Upgrading graphics cards, Nvidia or ATI?

honey nut cheerios

Currently I am running an BFGtech 8800GTX OC2, but seeing as some new games will likely be pushing it this year I am thinking of getting a new card with a small bonus I am getting this month.

Anywho, I've been looking into the ATI 4800 series and am wondering if I should go for one of those over a geforce, now I've always been an nvidia man, not to start any arguments. Recently however I've been hearing that these puppies be fast.

So I was wondering if you guys could make some suggestions, maybe link me to some reviews, and ttalk about drivers and support?

Oh and my budget is gonna be ~250-300

Obs

Trust your first instinct.

slash000

Newegg has Radeon 4890 1 giggers for like $240-$270. That card is approximately equal/better in performance to the Geforce GTX 280, and often bests the GTX 285. The Geforce GTX 280 is usually at or above $300 on newegg, but there's a deal on one right now for $280. Even so, the Radeon 4890 appears to either equal it or slightly outperform it regularly on most games.

If it were me I'd get the Radeon 4890 for $260 or whatever rather than an equal or slightly stepped down Geforce GTX 280 or 285. Plus you'd be saving money.

MagicPrime

No matter what you get there will be arguably something better within a couple months.

Obs

I believe the GT200s are coming out soon which are basically going to be GTX285 killers, but NOT GTX295 killers.

They have a small chip, 40 nm compared to the current 50nm

Scrublet

I'm seeing some interesting stats on using two Radeon 4770s to get performance very similar to the 4890. The 4770s can be got for $90-100 each. Personally though, I tend to stick with NVidia but usually when I build a system I buy the top end card and run it as long as its life cycle can take it.

slash000

Scrublet wrote: »

I'm seeing some interesting stats on using two Radeon 4770s to get performance very similar to the 4890. The 4770s can be got for $90-100 each. Personally though, I tend to stick with NVidia but usually when I build a system I buy the top end card and run it as long as its life cycle can take it.

Haha, holy shit that's awesome. I just checked out a bunch of benchmarks comparing two 4770s in crossfire and indeed they do perform roughly equal to the 4890! and sometimes slightly better..

Two 4770s cost like ~$200 together, and combined they perform equal to a single 4890.

The only downside I guess is the power consumption.. but big whoop. That's $200 for the performance of a $260-$300 video card.

Dark Shroud

Scrublet wrote: »

I'm seeing some interesting stats on using two Radeon 4770s to get performance very similar to the 4890. The 4770s can be got for $90-100 each. Personally though, I tend to stick with NVidia but usually when I build a system I buy the top end card and run it as long as its life cycle can take it.

Some of the HD 47xx can be over clocked to match the 4890. The ATI 48xx series can match or outperfrom the highend GTX series while using less power.

If you're like me and you go a few years between cards than you want either the HD 4870 or the HD4890. If you buy a card roughly every year & half you can get 4770 or a 4830 cheap and it will last. ATI has over clocking built into their software. You just have to look up the reports for the model you buy. Just remember it will affect the warranty.

GrimReaper

I'm going to say ATI.

The reason?

I've had three nvidia graphics cards and one nvidia graphics chipset all die on me. The graphics cards were all 7800GTX's and the nvidia graphics chipset was the 8600MT GT on a Macbook Pro.

In the last couple of years (in my experience) nvidia chips have had big QA issues.

MagicPrime

I am running an NVidia 9800 GTX+ right now. And I can run a lot of the new games on maximum. The only game I can't run on Maximum is Crysis.

The bottleneck on my system is the processor. I'm running a Dual Core E6750 2.4Ghz. Also, my GTX+ is a PCIe 2.0 card running in a 1.0 slot.

I am in the market for a new motherboard/processor. But it's not an emergency to get one. My performance is perfectly fine as it is.

So try not to get drawn in to the "I HAVE TO HAVE THE ULTIMATE BEST!!!" mentality because in the PC world it is a frivolous and unobtainable goal.

Daedalus

I currently prefer ATi, but that's only because their component video output support is better than nVidia's, and right now my TV is my monitor.

Scrublet

MagicPrime wrote: »

So try not to get drawn in to the "I HAVE TO HAVE THE ULTIMATE BEST!!!" mentality because in the PC world it is a frivolous and unobtainable goal.

Speaking of this, one thing to remember when looking at hardware review sites is that a lot of these review sites are only looking at resolutions like 1920x1200, or even 2560x1600. The 1920x1200 is really only valid if you're looking to use an HDTV (so 1920x1080, close), and how many people have 2560x1600 displays?

Rigor Mortis

I've had terrible luck with stabilty whenever using Nvidia. [/anecdotal]

taliosfalcon

Scrublet wrote: »

MagicPrime wrote: »

So try not to get drawn in to the "I HAVE TO HAVE THE ULTIMATE BEST!!!" mentality because in the PC world it is a frivolous and unobtainable goal.

Speaking of this, one thing to remember when looking at hardware review sites is that a lot of these review sites are only looking at resolutions like 1920x1200, or even 2560x1600. The 1920x1200 is really only valid if you're looking to use an HDTV (so 1920x1080, close), and how many people have 2560x1600 displays?

Eh? Most 24" monitors are that resolution, personally thats the smallest monitor size i can stand to use now o_O

MagicPrime

I don't even have a wide-screen monitor. I just have a good ol' 19" 1280x1024

Triko

How important is Nvidia PhysX, btw? A lot of games are starting to utilize it now, will it affect gameplay down the road if you have an ATI card, and the game you're running uses a lot of PhysX?

