimum.
Lol @ release date. Wow it even has the DAY of release :lol:
That's OK. The BIOS version (gigabyte) and a lot more are not OK. Fake.
Actually it's the other way around. ATI currently caters to 99% of the market while the remaining percent will have 2 GB in a short while. The 4XX series are needlessly expensive to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Makes sense - it's most likely low voltage GDDR (ie. like the one used in HD5970) to keep down TDPQuote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Which part of the "specifications pdf" would be wrong if my claims are true?Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
NVIDIA claimed that GF100 has stellar tessellation performance, which might well be true. But they never claimed that tessallation wouldn't affect shader performance.
If you have info that disproves what I said, by all means do share it.
Not sure if posted already, but anyway.
http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-L...d-Vision-Demo/
So it beats the HD5870 on heavy tessellation, but it's a tie on "normal" usage.
Would that mean that the real advantage of Nvidia will be on future DX11 games, and not on current DX9/10 games?
If the advantage is for future dx11 games, then thats not really an advantage for consumer usage. By the time there is any spectacular or even semi decent game (AvP is bad and runs poorly anyway) there will be MUCH better dx11 hardware out. What matters is current games, if gtx480 is the same as 5870, then whats the point for consumers? I want performance in current games not games in 2 years, if I did I'd buy a card in 2 years. If gtx480 does in fact more or less equal 5870, then theres no reason to buy any card from this generation as simply put its just not a big enough step up in performance on any level.
lol, my memory bandwith is better :p:
http://i49.tinypic.com/25knfh1.jpg
This is specially true for me. My 295 is faster than a 5870 at all levels, and drivers apart, (because CCC is a real PITA), if the 480 doesn't beat my 295 by a considerable margin there's no reason for me to change video card to a 480.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
I want a bit more of juice than the 295 can deliver and the logical step would be a 5970 in case the 480 fails to impress. Thing is... The software sucks to be real honest about CCC, when will ATI deliver simple stuff like game profiles, i've been asking for this forever :(
I need AA8x for Crysis, but then i want to force AA16x in older games. Some games i want them with Vsync, some others i have to disable it (video card fails to deliver constant 60+fps) and i want all of this to be automatic when i start the game like nVidia drivers do.
I really like the 5970, don't get me wrong, but i always feel that something's missing when i use my other PC with the 4870x2 in it, this keeps me away from ATI for now :(
lol@you guys actually thinking gpu-z "measures" things. It has a database for its information. If it says 620mm2 and 512 shaders, this doesn't actually mean it has measured the chip's size or anything. It just displays what its makers put in it as information.
At all levels of Far Cry 2 right? Or do you have a special 295?Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
Its fake, although clocks do get measured by GPU-Z (thats about the only thing actually measured though)Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Lol sorry for quoting myself here but this is the perfect example of what I once mentioned on a different day in this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
Nvidia has a real tight hold on some of its old school customers..
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...82#post4254282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Did not Catalyst 10.2 bring game profiles? All you need to do is download a XML file from AMD site...Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
He is wanting discrete game profiles like Nvidia's CP has had for years now (allowing you to have IQ settings set per game, not just global ). AMD has just added crossfire profiles (the XML ) which can be independantly updated ( between driver updates - eg similar to EVGAs SLI updates you could say... ) Driver wise, that is the thing I miss most about Nvidia drivers. Is it reason enough to sway my decision one or the other... probaley not. However it is a plus for their side of the fence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behemot
Those boxes are so light they are floating. I suspect that there is nothing in them! :para:
Mr obvious. Ofcourse future cards are faster with better features - why else would folks upgrade and buy them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenfeed
And I think you underestimate the ENORMOUS effort in architecture, design, floorplanning, validation, etc to get even chips as similar as 9800GT and 9600GT made. FYI 5800fx and 7900GTX were both DX9, but they are very very different.
