4 ms·

Wow. I really used to like Nvidia, but I'm leaning heavily towards an ATi on my next upgrade.

by dirtbox 17y ago

Tuna-Fish 17y ago
Not really a reason. Just stop using their marketing names, and refer to their chips by their chip names/harvest percentage/clockspeed/bus speeds. So, 9800GTX+ is a full G92 running at 738MHz with a 70.4 GB/s bus. See, easy! ;) Just to update -- if you are buying a card now, ATi is quite probably the better choice, at least until NVidia gets GF100 and it's derivatives out.
- dirtbox 17y ago
  Agreed, although my reason is more to do with losing the better part of a days work trying to fix it.
- nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
  Just to update -- if you are buying a card now, ATi is quite probably the better choice, at least until NVidia gets GF100 and it's derivatives out. Unless you're planning to run Linux, in which case the Nvidia drivers are still far and away better than any of the multiple offerings for ATi chips. Even though the Nvidia drivers are closed, they're extremely reliable and feature just about everything but Kernel Mode Setting, which is honestly not that big of a deal.
  - i80and 17y ago
    Really? I specifically chose an ATI card for its Linux support, and so far I've been extremely satisfied with both the open source and the binary blob drivers. The nv driver used by default in most distros is quite sluggish, and is plagued by all manner of quality issues. The radeonhd driver in comparison is quite stable, implements working VT switching, and full EXA acceleration with a start on 3D. (EDIT: nouveau will provide a very good replacement for nv, but so far its deployment is limited) As for the closed drivers, is stability really a problem? While I haven't had an NVIDIA card for a year or so, I seem to recall a fair number of kernel panics in graphically-intensive programs, while I have yet to experience one using fglrx (although the comparison is a big flawed, since my needs have changed quite a bit). Speed is also quite acceptable and does what I need. I'm willing to grant that nvidia is better than fglrx. Honestly I don't do all that much 3D work on Linux. But in my experience, calling nvidia "far and away better" does ATI a bit of a disservice.
    - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
      Well, for 2d work, ati should be just fine. The biggest advantage for Nvidia is when playing games, or even setting up more than a single monitor. I've had many issues getting two monitors to work on an ati card, but the setup is cake to achieve with nvidia's twinview setup. As for kernel panics, I've never had that issue with my last few nt cards, and ill usually see wine crash rather than the desktop or kernel. All that said, I wish ati developers the best of luck on making the open source drivers competitive with nvidia's binaries. I'd love to see them put some pressure on nv so it's not just a one horse race anymore...

Wow. I really used to like Nvidia, but I'm leaning heavily towards an ATi on my next upgrade.

by dirtbox 17y ago

Wow. I really used to like Nvidia, but I'm leaning heavily towards an ATi on my next upgrade.

Not really a reason. Just stop using their marketing names, and refer to their chips by their chip names/harvest percentage/clockspeed/bus speeds. So, 9800GTX+ is a full G92 running at 738MHz with a 70.4 GB/s bus. See, easy! ;) Just to update -- if you are buying a card now, ATi is quite probably the better choice, at least until NVidia gets GF100 and it's derivatives out.

dirtbox 17y ago
Agreed, although my reason is more to do with losing the better part of a days work trying to fix it.
nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
Just to update -- if you are buying a card now, ATi is quite probably the better choice, at least until NVidia gets GF100 and it's derivatives out. Unless you're planning to run Linux, in which case the Nvidia drivers are still far and away better than any of the multiple offerings for ATi chips. Even though the Nvidia drivers are closed, they're extremely reliable and feature just about everything but Kernel Mode Setting, which is honestly not that big of a deal.
- i80and 17y ago
  Really? I specifically chose an ATI card for its Linux support, and so far I've been extremely satisfied with both the open source and the binary blob drivers. The nv driver used by default in most distros is quite sluggish, and is plagued by all manner of quality issues. The radeonhd driver in comparison is quite stable, implements working VT switching, and full EXA acceleration with a start on 3D. (EDIT: nouveau will provide a very good replacement for nv, but so far its deployment is limited) As for the closed drivers, is stability really a problem? While I haven't had an NVIDIA card for a year or so, I seem to recall a fair number of kernel panics in graphically-intensive programs, while I have yet to experience one using fglrx (although the comparison is a big flawed, since my needs have changed quite a bit). Speed is also quite acceptable and does what I need. I'm willing to grant that nvidia is better than fglrx. Honestly I don't do all that much 3D work on Linux. But in my experience, calling nvidia "far and away better" does ATI a bit of a disservice.
  - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
    Well, for 2d work, ati should be just fine. The biggest advantage for Nvidia is when playing games, or even setting up more than a single monitor. I've had many issues getting two monitors to work on an ati card, but the setup is cake to achieve with nvidia's twinview setup. As for kernel panics, I've never had that issue with my last few nt cards, and ill usually see wine crash rather than the desktop or kernel. All that said, I wish ati developers the best of luck on making the open source drivers competitive with nvidia's binaries. I'd love to see them put some pressure on nv so it's not just a one horse race anymore...