I don't even have a wide-screen monitor. I just have a good ol' 19" 1280x1024

Good old 15" CRT here....while I do want a bigger monitor someday, I don't think my system could handle higher resolutions very well (Pentium 4 3.0ghz, 2GB RAM, and Nvidia 8400GS), and I'm content with the monitor the way it is anyway.

wunderbar

For me personally, the last 3 cards I've had have been ATI, nVidia, ATI.

The Radeon 9800 killed anything nVidia had at the time(ill fated FX series), then the 7800GT was a better performing card than the Radeon X1800 series, and my HD 4870 was a much better bang/buck than the GTX 260/280 when I bought it(when the GTX 260 was like, $450)

There is no real brand loyalty for me when it comes to computer parts. Make a good part, a part better than the competitor's part, and I'll buy it.

Daedalus

Triko wrote: »

How important is Nvidia PhysX, btw? A lot of games are starting to utilize it now, will it affect gameplay down the road if you have an ATI card, and the game you're running uses a lot of PhysX?

I don't even have a wide-screen monitor. I just have a good ol' 19" 1280x1024

Good old 15" CRT here....while I do want a bigger monitor someday, I don't think my system could handle higher resolutions very well (Pentium 4 3.0ghz, 2GB RAM, and Nvidia 8400GS), and I'm content with the monitor the way it is anyway.

Hardware-accelerated physics won't take off until there's a vendor-neutral library for it, in much the same way that hardware-accelerated graphics were a pile of bullshit and chips until Direct3D and OpenGL came along. (edit: OpenCL is getting close, and I predict Microsoft will duct-tape a physics engine into DirectX around the time their next console is in development, but right now there still isn't much point to hardware physics.)

MagicPrime

I remember back in the days of HL1 where I could actually tell a difference between OpenGL and Direct3D graphics.

Ego

I remember (and miss) APIs like glide and rendition redline. Though honestly we're probably better off for having fewer of them.

I build a lot of systems, and truly the best approach is to ditch brand loyalty and just look at who's offering the best performance / features for the money.

Someone mentioned a 4770, which are snazzy cards (budget winner right now IMO) but aren't much of an upgrade to the OP who's already sporting an 8800. In the OPs shoes, I'd probably be looking into a 4850 or better with 1gb of memory to get a noticeable upgrade.

To the OP, what resolution / display size are you using?

slash000

They weren't recommending a 4770. They were recommending dual 4770s. As in, the price of two 4770s in Crossfire costs $200 and equals performance to a single 4890 or a GTX 280, which cost $260 to over $300 respectively.

If you've got the psu to support it, it sounds like the best bang/buck at $200.

Ego

Ahh, my mistake.

If you've got the mobo to support it, too .

slash000

Ego wrote: »

Ahh, my mistake.

If you've got the mobo to support it, too .

Yeah, that's a pretty crucial point. Have to make sure the mobo supports it.

logic7

what... no love for S3 or Matrox???









I kid, I kid!!!!

Matrox hasn't been relevant since the G450 and S3 since the Savage 4.

Dark Shroud

I'll just throw this out here. Mobo & CPU combo deals are pretty good now at newegg and other online stores. They're worth looking into for around $200.

And does anyone else remember the Hercules video cards? Those damn things are still running in old IBM desktops.

Lucky Cynic

My nvidia 280 GTX from BFG has been stellar. I got it when it was like $450 but its now down to $300.

I am even considering nabbing up a second.

Scrublet

taliosfalcon wrote: »

Scrublet wrote: »

MagicPrime wrote: »

So try not to get drawn in to the "I HAVE TO HAVE THE ULTIMATE BEST!!!" mentality because in the PC world it is a frivolous and unobtainable goal.

Speaking of this, one thing to remember when looking at hardware review sites is that a lot of these review sites are only looking at resolutions like 1920x1200, or even 2560x1600. The 1920x1200 is really only valid if you're looking to use an HDTV (so 1920x1080, close), and how many people have 2560x1600 displays?

Eh? Most 24" monitors are that resolution, personally thats the smallest monitor size i can stand to use now o_O

I've been using a TV way too long. This was complete news to me. I still stand by the 2560x1600 comment. Can you or anyone comment on how much of a difference you notice at 24" between 1920x1200 and smaller resolutions? My general viewing distance is 6-8' (from a TV), and it's been a long time since I've used an actual desktop computer monitor setup.

And fo $250-300 I vote either SLI'd 4770s or this $300 Nvidia 285.

Dark Shroud

Scrublet wrote: »

And fo $250-300 I vote either SLI'd 4770s or this $300 Nvidia 285.

A pair of 4770s can be had from newegg for $200. That's a good price for a solid crossfire set up.

honey nut cheerios

So if I wanted 2 4770s what manufacturer/model would I go for?

Synthesis

I could be mistaken, but Nvidia has only recently started supporting DirectX 10.1, right? ATi's been supporting it for a bit longer.

Anyway, keep that in mind.

future man

I just picked up a Sapphire 512mb 4850 for $101 or so shipped, there's also a $15 mail in rebate, so it's basically a really great card for around $85.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102824

Also, 4870s can be had for sub $120 prices if you creep around in the open box section for Newegg, I find them there pretty regularly.