Does it really matter? The means to an end? R600 doesn't have either 2D core or correctly working AA hardware. Yet you can surf web and play games with AA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Obviously fakeQuote:
Originally Posted by mapel110
Ghz -> GB = 1000000 / 1024^2 = 0.9313 GiBQuote:
Originally Posted by Designer
512bit DDR = 512 * 2 / 8 = 128 (384=96, 320=80)
For GDDR5 double the clock rate shown, because GDDR5 fetches twice #bits at a time.
(if you dont use the Ghz->GB conversion factor, you will get same number as GPU-Z)
So, for your GTX295: (512/4) x 1.512Ghz = 128 x 1.512 x 0.9313 = 180.2 GigaBytes/s (GiB/s)
GTX480 from screenshot would be: (384/4) x 1.8 x 0.9313 = 160.9 GigaBytes/s (GiB/s)
For reference 5870: (256/4) x 2.4 x 0.9313 = 143.0 GigaBytes/s (GiB/s)
Almighty GTX480 only a smidgen ahead ... pff.. marketing PR wont stand for that.
Using same clocks as 5870, 480 will be 50% more, or 214.6GiB/s (or 230GB/s in marketing speak - very close to 5970's 256GB/s!!)
Thnx for clearing things up :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenfeed
nice boxes :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
nice box design, you mean. These aren't actually boxes. :p:
yours is more like disease :p: thank god i go with whatever i want and really try hard to like it :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
thanks einstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Is there a purpose to this post or are you just trying to start a flame war? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by junkmonk
This exactly echoes my concerns with ATi. I love being able to play around with individual game settings and to be able to force certain settings when needed. I did find this app, which is similar to nHancer but it looks like it is not as refined.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
please analyze his post once again, then apply this same mindset to it. kthxbye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
kthxbye? Is this World of Warcraft circa 2005? I think your internet memes are a little dated there man.Quote:
Originally Posted by junkmonk
In any case, it seems pretty clear he was just joking around. I don't see why you need to try and be hostile. I doubt anybody's impressed. :shrug:
Are you the internet police? I believe that you quoted my first post trying to instigate your point of view that pointlessness and negativity are not allowed, ironically, your post was as pointless as the last. His post was a smart remark, which to be completely honest, on topic of pointlesness, I think was the most so. I came back with a smart comment because of this. Who cares? Why do you care? Stay on topic, and stop moderating because you're not a moderator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I'll stop posting, but not because you want me to. Only because I don't want to take this thread any further off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by junkmonk
I just don't understand why people have to be so insulting around here these days. :shakes:
The person who made those boxes tried to make them look real, but its not working out too well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
They forgot that graphics cards use GDDR5, not DDR5. That alone gives it away that they are fake.
Those pictures are not fake. They were posted on EVGA forum by forum Admins!Quote:
Originally Posted by Salavat23
LOL, these are straight from evga's website, they are the official box art for the GTX 400 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salavat23
At least they are better than Gigabyte's ones saying that there was an ATI 5000 series card inside :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Salavat23
and without a link with the picts we where to know that how :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
@Deimos
I think you misunderstood my point. To clear things up my point is ( and was ) that no one should expect a launch card using a new API to do well with it. In other words DX11 shouldn't be a major selling feature even though it has / and will be marketed as such. What did this have to do with undervaluing the effort involved anyways :confused: There has always been a growing peroid with new APIs and their respective hardware. By the time we have enough DX11 games to care about, we should have adequete hardware to handle them. As it stands the very small amount of titles isn't reason enough. Buy a HD5 series or GT4xx because of performance in current (DX9/10) games.
All of EVGAs boxes say DDR not GDDR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salavat23
As far as true memory banwidth, It should be more in the way of 220-240GB/s on the 480 ( realistic estimation I'd say ) That would put things at 1200Hz on the low side and 1300Hz on the high side. At 1400, we'd be looking at 268GB/s on the 480, which not impossible, I'd say doubtful. Given the wider bus, they don't need memory much faster if faster at all than whats on the 58x0 cards to achieve adequete bandwidth. Unless they chose to use faster memory later on down the pipe (admist the delays), I don't expect clocks faster than 1300Hz (5.2Ghz) myself. This would also make sense given they were meant to come out in Q4, at which time faster GDDR5 wasn't widely available to my knowledge.
All that said, with 1.5gb VRAM and high bandwidth, SLI 480s should be the best 2560x1600 high IQ config for some time to come ( I have my doubts that 2 5870 eyefinity cards will do better )
Impossible. Die size alone cannot be bigger then g200-b3 chips so less then 470mm^2.Quote:
Originally Posted by mapel110
so then, in your opinion, what's the difference between GDDR5 and DDR5?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salavat23
You're right. But that is not logical at all. That's like Dell selling a computer, and calling it a "CPU."Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenfeed
What are you talking about? The die size is pretty much a known amount:Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidReactor
GPU: die size, transistor count
G80: 484 mm2, 681 million
G92: 324 mm2, 754 million
GT200: 576 mm2, 1400 million
GT200b: 470 mm2, 1400 million
fermi: 590 mm2, 3200 million
for comparison
RV870: 334 mm2, 2150 million
Except i've always had BOTH video cards (several models obviously) and i know what i'm talking about, i'm not just an "old" nVidia customer, i'm an old customer of both companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
That's Crossfire profiles, not game profiles (with individual AA, AF, Vsync, etc etc) settings that load when you load a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behemot
But of course. It's not all about the speed, it's all about the reliability of a product even if you have to pay more for it. And nVidia has always been there, that's what lacks in ATI.Quote:
Even if Fermi is SLOWER than Cypress, there are enough Nvidia loyals that will buy it regardless and keep them at a safe revenue margin.
Read above, i always had cards from both companies, but on my main PC i only use what's best at the time, and there is no ATI in there ever since the 9800's. "Trying to like it" doesn't cut it when you want to enjoy a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Ati tray tools has game profiles, u can set not only AA/aniso with them but clocks and fanspeeds even (if card is supported).
Besides ati CCC has improved over last years greatly i must say.
Im using tray tools exclusively tho ;-).
It starts upon bootup, sets my idle clocks far lower than ccc did.When i launch a game it sets requierd clocks for me.Voila.
die size IS known?Quote:
Originally Posted by weston
Did I miss some big press conference or something?
Yeah I know die size is fixed (same for last 6 months), unlike clocks which can be anything last minute.. but Fermi secrets have been very well kept... so where did you get your info... just guess??
This sure is interesting as well as "ATI Crossfire Xtension" which i didn't know existed. Now how hard is it to include these features in CCC? I'd say 1 day .NET coding :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
It's a waste of time to convince him otherwise. I don't think I've seen him in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
Dedicated driver team, yeah :rolleyes:
Yeah, for Nvidia you have nHancer. Regardless, nvidia drivers can do this out of the box without any third party utilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
Hey, it happens on all sides. It just happens lots more in one of them, call off the party :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
Not quite that bad but yes DDR and GDDR are completely different ( voltages, burst length, frenquency ect ) Just a bizzare marketing move on their part. They've done it for years... No idea why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salavat23
wtf ... when 197.5 was released????
idk about you but ive also used cards from both sides..highest end from both sides and ive dealt with driver issues on both sides..and ive owned more nvidia cards then ati and personally i can't say nvidia is any better then ati as far as reliability or performance....and come to think of it the only cards ive had to ever rma were nvidia..Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
and ive increased volts and pretty heavy overclocks on all my cards ive owned.
the sshot is fake, deviceid range -05E0 - 05EF is used for gt200, and never can be used for fermiQuote:
Originally Posted by LAMB OF GOD
yeah FAKE, frequencies are higher ... more higher :)
PS. GF100 is fully supported in 196.75 (ID removed from inf), and final release of driver is 196.78-196.80 NOT 197.xx
PS2 - i am guarantee, last GPUz did not recognise GF100 cards :) :)
Just curious if you did not buy the 7000 series nvidia cards because of hte high failure rate, the 8000 series cards because despite a 5 year beta perioid they could not produce a vista driver that worked... or for that matter a 6000 series card because of over heating issues?Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
Funny when I hear people say "nVidia makes a quality driver or product" they have the same fail rate or worse ATI does.
