king ati

[dwelzy]

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=5659

hmmmmmm nvidia covering up there inferiority i see , tsk tsk...........

[Null]

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=5659

hmmmmmm nvidia covering up there inferiority i see , tsk tsk...........


inferiority... lol.

ATI has a better card right now. before it was nvidia. then ati before that then nvidia again. They flip flop back and forth more times then a ping pong ball. Who the hell cares?

you know much of the time. they are fighting over hey, ATI can pull 120 FPS while the nvidias can pull 100.

i mean WTF, anything above 60 is unnoticable anyway. who cares once they get into that high of range?

Much of the time its in the drivers, others in the other system specs of the computer itself.

Whats the point of this topic anyway? to show which gfx card can run a horrible game better?




And ATI gunna release a special package with thier newer radeon card.... bundled together with Half-Life 2

if they do it at the right price, and on the same day the game launches. i might pick up that. :)

[Ace195]

I'm for ATI no matter what I'm not really worried about frame rates or whatnot. I just like the way ATI works.

[Jason1]

Im now an ATI fan also...their stuff thats the same price or cheaper seems to outperform Nvidia's from what I cant tell. And this news about teh Geforce's not running HL2 very well makes me even more happy I went with ATI over Nvidia. HL2 is my most anticipated game on any console.

[Null]

I'm for ATI no matter what I'm not really worried about frame rates or whatnot. I just like the way ATI works.


indeed. when your worrying over frame rates that are that high. it really doesnt matter which.

i always prefer nvidia cuz thier drivers run smoother and easier usually.

but i might pick up the ati bundle with half life 2. i'd like to have a DX9 card for the right price.

[Jason1]

I might upgrade my card someday...*shrugz* ...but there's all that technical mumbo jumbo garbage to handle, will it work with your mobo, blah blah blah...then there's physically installing the thing, which Im not sure how to do exactly...ive heard its not too difficult though...basically just plug it in or sumthin....and then I've also heard that as long as your card is a 128MB, it really wont improve games much...its more your processor...or sumthin...

[Null]

processor effects how the game runs more.

GFX card effects how the game looks. jumping to a new card gives you more special effects, clearer sharper textures, things like that.

part of the reason i wanted a DX9 card is to get a few of the extra details and special effects from half life 2.

it wont make a HUGE difference. but would just be cool to see :p

[Jonbo298]

I've seen the demo that Valve put up awhile back showcasing HL2 and how great its going to be and a friend said it was "jumpy" once in awhile on the demo they showed because they were using a P4. I'm glad I'm an AMD person since I think he said it would run better with an Athlon.

Does anyone have a link to any info. on Ati bundling HL2 with the newer Radeon's? I want to get a 9800 or 9800 Pro for X-mas and I can try to convince my dad to get me the bundle since I want HL2 also. (+rep to the provider of a good reputable link)

[Ace195]

Ok.. So my friend didn't have the Ati Radeon 8500 but he did have a GF4 ti440. I'm just wondering anyone had any bad experience with these cards ?

[Ace195]

anyone ? What about the 9200

[Jason1]

Hmmm...isnt the Ti440 one of the cheaper Geforce 4's out there? Or maybe you mean the Geforce 4 Ti4400. I almost got that over the Radeon 9500pro, but the Radeon obviously outperformes it so I ended up going with it, but they were both about the same price.

[Null]

I've seen the demo that Valve put up awhile back showcasing HL2 and how great its going to be and a friend said it was "jumpy" once in awhile on the demo they showed because they were using a P4. I'm glad I'm an AMD person since I think he said it would run better with an Athlon.

no, makes no difference. and i think the P4 chips actually goto a higher speed then the AMD's currently.

but i think AMD will have an earlier better working 64bit chip when they come out.


they flip flop back and forth. but the game is being made on P4's, you can be damn sure the game runs perfect on what they are making it on.

[ominub]

well for gaming the AMD proccesors seem to be a little better but like intel kicks its ass in about everything else because they have high FSB but yeah intel over all is better but AMD is better for gaming and for the price is also better

[Jonbo298]

Eh, I still would choose AMD anyways. I like their processors more then Intel.

And the Athlon 64's came out yesterday I thought? That is something I want badly, but I'm guessing prices arent cheap on them.

[Null]

Eh, I still would choose AMD anyways. I like their processors more then Intel.

And the Athlon 64's came out yesterday I thought? That is something I want badly, but I'm guessing prices arent cheap on them.


they might of, When 64 bit becomes more mainstream and programs start being made to use 64bit instead of 32, then i'll eventually make a new 64bit computer.

but thats a couple years off.

nothing wrong with AMD's. i find they run hotter, need more fans to cool em. But basically a processor is just that, none make a huge difference.

[Seth]

well for gaming the AMD proccesors seem to be a little better but like intel kicks its ass in about everything else because they have high FSB but yeah intel over all is better but AMD is better for gaming and for the price is also better
You're joking right? AMD performs better than intel in office type tests.

The last few Athlon XP chips were slaughtered by intel. The 3200+ wasn't even close to te benchmarks of the P4 3.2

Earlier on the XP hardware was competing well with the P4,,,especially when intel was still using the wellington boards.

But ya, The P4 architecture has been able to go a lot farther than the AMD during this last stretch. I'm also not very impressed with AMD's marketing. Calling their chip 3200+ wasn't very truthful.

But, the performance for most users isn't noticable so AMD wins when it comes to pricing.

[ominub]

You're joking right? AMD performs better than intel in office type tests.

The last few Athlon XP chips were slaughtered by intel. The 3200+ wasn't even close to te benchmarks of the P4 3.2

Earlier on the XP hardware was competing well with the P4,,,especially when intel was still using the wellington boards.

But ya, The P4 architecture has been able to go a lot farther than the AMD during this last stretch. I'm also not very impressed with AMD's marketing. Calling their chip 3200+ wasn't very truthful.

But, the performance for most users isn't noticable so AMD wins when it comes to pricing.
well i did not say they where the best i said that in the gaming they seem to run better and at higher FPS. Not only do i notice it but the benchmarks prove that they run better in games but thats about all they are running better at.
Now i dont want to argue with you any more.
And i was only talking about the last few chips not any of the older ones

[WiseMan]

I have to agree with ominub amd is better for gaming.

[Null]

AMD is not better for gaming.

Neither are the P4's

Only way to tell which is better is comparing each chip to chip. some chip models and speeds are better then others. Certain AMD chips do better. Certain P4 chips do better.
Last AMD chip i had ran hotter, and doesnt really run games as well. Neither brand is all out better then the other, And many other factors make a difference.

[Yoda9864]

I always buy AMD. I think that you get more bang for you buck. I got a 2500+ barton for $85 retail from Newegg! Sure beats $150 or more for a 2.4 intel chip.

As far as performance, I think that AMD and intel were basically on the same level until these latest chips (3000+ and above), now I think intel is on top of the performance category.

But I will still probably buy AMD just becasue they are cheaper. Of course, I won't have to upgrade for a while since I have a 2500+.

[Jonbo298]

Calling their chip 3200+ wasn't very truthful.


I think they call it the 3200+ is because its comparable to Intel's 3.2 ghz. Even though the actual speed is "X ghz", because it has 9 pipelines instead of 6 like the P4's have, it can cram more through, thus making it comparable to P4's. But I may be partially wrong, but thats just the assumption I have had for a while.

[Seth]

I think they call it the 3200+ is because its comparable to Intel's 3.2 ghz. Even though the actual speed is "X ghz", because it has 9 pipelines instead of 6 like the P4's have, it can cram more through, thus making it comparable to P4's. But I may be partially wrong, but thats just the assumption I have had for a while.

That's what AMD's original marketing plan was. And at first the AMD chips that were compared to certain P4 chips by the 2200+ etc were actually comparable. Sometimes faster sometimes not. But since the 2800+ AMD has dropped off. It's a fact. The Barton core can't handle the speed anymore. What AMD has done for the last couple barton chips released is overclock them a tiny bit more and slop a new name on. It's not right. The 3200+ isn't anywhere near to comparable to the P4 3.2 from a techie point of view. The latest P4's have been stomping the latest AMD's.

well i did not say they where the best i said that in the gaming they seem to run better and at higher FPS. Not only do i notice it but the benchmarks prove that they run better in games but thats about all they are running better at. I know you didn't say that AMD is the best. I replied by saying that AMD has been known to score higher in this last generation of cpu's in the office area of performance. Current P4's are handling game's,,,higher FPS better than AMD's latest chips.

go to anandtech.com and look up the benchmarks for the 3200+ and the P4 3.2
You'll see that the benchmarks prove that P4 is currently running games better. If you have the cash then currently the P4 is the way to go for gamers.

If I went out and bought an XP chip right now, I wouldn't buy a 3200+
I'd save the money and get the 2800+ which really isn't much different in speed.

[ominub]

you can just get the 2500+ and oc it to the 3200+ anyways so it is the best buy for the $

[Jason1]

you can just get the 2500+ and oc it to the 3200+ anyways so it is the best buy for the $


Yeh but you could overclock the 3200 to whatevah, so thats the better buy for the money.....and then have your Processor overheat and be totally screwed! Yay for good deals!

[Jonbo298]

That's what AMD's original marketing plan was. And at first the AMD chips that were compared to certain P4 chips by the 2200+ etc were actually comparable. Sometimes faster sometimes not. But since the 2800+ AMD has dropped off. It's a fact. The Barton core can't handle the speed anymore. What AMD has done for the last couple barton chips released is overclock them a tiny bit more and slop a new name on. It's not right. The 3200+ isn't anywhere near to comparable to the P4 3.2 from a techie point of view. The latest P4's have been stomping the latest AMD's.

The Barton's have 512K of cache which from what I have seen first hand, helps alot. That's why my next processor purchase is the 2500+ because it has 512K of cache. Then I can just overclock it to 2600 or higher and I've saved money instead of getting a 2800+.

And I won't be getting a Pentium anytime soon. They are too expensive for me. As long as I can play a game at a good rate, I'm happy.

[Seth]

Yeh but you could overclock the 3200 to whatevah, so thats the better buy for the money.....and then have your Processor overheat and be totally screwed! Yay for good deals!
Actually you can't. It's really hard to squeeze anything else out of the 3200+

The chip is already hot and just can't handle anything more. If it could, AMD would've done it to tide us over until the AMD 64