ATI VS Nvidia
I have tested the Ati Radeon 7500 (64mb) on a P4 1.6 GHz and the result was 59xx (3D Mark 2000) and Ati mobility radeon 7500 (32mb) On a P4 2.8 notebook and the the result was 61xx.
This topic was started by XIII,
I have tested the Ati Radeon 7500 (64mb) on a P4 1.6 GHz and the result was 59xx (3D Mark 2000) and Ati mobility radeon 7500 (32mb) On a P4 2.8 notebook and the the result was 61xx. My geforce 2 GTS(32mb) was put in the test on a P3 933 and the result is about 65xx, the same card is then put in the athlon xp 2000+ and the result was 8xxx.
In the test i make a conclusion that Nvidia card rely much on processor speed while ATI does not. It is good to choose ATI if you have a not quite demanding CPU (1.8Ghz), If you have a fast CPU and you are an overclocker, nvidia is the one.
This is only base on the older card, iam not sure about the new one. Have any one tested both card(newer ati and nvidia) on different CPU. Please make you opinion.
1001 thanks!
In the test i make a conclusion that Nvidia card rely much on processor speed while ATI does not. It is good to choose ATI if you have a not quite demanding CPU (1.8Ghz), If you have a fast CPU and you are an overclocker, nvidia is the one.
This is only base on the older card, iam not sure about the new one. Have any one tested both card(newer ati and nvidia) on different CPU. Please make you opinion.
1001 thanks!
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
hmmm not really .... you comepare two totally different situations ....
the GF2 is a awesome card ... and its well know that it needs quite a lot of CPU power to show its full potential since the card is so fast that it need to wait for the CPU .... the rule is .... at least 1gig to make the card rollin .... that gives the big difference
now the 7500 is a really sucky cards ... I mean it does not give half the performance of a GF2PRO .... this card is with a 1,x gig CPU at its max ... you can't really get anything more outa it ...
the GF2 is a awesome card ... and its well know that it needs quite a lot of CPU power to show its full potential since the card is so fast that it need to wait for the CPU .... the rule is .... at least 1gig to make the card rollin .... that gives the big difference
now the 7500 is a really sucky cards ... I mean it does not give half the performance of a GF2PRO .... this card is with a 1,x gig CPU at its max ... you can't really get anything more outa it ...
Yeah also useing cards that are a few years old doesn't help either.
My point here is that have anyone tested the newer card, the benchmark i made is only an example of olden day ( i don't have them now). Because a lot and a lot people have been switching to ATI because of the Geforce FX. I like the Geforce FX 5900 non-Ultra currently, but i don't own it.
Again have anyone tested the newer card? Please kindly share your result.
Thanks very...very much. :angel:
Again have anyone tested the newer card? Please kindly share your result.
Thanks very...very much. :angel:
A lot of people switch to ATi, thats their choice. In the end you want whats best for you, so just grab any card thats cheapest and is in roughly the same performance area you want. After that, whether the Radeon 9800 XT is better or if its the 5950, shouldn't matter too much.
Actually the older radeons are more dependant on processors over the older nvidia's. Especially, if the card doesnt support hardware T/L.
A lot of people switch to ATi, thats their choice. In the end you want whats best for you, so just grab any card thats cheapest and is in roughly the same performance area you want. After that, whether the Radeon 9800 XT is better or if its the 5950, shouldn't matter too much.
how true,
since I have my 9800PRO I haven't seen any more low FPS in games for now .... and since I totally dislike AA it will take some time that I see that again
and if games now run with 120 or 122 FPS is that much equal
how true,
since I have my 9800PRO I haven't seen any more low FPS in games for now .... and since I totally dislike AA it will take some time that I see that again
and if games now run with 120 or 122 FPS is that much equal
I think the moral to this story is, either way, if your buying into medium or high end markets, your getting a kick ass card equal to the other side of the bean stock, ATI + Nvidia.
I think the moral to this story is, either way, if your buying into medium or high end markets, your getting a kick ass card equal to the other side of the bean stock, ATI + Nvidia.
What I said ^^ :P
Well I have to become dumberer then :)
Yeah i guess that right buy waht the faster, brand doesm't matter. But i am curious to which is more CPU depandent?
Thanks for the comments
As once tested on Hardocp / Tomshardware.
The lower in processor you go, the less ATI's Shine.
It was done with a 9700 pro and a Ti4200,
Eventully, with a slower processor the ti4200 started to beat the ATI in all tests. Until the ATI was almost un playable, on a very slow processor.
Ah well in the end the more you spend the more you get.
