Computer users, beware of ATi!

[thermodynamic]

While ATi has always pandered to Windows and has tried pushing DirectX over openGL for years, ATi had released Linux drivers.

I installed those drivers on a Radeon 9800 Pro video card.

My old card was a Nvidia 4600Ti card.

Well, the 9800Pro at AGP 8x should be loads faster than the 4600 at 4x, right?

WRONG.

using SuSE Linux 9 Pro to benchmark the tests on the same hardware:

In glxgears, the 4600 card was only 200FPS slower on average (3997 vs 4190); that's nothing.

In Unreal Tournament 2003, rhe 4600 and the 9800 Pro were virtually even in performance (both averaged 50FPS in 1600x1200x32-bit).

ATi's drivers for Linux are hardly optimized, especially if a card whose hardware is quite superior to the 4600 can't perform in real world tests.

Worse, games (especially UT2003) had problems with ATi; the main display turning funky though the HUD remained fine. Obviously there are driver issues.

Forget ATi. Their record of Windows-based drivers is pretty hammy too...

[Liberal Veteran]

1. I am very happy with ATI.

I own both an ATI 9800 Pro and an Nvidia Ti4600 and I prefer the ATI on Windows. The picture quality and framerate are better with the ATI card although I think the Nvidia has better anisotropic filtering than the ATI. The Catalyst drivers are very stable on Windows.

The issues with ATI and Linux are pretty well known and I would agree that if you are planning on using Linux, Nvidia is probably going to be a better choice for you.

[thermodynamic]

4. Cool

I had used a Radeon since the original 64VIVO came out. It's nice to hear they improved the Windows drivers.

I wish they'd improve the Linux ones though. It's a bit sad that they're cheating a section of the population that thinks it's getting a better card when, in fact, they're not. Drivers are as much part of the card as the GPU is.

I WILL agree that the GUI picture quality is better on the ATi; the 4600 output is a tad fuzzy while the 9800 output was crystal clear. Odd, that...

[BigBigBear]

2. My 9600XT

is waiting in a box on my doorstep as I type this. My 3rd ATi card.


They have largely fixed their Windows driver issues.

[tridim]

3. NVIDIA GeForce4

is the only way to go anymore IMO. Great drivers, great fine tuning controls, and great performance. Almost any brand NVIDIA card will do, even cheapies.

[thermodynamic]

6. Why not the 5900/5950FX/Ultra?

Of course, being $500, that could put some people off... I've only got $300 to spend and I'm happy with the 4600's performance...

I wish the 5900FX non-ultra would be $300, where it belongs.

[tridim]

8. I didn't mean to specify the GeForce4

That's just what I happen to be currently using. I'm not a PC gamer, so there's no reason to upgrade yet. The ones you listed are all fabulous cards, although I'd never spend $300 on a video card. My eVGA GeForce4 MX440 was around $80 and it does the trick, even for high end 3D.

[Kellanved]

5. I agree

My next card will be a Nvidia again.
However your benchmarks have one fault: the ATI 9600/9800/... cards are DirectX9 accelerators; they're not (much) faster than the GeForce4 or Ati 9500/9700/... cards using DirectX8 or OpenGL.



Edited for Typos and Grammer due to excessive tiredness of poster ...

[thermodynamic]

7. I'd benchmarked only Linux

Under Windows/DX9, I know the card will fly... pity they claim to 'fully support' OpenGL. They kinda support it, but it's not fast and I also found it to be buggy. :eyes:

Thanks for the response despite the tiredness. :-) :yourock: