Upgrading time... again

[ale2999 0]

hey forum buddies, I have 500 dollars canadian at my disposal to dispose

As Hl2 a dx9 game is going to come out pretty soon, I was pondering about ditching my ti 4200 for sometin with more muscle. I have had great xperiences with Nvidia and I am sorry to hear all this nvidia bashing on the internet. The only thing is that althought I respect valve, I dont completely believe that the nvidia hw can be that crappy. Why you ask? because those benchmark result were released at an ati event, because the benchmark was made by valve, because ati and valve struck a contract. so is it not possible that valve unoptimized their game to make ati look better? I just want sometin good, but I dont really feel like jumping the boat to ati. What do u guys advise?

[theavonlady 2]

All I know is I wouldn't buy an ATI.

Here's a PC Mag review from May of the GF FX 5900 Ultra:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1078540,00.asp

Bottom line:

Quote[/b] ]The bottom line is that either GPU will make today's games go fast, and should leave you well-equipped for shader-enabled games like Doom 3, which we hope to see later this year.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Come over to the dark side... I hear the 256 mb 9800 Pros are very nice this time of year

[blackdog~ 0]

I would say completely forget upgrading your computer, put the money in an envelope, and send it to me.

Sound like a good deal?

[Bluesman 0]

Given NVIDIA:s apparent problems with Pixel Shaders I'm myself thinking of ATI when i upgrade my 4200.

Wouldn't want to miss the chance to play Halflife2 properly

BM

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I'd wait for Hl2 to come out, see how it runs, and if completely nessesary buy a new card then, which will be slightly cheaper by that time.

I also recommend not choosing any one brand and sticking to it; just buy whatever is good at the time.

[Badgerboy 0]

I've always been a big fan of Nvidia, but really have dropped the ball this time.

When Microsoft came out with the DX9 standard, Ati decided to code a chipset specifically for it, whislt Nvidia tried to pressurise MS into developing a software path for the current chipset. (Hint : Don't try and pressure Microsoft). Now while Ati cards run DX9 games as they should (particulary the pixel shaders), the Nvidia cards need software patches to run anywhere near well. Valve spent 5x longer coding the game to work well on Nvidia cards, and still ATi's 9600 (100 pound card) gets better frame rates than Nvidias 350 pound 5900U.

While you might get told that the new drivers (Det 50's) will fix everything they will not. Looking at the benchmarks that have been done, it seems Nvidia has degraded image quality for speed, and its still slower than a Ati.

To see how bad the situation is, see how many 5900 are for sale on eBay!

Check out this HL2 benchmark.

Full speed, DX9 shaders.

Mixed mode, DX8.1 shaders. - Codepath for nvidia

Bear in mind this won't only be a problem with HL2. Any DX9 game is going to run like a dog on nVidia kit unless it is especialy coded for them. As this takes up more development time and delays games, I would not be happy.

Basically if you just want to play HL2, get a Radeon 9600 Pro. They are dirt cheap, and out perform 350 quid rivals.

If you want the top end card, wait two weeks and the 9800XT will be released. (Comes bundled with HL2) My current nVidia card will remain in my PC until the 9800XT is released, and then I will buy that.

Nvidia need to get their brain into gear.(All this is good for us though, nothing like a bit of competition to drive prices down)

(Avon - Are you sure? The nVidia pixel shaders are a joke. They are hardly PS 2.0)

[4 IN 1 0]

i think nVIDIA is walking on the same old path of 3dfx.........................

[kegetys 2]

While you might get told that the new drivers (Det 50's) will fix everything they will not.

How do you know?

You might want to note that those HL2 benchmars were shown at an event held and paid by ATI, and ATI seems to have quite a relationship with Valve too, so I would not put too much confidence on those benchmark results. Just wait for the game to come out, wait for the nvidia drivers to come out and then make a judgement.

[Badgerboy 0]

While you might get told that the new drivers (Det 50's) will fix everything they will not.

How do you know?

You might want to note that those HL2 benchmars were shown at an event held and paid by ATI, and ATI seems to have quite a relationship with Valve too, so I would not put too much confidence on those benchmark results. Just wait for the game to come out, wait for the nvidia drivers to come out and then make a judgement.