The big problem with ATI drivers? Finding one that fits an old ass part. Always has been and thats the chief complaint.
Has ATI had HW/SW problems? Of course.. to say otherwise would be ridiculous and make you sound like a moron (oops sorry for quoting you).
I like ATi because the have supported features that I tend to use first... IE .. multi mon, multi 3d mon etc.
Now does that mean I wont run nVidia? Absolutely not. I will abuse that HW just like I do ATi. Will I use it for my main dispaly? No.. but I admit thats a preferential thing. Not a fan boy thing. I like ATIs IQ better than nVidias.. many prefer it the other way around.
I have actually gone to the point of explaining it.. nVidia is "realistic" and ati is "cartoony" for lack of the correct way of explaining it. nVidia has a high gamma rate as default so everything to me like white washed. At the same time ATI does cartoony stuff like delineated lines on objects (no blur) and vibrant colors.. unlike relife.
CSAA works for nViida because LCDs dont have the color range real monitors do... so its like free AA :) I was running 24" CRTs up until last year.. so maybe I should try nVidia again. problem is their cards are STILL so over priced for the power you get..
295 costs $500? 285s are selling used for 3-400 WTF? Well admittedly those are forum prices not ebay.. I bought a 280 for under 200 last year.. and have seen 295s sell under 300.
I have seen nvidia fanboys trash forums with their grabage... and remember when they were paid to do it.
so yeah I guess I am a bit of an ATI fan boy... not cuz im getting paid.. not bwecause I have an allegiance ot the company. It just worked better for me since forever. Since I returned my FX5200 to go back to my radeon 7000, since I dumped my 7900GT for a x1950.. to my roll thorugh 3 8800 series cards all giving me BSODs... t ojust pick up a 3850 instead... to my 4850-4890 run...
I will go 5800 before I go "fermi." If youwant to call me a fanboy, I do not care. I know this for 2 reasons.
Firstly ... 5800 will be cheaper.. Secondly.. I can make my lights flicker with a 4890... whats a fermi gonna do?
:hm: That would be a triumph in my opinion. I was expecting 650-675Mhz to be the utter max.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
This thread has grown into legendary status. So, for a good read, I got stoned, N' read all of Part 1/Part 2(:dj:)
& I'll tell you.... i can't wait for Part 3 of this saga.. what if Nvidia comes up short, but tocks the watt down by Oct?
(there are some sick mofo's on this board :up:)
:rofl::yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
pulled that screen from this thread and added in my score from 5850 @ 1GHz core / 1200mem.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...62/lolhaha.jpg
im not sure how much CPU factors in w/ this bench, i was running an overclock on my i5 750 of 4GHz... just 24/7 setting on both CPU & GPU.
it's going to be interesting to see if 470 will overclock at all.
That would be great even if GTX 470 ~ 5870 and GTX 480 is fast enough it may give a hard time to 5970.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
ATi will have no luck 5870 @ 950Mhz because even GTX 470 would be able to OC "looking at the heatsink", they will be forced to release 5950 "2*1440" and at a proper clock speed it has the potential to compete with GTX 480 if its performance is too much for the 5870.
The best part is the decrease in price that will effect the ATi's and then the Nvidia's new GTX 4 series.
I still hope i can afford a price slashed 5970 "Its tooo expensive right now" or a 5950 or even a GTX 480. Otherwise going in for a 5870 matrix/6 edition or GTX 470 would be best.
lol what x1900 was killer card best single card with much better iq if you can enjoy games with poor iq don't know that more like nvidia fanatism to meQuote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
if 625Mhz-650Mhz GTX470 ~ 5870,GTX 480 needs to be clocked over 800MHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
You should take a look at GTX470 PCB,it doesn't look like a OC monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-03-04/42a.jpg
so, unigine Heaven benchmark is not real games :)
no digital vrm.Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
^ Looks like 5830quality-ish PCB. For 225W. (5830 uses way less power than 5870 in games even with similar TDP values)
That's probably about a 70W difference for the same voltage regs and such. Sure it can OC on the reference PCB? Especially when compared to the 5800s?
