Who is better overall? ATI or nVidia?

[RyaNtheSlayA]

I MISS VOODOO

ah yes good times. good times indeed.

S3 did some neat stuff in the 90's like texture compression.

[sakicfan84]

If this is for gaming then I strongly recommend getting a 360 or PS3 instead of computer hardware. I just don't see the economy of using the PC for gaming, since PC hardware becomes obsolete at a ludicrous speed. The people who bought PS2s back in 2000 are still getting a large amount of quality software 8 years later. People who bought a PC in 2000 probably have upgraded more than once since then. It makes matters worse that gaming PCs often cost more than game systems.

PC hardware doesn't become obsolete nearly as quick as people claim. You can play Warhammer Online with a graphics card and processor from 2001; Spore with a processor and graphics card from 2001; Sims 2 and its 1000 add-ons can be run on graphics card and processor from around 1999-2000; Code of Honor 2 can be played on hardware from around 2000; Mass Effect can be run on hardware from around 6 years ago.

There aren't nearly as many games that push the hardware requirements on the market as games that can be played on pretty old hardware. Sure there are games like Crysis and Oblivion that come out really punish old hardware, but there aren't a ton of titles that do that.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

If this is for gaming then I strongly recommend getting a 360 or PS3 instead of computer hardware. I just don't see the economy of using the PC for gaming, since PC hardware becomes obsolete at a ludicrous speed. The people who bought PS2s back in 2000 are still getting a large amount of quality software 8 years later. People who bought a PC in 2000 probably have upgraded more than once since then. It makes matters worse that gaming PCs often cost more than game systems.

PC hardware doesn't become obsolete nearly as quick as people claim. You can play Warhammer Online with a graphics card and processor from 2001; Spore with a processor and graphics card from 2001; Sims 2 and its 1000 add-ons can be run on graphics card and processor from around 1999-2000; Code of Honor 2 can be played on hardware from around 2000; Mass Effect can be run on hardware from around 6 years ago.

There aren't nearly as many games that push the hardware requirements on the market as games that can be played on pretty old hardware. Sure there are games like Crysis and Oblivion that come out really punish old hardware, but there aren't a ton of titles that do that.

UT2004 was a great example, you can run that on any old bucket you can find.

[Pulsar_t]

@sakicfan84- I have to disagree with you. Mass Effect requires a PS3 gpu, and those only started appearing in late 2004. You'd have a hard time getting a UE3 game running on an ATI 9800 for example, if at all. But I still agree on everything else, leave out the oddballs like Crytek and the mediocre like Midway and you'd have plenty of software houses that still care about scalability to guarantee sales from gameplayers with older hardware. Shame that Intel's solutions are crap regardless how you look at it. In fact I think Intel and OEMs don't get much flak over this continuing debacle.

[ZeroAX]

If we are talking about laptops mate they were never made to replace desktops like most people think. So of course they suck at games. They are designed to be a computer for a time in need (mostly used by businessmen in the past but nowdays every one wants a laptop instead of a pc). You don't expect the same out of a PSP that you expect of a PS3 so why do that with computers?

[RyaNtheSlayA]

If we are talking about laptops mate they were never made to replace desktops like most people think. So of course they suck at games. They are designed to be a computer for a time in need (mostly used by businessmen in the past but nowdays every one wants a laptop instead of a pc). You don't expect the same out of a PSP that you expect of a PS3 so why do that with computers?

THANK YOU!!! Also I find it sad that alot of my friends feel that a laptops reliability is better. If you dont need a laptop, dont get one, you will be thankful.

[Pulsar_t]

Sadly it's become "trendy" for people to buy laptops nowadays, even if they don't really do any "computing" outside the house. Got to love consumerism!

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Sadly it's become "trendy" for people to buy laptops nowadays, even if they don't really do any "computing" outside the house. Got to love consumerism!

agreed. Doesnt help that they are actually loosing features as well ala the Dell Mini9 and the Apple Macbook Air.

[sakicfan84]

@sakicfan84- I have to disagree with you. Mass Effect requires a PS3 gpu, and those only started appearing in late 2004. You'd have a hard time getting a UE3 game running on an ATI 9800 for example, if at all. But I still agree on everything else, leave out the oddballs like Crytek and the mediocre like Midway and you'd have plenty of software houses that still care about scalability to guarantee sales from gameplayers with older hardware. Shame that Intel's solutions are crap regardless how you look at it. In fact I think Intel and OEMs don't get much flak over this continuing debacle.

Yeah, Mass Effect will run on a 6800GT which launched around 4.5 years ago. It requires shader model 3.0, so I guess that would really rule out older cards like the 9800 which run 2.0. I'm actually shocked to find that the UT3 can run on a Radeon 9600 which is a mid-range R300, well the 9800 was a high-end R300. I guess there are quite a few people playing on those type of systems from what I've seen; better them than me a I guess

Yeah, most of the Intel stuff is really, really horrible, and people getting into the PC market really don't realize that they are stuck with on-board graphics that is often comparable to graphics cards from about a decade ago. I had to use on-board graphics for a couple weeks when my video card went down, and I could barely even run UT2k4 on it. Considering that 2k4 will run on a GeForce 2, that's pretty damn bad.

[The Apprentice]

@sakicfan84- I have to disagree with you. Mass Effect requires a PS3 gpu, and those only started appearing in late 2004. You'd have a hard time getting a UE3 game running on an ATI 9800 for example, if at all. But I still agree on everything else, leave out the oddballs like Crytek and the mediocre like Midway and you'd have plenty of software houses that still care about scalability to guarantee sales from gameplayers with older hardware. Shame that Intel's solutions are crap regardless how you look at it. In fact I think Intel and OEMs don't get much flak over this continuing debacle.

Yeah, Mass Effect will run on a 6800GT which launched around 4.5 years ago. It requires shader model 3.0, so I guess that would really rule out older cards like the 9800 which run 2.0. I'm actually shocked to find that the UT3 can run on a Radeon 9600 which is a mid-range R300, well the 9800 was a high-end R300. I guess there are quite a few people playing on those type of systems from what I've seen; better them than me a I guess

Yeah, most of the Intel stuff is really, really horrible, and people getting into the PC market really don't realize that they are stuck with on-board graphics that is often comparable to graphics cards from about a decade ago. I had to use on-board graphics for a couple weeks when my video card went down, and I could barely even run UT2k4 on it. Considering that 2k4 will run on a GeForce 2, that's pretty damn bad.

My dad bought my newest desktop for me as a birthday present back in 06, a Dell Dimension B110, the final model in the Dimension line, just two months before it was discontinued. Inside it carries an Intel Integrated Graphics chipset, and I must say it is the biggest pile I have ever used. The thing runs everything I throw at it but games. Morrowind doesn't even play correctly, and if I want to get a new card I'll have to pay $80 to get what I want.