Becuase the Det 51.75's are out on the net as we speak, and have been tested. If Gabe (Who I trust), says they had to spend 5x as long optomising for Nvidia was does that tell you?

Valve rejected the new Dets as they didn't render fog in HL2. (Which makes the game run faster, and be a blessing for cheaters)

Read up on the FX's chipset, and you'll realise why nvidia fucked up.

(Just for giggles, try running the offical nVidia GPU test demo on a ATi card. You get better frame rates! )

[Badgerboy 0]

Take a look at this one.. from driverheaven this time.

Image comparison (Animation)

From the dets 45.23 to 51.75 its reported to give a massive boost.. around 19fps..

Now take a look at (wrt to the latest dets)

- The mountains behind.. see they are now blurred.

- The ships wing on the upper right.. Before you can make out the black and yellow strips.. Now its a blur.

- Same as before, look at the wing on the upper left, really nice with before.. Now its blurring.

- The Hull is dark yellow-ish.. Now its horrible tan.

- The top of the ship either side of the after burn. Yellow.. Now Tan.

[kegetys 2]

Becuase the Det 51.75's are out on the net as we speak, and have been tested.

Those are not an official release.

Quote[/b] ]Valve rejected the new Dets as they didn't render fog in HL2. (Which makes the game run faster, and be a blessing for cheaters)

That means there's a bug either in the detonators or HL2. And what Valve is supposed to do, is call nvidia and say "Hey, there's no fog, whats wrong?" and get it fixed together. But that isn't happening since Valve is embraced by ATI, and don't seem to even want to cooperate with nvidia.

And just for the record, I would not buy an GFFX myself right now, and I have owned and do own now both nvidia and ATI cards so im not trying to "protect" either side. Just trying to say that benchmarks mean nothing when they come from a non-objective source. Its a big business, and everyone cheats and tampers benchmarks; nvidia, ati, intel, amd, via, everyone. They have in the past and will in the future.

[Badgerboy 0]

Becuase the Det 51.75's are out on the net as we speak, and have been tested.

Those are not an official release.

Quote[/b] ]Valve rejected the new Dets as they didn't render fog in HL2. (Which makes the game run faster, and be a blessing for cheaters)

That means there's a bug either in the detonators or HL2. And what Valve is supposed to do, is call nvidia and say "Hey, there's no fog, whats wrong?" and get it fixed together. But that isn't happening since Valve is embraced by ATI, and don't seem to even want to cooperate with nvidia.

And just for the record, I would not buy an GFFX myself right now, and I have owned and do own now both nvidia and ATI cards so im not trying to "protect" either side. Just trying to say that benchmarks mean nothing when they come from a non-objective source. Its a big business, and everyone cheats and tampers benchmarks; nvidia, ati, intel, amd, via, everyone. They have in the past and will in the future.

What happened was that Valve said 'Hey, your drivers don't work. Fog is not being rendered'.

This conflicts with the statement Nvidia released last week complaining that the new drivers has not been used for the benchmark. They acknowledged that the drivers didn't work '100%'.

If nvidia had provided drivers that worked they would have been used.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

The FX looks like a Ti-4600 that can run on AGP 8x and with 2 added pathways to simulate Dx9

I am an avid NVidia fan and am quite happy with my Ti-4200 (clocked at 280/580 at the mo ), but the FX are a huge disappointment so far.

I am upgrading my next month, the only components I am not touching yet are GFX and memory (will stick with PC-2100 for a while).

The most important decision I will have to make - Thoroughbred or Barton? Thoroughbred is more overclockable and has more raw speed, Barton seems like a good cpu for memory intensive applications, though. Tough call. I will definitely go for SATA, though, its about time the cable mess is sorted out

[Badgerboy 0]

The FX looks like a Ti-4600 that can run on AGP 8x and with 2 added pathways to simulate Dx9

I am an avid NVidia fan and am quite happy with my Ti-4200 (clocked at 280/580 at the mo ), but the FX are a huge disappointment so far.

I am upgrading my next month, the only components I am not touching yet are GFX and memory (will stick with PC-2100 for a while).

The most important decision I will have to make - Thoroughbred or Barton? Thoroughbred is more overclockable and has more raw speed, Barton seems like  a good cpu for memory intensive applications, though. Tough call. I will definitely go for SATA, though, its about time the  cable mess is sorted out

Athlon 64! Athlon 64! Athlon 64!