I guess they're really confident that like the GTX275 they can really start skimping since "normal people don't overclock". Oh well, more power to them.
Rumor is that the 470 is horrible at overclocking. No digital VRMs, much hotter than the 5870, etc.
what do you expect from company which kept delaying cause of not being able to reach desirable clocks and kinda did that after 3 or 4 revisionsQuote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
lol you all are saying without digital VRM's the thing will not OC well at all. Well that may not be the case the GTX 480 seems not to have them and neither does 5870 lightning.
Digital VRM's are more advanced and such smaller and less flexible...
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-01...card_naked.jpg
I didn't say that.I just don't think 4-phase vGPU and 1-phase vMem are enough for OC.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Look at Msi HD5870 lightning,there is 15-phase (13+2) power supply.
It is too early to speculate about the OC-headroom yet. We have to wait for real hands on experiments.
But the lack of hefting vGPU-components on Fermi could indicate a cool and power efficient GPU too? :p: just some hopes/speculations for now.
Yep, the reference board layouts of the 470 are not in the same class as the 5870 at allQuote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
is it the end of the month for a release?
I didn't get a 7000 series as my interest in computers decreased that year because of some familiar problems. I went from a 6800GT to 8800GTS 320 but i do know the major flop 7000 series cards were (no problems at all with the 6800 though). I had a 9700 PRO, 9800 PRO and x800 PRO prior to that 6800, the x800 fried but well, s**t happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuromancer
I work closely with a computer shop, most returned parts or issues with video cards are ATI. Either problems with drivers (people go back to the store for that), games that will crash instantly on startup or that recent GSOD issue. It's been like that since ever, no wonder there's this feeling that nVidia is more reliable. The RMA ratio is way lower and people still want to buy 295's and 285's, they were stupid to stop making them.
To be honest, i don't see a difference between nVidia's or ATI's IQ so that's not a decision point for me. I like the way my 4870x2 displays my game graphics, i just don't like when i run a game and it lacks effects because the video card doesn't support it. Like i said before, rather have them all than don't.
I didn't care much about the Cypress thing after the day i got one here at home for a review. The drivers wouldn't install, took me a long time to make that card "just work" and all in all my 295 would completely bash it in every game. I know those were early drivers i know the gap is smaller now, but still launching cards priced like this with incredibly bad support like that... Meh. I just thought "Yeah, good old ATI" and moved on.
If my way of thinking labels me as a Fanboy, so be it, but me, like everyone else, just look for the product that best suits me. I don't care about the price/performance ratio (always thought this was ridiculous) or i'd end up with something like a 5770 to play 1920x1200 (lol) and neither do i care about heat or consumption. I watercool my video cards and got an 850W PSU. What i do want is the possibility to tweak my games the way i want them to look like, spend a full 20 mins doing that and then go play.
Weird way of thinking? Well, it's mine, it's who i am either accept it or ignore it ;)
I know the x1900 was nice, 8800 was just "nicer". That's why i skipped x1900. It took one hell of a beating from G80 in every aspect. As for IQ, that used to be true years ago when there was a real noticeable difference, specially in video output to the TV, nowadays it's just the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
I might disagree with you on that reliability thing.
If someone brings ANY card back to the store for driver issues and the store accepts that, that only shows that the people working in the store are not even remotely familiar with the hardware market! If someone of my customers calls me with a problem I'm almost always ready to answer their questions and/or solve it straight away and they are usually happy. If I'm not familiar with the problem, I look it up and solve it for them, as not everyone is a computer freak/geek who buys one.