The thourghbreds do rock though. My 2100 (1.6) is running at 3200 (2.2) with a 200 FSB.

The Barton 2500 seems to be a decent clocker at the moment though.

(My new case turned up today! Its a beauty! I'm going to install a watercooling system at the end of the month and try to bump my clock up to 2.4.)

[Heatseeker 0]

I was thinking of replacing the 4200ti and thinking of going with ati this time but, what about reliability, you see so many guys complaining about ati drivers and using omegas and turning their comps upside down just to play a game (opf included), nvidia seems more reliable, not so high performance but still, if i had lotsa € i would have to buy both .

[Bluesman 0]

When it comes to CPU I'll stick with INTEL though. They have never let me down. Don't think I ever needed to replace a cpu before I retired the PC.

Plus you dont need any fancy cooling, they work from the box.

BM

[monkeygoat 0]

Well I recently upgraded to a radeon 9800 pro and have had absolutely no problems with it at all. One thing I would suggest is formatting after installing it to avoid driver conflicts.

[Gollum1 0]

One thing I would suggest is formatting after installing it to avoid driver conflicts.

That would be reason enough for most users to choose Nvidia

I don´t know if it has anything to do with the new cards, but my 8500 has always worked great with all games, except for some texture flickering in UT2003 which was quickly taken care of with a driver update. I guess you could say I´m an ATI fan.

[ale2999 0]

I kind of agree with Kegetys. As of now I dont know who to trust. It is not only about the benchmark, but valve could have unoptimized the game for nvidia cards as well, so I dont know what to tell ya really. well It looks like I can recycle my ti4200 to a good friends and get money, so now the budget increase to an amount allowing me to get a 9800 pro or with aid of credit card an fx5900..... I have never been so unsure about which product 2 get between to enemy factories

[Warin 0]

Athlon 64! Athlon 64! Athlon 64!

The thourghbreds do rock though. My 2100 (1.6) is running at 3200 (2.2) with a 200 FSB.

The Barton 2500 seems to be a decent clocker at the moment though.

(My new case turned up today! Its a beauty! I'm going to install a watercooling system at the end of the month and try to bump my clock up to 2.4.)

Sweet case! I have a 1000D. I didnt like the white finish on the 2000, and I never move the thing, so the weight isnt an issue.

I want an Athlon 64, but my computer budget has been decimated by the need to get a notebook for school use. I got an.. umm.. shiny aluminum PowerBook.

And I know I cant play OFP on a Mac. Thats part of the reason I bought it

I'll give some impressions when it gets here next week.

[Heatseeker 0]

huhum, video cards wasnt it

A helpfull thread where the hardware gurus discuss what is the best DX9 card regarding performance and reliability and ignorant ones like myself try to understand in order to make a good investment in a future expensive upgrade .

Is it true that 256ddr video memory cards is useless for gaming and big waste of €, why?

[Jester983 0]

well, ive had my GF2 TI Pro for quite some time. Its gone through sooo many games that im surprised. it has gone through MOH, OFP, DF series, BF, etc. Tons of games with decent results.

I like nvidia but i also like ati.

Ive seen the ati 9700 pro 128mbs in action and that is the card i want.

If i were in your situation it would be kinda hard but with 500 bucks i might also consider a M1911 to add to my arsenal of weps, but thats just me.

[Airwolf 50]

i have an asylum fx 5900, i think i may download these new drivers.. this card has been a big dissapointment so far. either that or my computer is just really screwed up.

[toadlife 3]

When it comes to CPU I'll stick with INTEL though. They have never let me down. Don't think I ever needed to replace a cpu before I retired the PC.

Plus you dont need any fancy cooling, they work from the box.

BM

hrmmm...

My AMD chips..

K6-266

Athlon 750

AthlonXP 2100

AthlonXP 2800

They are all still going strong, and no you don't need any special cooling. They run just fine with the AMD suplied heatsink/fan.

Intel makes fine chips, but try not to buy into the Intel stockholder driven reliability/compatibility myths.

As for a vid card, with all the negativity about the new Nvidia's + my horrible experiences with multiple ATI cards, it's tough to make any recomendation. I think we need a new player in the vid card game to step up.

@Ex-RoNiN: Go with the Barton. 512KB cache!