On the other hand: I had NO! dead ATi cards/chipsets ever since I sell them (for 7 years now!?), quite the opposite on the nVidia front! I stopped selling them because of a sh*t load of dead cards, mobos and notebooks, unless the customer REALLY REALLY REALLY WANTS an nVidia part!
IMHO, nVidia drivers are just as bad as the CCC ever since they changed the GUI years back! Sure, if you own a SLI config, your life is a bit easier as you can specify things per app. For single card config though, I don't see any difference.
I am not a fanboi of neither camp, I just base my decisions and opinions on my own experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
:clap::clap: The ATI fans will kill you, they are a real strong force her, every thing Nvidia ever done stinks.
Oi, wait. PCs leave the store working perfectly with Windows installed. Customers return after "i don't know what i did but this happened". It's not a store problem. Of course all problems are solved, and that's not even the point, point was that most problems rise from ATI related issues.
Well, i don't have a problem with that. These are just opinions and experiences and i'm gonna stop posting, just watch. I'll know what a 470 and a 480 are once they're out. Speculating will take you nowhere anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by E30M3
The nVidia hate should end though, it's not nice.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.downloads...rash-chart.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
No
Last post. You know why that happens, right?
3 zillion nVidia users, 100k ATI users... and there was something about that old graphic which i can't recall that made it inaccurate anyway... Don't remember :shrug:
yeah, yeah. a single source of information is enough to reject any claim. Sure the claimer himself has an ambiguous "source" but yours is too. This is for a "unspecified time in 2007" where Vista problems were very frequent and it also says "..NVIDIA, a company that had a difficult time updating its graphics drivers for the new operating system." This is not a general graph, it's for a certain time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
If you take into account everything Nvidia's market share should be two to three times that of ATI's so this graph tells us nothing.
Namco
You know that intel has the most market share ?
Then nvidia then ati, nvidia has more market share, but not even near amount you think.So this graph about bsods st still valid.I just dont get it how come you are so blind?.
I get it, nvidia drivers are better polished, have more features, but the difference is SMALL ,and for most of the lacking in ati drivers there are solutions.In few areas ati has the upper hand even.Eyefinity for example.
nvidias market share was never 2 or 3 times more than atis current ones are 19 vs 23 so i don't know where ppl are pulling this 3 zilllion vs 100k or 2 or 3 times more cr_pQuote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
ATi's driver never had anything as sever as the Nvidia's card burning drivers..Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
I do agree that Nvidia drivers are more feature packed and very stable but who is to say that ATi's are totally unstable?
The newer catalysts especially after 2XXX series were pretty stable. The new ones after that just improve on that and add features.
Come on man, I didn't want to enter in just another ridicule brands war, but what you are trying is to justify (to achieve piece of mind) the purchase of your favourite brand products. You don't need to do that, if you just prefer some specific brand, don't look for excuses to buy it...Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
NVIDIA has a bigger market share in mainstream segment, but not in the proportions you are saying. That graphic shows a 28.8% of NVIDIA caused crashes in Vista, and a 9.3% ATI caused. That's a whole x3.1 numbers. If NVIDIA was really more reliable than ATI like you're trying to imply, that shouldn't be this way because no, NVIDIA doesn't have "way more than triple the market share than ATI has" in the mainstream (and that's what a Vista focused graphic is going to show you) market.
The drivers thing about ATI might have some far away in time basis, specially when talking about OpenGL drivers (which were once pretty bad), but nowadays are nothing else than FUD. You know what it means, and you know how it works in the computer world. Everything in technologies fails from time to time. How much time did NV needed to make a properly working Vista driver for their cards that didn't cause random crashes, for example? When there's FUD around a given product/brand, when that happen it's "the confirmation of their problems with...". When there's not, when that happens it's nothing else than the technology, which is by nature prone to fail.
You have even said things before as prefering NVIDIA because they have a "dedicated drivers team". Do you really think that a hardware vendor with the weight of NVIDIA, ATI, Intel, AMD, and even some much smaller ones is not going to have different teams dedicated to the different tasks affecting their products, including drivers? FYI, ATI has 3 dedicated drivers teams, and at any given point in time 3 different driver versions under developement. They are divided into 3 different developement phases, and each driver is (at any given time) in a different developement phase. The whole developement process is 3 months (including testing and bug fixing of the drivers after applying any changes), and this developement model allows them to release periodically (once a month, hence the naming of drivers version with a number showing the release year and month, 9.11, 9.12, 10.1, 10.2...) an updated version of the driver. Enough dedication, planning and periodicity? ;)
Of course, all that doesn't mean they have not problems with drivers. They have them. As NVIDIA does. As everyone in the market launching bleeding edge technologies every time. Exactly as that graphic exemplifies (it doesn't pretend to be a measure of which is the more reliable company, but it's a good example of what I am saying). There have been known problems with ATI drivers, and there have been known problems with NVIDIA drivers. FUD spreaded around ATI ones is what makes some people to react in a different way to ones or others.
And I will mention also other aspects of reliability for a tech product. Like the quality control issues of 8800GT when they were launched that caused a whole bunch of RMA's. Like the M versions of NV GPU's frying in laptops around the world and causing them several loses.
I'm not trying to imply that NV is any worse than ATI in terms of reliability or confidence. I'm just trying to demonstrate that, as you said, "s**t happens". To everybody. And FUD around ATI is just unjustified.
Could you guys hating the CCC please describe exactly what your problem was with it other than things being in different places than in the nvidia drivers??
I personally had far more trouble !installing! forceware than ccc so I'm curious...
EDIT: as it stands momentarily - there is about 10-20% more people using nVidia GPU-s than ATi ones, so the comparison "3 zillion nVidia users, 100k ATI users..." is COMPLETELY WRONG! and as far as I remember by the time that Vista crash pie-chart seen the light of the day the market share stood at about 19% ATi 25% nVidia and the rest was ruled by Intel and others.
This thread is going nowhere this way. This thread is about Fermi and not a battleground for the continually recurring driver wars.
IMHO, you base your purchase decision on what hardware gives you the best performance at that instant in time. The quality of their drivers is not something I really look at, as they each have their ups and downs.
AMEN to that..Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
and to the previous discussions, give this a little read and spend some time to reflect your opinions :up:
Quote:
Prejudice – noun
1- An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
2- Any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
Two things I love on this page:
a) People dragging up old ATI stigma about drivers
b) The same people refusing to accept old news about nvidia causing crashes in Vista
Bonus: c) The laying of blame for dying graphics cards on the users, no the .75 drivers
I think that what is happening here and elsewhere is pretty plain to see. the fanboys must really feel their back is against the wall here, so they seem to have fallen back on the only thing left that nv still has in their corner (according to them): the driver issue. They seem to be playing that for all it's worth, probably a focus group strategy. Bad drivers is a stigma that has been attached to ATi, even though that era has ended 10 years ago. Let's talk about fermi and if the new drivers will burn that card up too, or it will just burn on it's own. :D
Crysis Warhead: HD 5870 vs GTX 470 (Already posted?).
PS. GTX 470 confirmed looking the mem size.
http://bbs.expreview.com/attachments...2c1b865e9c.jpg
Another fanboy post from flippin waffles. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
You must have stock in AMD. You just bash any company that competes with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
a) Crossfire sucks I wouldn't touch crossfire with a ten foot pole. I haven't been too impressed with ATI's drivers but I was running an x2 so I'll blame it on that. I would be willing to give a 5870 a shot.
b) I assume that you are referring to that pie chart. I have one question to ask, what was ATI's market share at the time? Intel is the only one that came out looking good with that one.
c) I haven't seen the past couple of pages in this thread. I just saw that flippin posted and I knew that it was going to be good so I had to read that. Anyways if it's the same people that are in the other thread blaming this latest driver issue on user error I agree that is insane blin fanboyish. Nvidia pulled the drivers for a reason.