Private_Jenkins Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Difference in frame rates are very easy to notice during fast paced action, try playing a first person shooter and you´ll see the difference between 90 fps and 70 fps with ease. You quoted me to agree with me? You're just reiterating what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private_Jenkins Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 And they'll never get another chance from me. At all. The plain fact is, Nvidia has fewer problems with MMOs at launch time than ATI/AMD. That's not disputable. ATI screwed me on graphics 15 years ago and said "suck it up and just buy a new card that we're still supporting. That one is 4 months old" I sucked it up, went Nvidia, and they'll never get another dime of my money. How logical a reaction that was. And just because you say something is not disputable, doesn't actually make it so. Who the hell are you anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private_Jenkins Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Also, NEVER choose based on a benchmark. Look at them, but be suspicious. The only important thing is hardware and drivers that actually WORK with the games you care about. Benchmarks are not hypothetical-they are real world tests with actual games. They are by far the most important factor when choosing a gaming gfx card. If you get a series of reviews from legit review sites like toms hardware, anandtech, hardocp, and hardware canucks, there is nothing else to look at except the price. They'll comment on other factors like temperatures, noise, power draw, drivers, etc. in the review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maradigamer Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 My processor is AMD and my video card is ATI. The game seems to be playing nice with both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private_Jenkins Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Dang fanboys. You're not being paid to be Nvidia or AMD zealots so cut it out-it's pathetic. hardware review sites often recommend AMD cards and they often recommend Nvidia cards. They take a look at performance, price, noise, heat, drivers and stability, overclocking, etc. They cover the whole gamut of factors a potential consumer would care about. They don't recommend cards in a vacuum. When they give a 9/10 or editor's choice rating to a midrange card, they are saying it is better than the other midrange cards. Since AMD cards have received such ratings from sites like this in the past, we can infer there are some AMD cards better than their Nvidia counterpart. And vice versa. Really easy **** to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionRampant Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Thanks for making me laugh. Nvidia takes a huge steaming pile of *flowers and happy thoughts* on the joke that ATI is. 580 > any single gpu AMD card til now (as always they put out their new cards earlier, it's nothing new, they'll just have a small advantage for a while) and 590 > any dualgpu from AMD. Try again. So wait you only count fastest card when Nvidia holds it? And you can't be serious claiming that the 590 is faster than the 6990 lol. Only on nvidia fansites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DThoran Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Being a custom builder who's name was associated with the products I sell and their performance for many years, I went exclusively AMD processors and Nvidia GPU's, unless the customer demanded something different, and then I would tell them it was at their risk. The reviews are often skewed and just flat wrong. Experience over 1000's of custom gaming machines in the years I ran that shop is what made my choice for me, nothing else. AMD processors consistently gave better performance and stayed cooler and more stable than equally measured Intel processors. That is a statement of fact based on building the actual machines myself and running literally thousands and thousands of comparisons over nearly a decade. Has nothing to do with fan this or fan that. It's about hardware performance. (such pesky things as operating facts will never sway a fan, no matter how blatantly obvious however, and must be recognized) As far as the video cards, same thing. Nvidia consistently outperformed ATI, (not every time just as with CPU, but an extremely large percentage of the time) ran consistently cooler, and gave a lot fewer problems related to drivers and software. Again, these are facts compiled over thousands of different custom builds, over nearly a decade, and factors in reliability in all areas, including failure and replacement. The biggest thing we noticed early on was that Nvidia nearly always had better compatibility across a wide variety of machines with their drivers and software. Again, an opinion worth exactly that, but an opinion not based on owning 4-5 computers in a lifetime, but building and testing thousands of different configurations with my own hands, and running the stress tests, burn in's, and handling the software issues and returns I had to eat profit wise. Take it for what it's worth. Either choice in a mid to high level machine should be able to eat this game however. The problems here are with game engine, code, and their implementation methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJEBarlow Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hardware brand fanboys make me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImperialSun Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I've been reading a lot of threads concerning horrible frame rate issues vs. game engine blame on decent gaming rigs. I've got a BioStar ATI Radeon HD 4670 & a Sparkle NVIDIA Geforce 9600 GT. Obviously my Nvidia card gave me way smoother performance. But the ATI card is supposed to be superior. So I take it that any upcoming new driver release will not resolve anything? Only game engine tweak patch? I'm playing on a GF 260 GTX and the game runs at max settings brilliantly for me. But yeah, ATI cards have always been naff compared to Nvidia imo Driz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImperialSun Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Being a custom builder who's name was associated with the products I sell and their performance for many years, I went exclusively AMD processors and Nvidia GPU's, unless the customer demanded something different, and then I would tell them it was at their risk. The reviews are often skewed and just flat wrong. Experience over 1000's of custom gaming machines in the years I ran that shop is what made my choice for me, nothing else. AMD processors consistently gave better performance and stayed cooler and more stable than equally measured Intel processors. That is a statement of fact based on building the actual machines myself and running literally thousands and thousands of comparisons over nearly a decade. Has nothing to do with fan this or fan that. It's about hardware performance. (such pesky things as operating facts will never sway a fan, no matter how blatantly obvious however, and must be recognized) As far as the video cards, same thing. Nvidia consistently outperformed ATI, (not every time just as with CPU, but an extremely large percentage of the time) ran consistently cooler, and gave a lot fewer problems related to drivers and software. Again, these are facts compiled over thousands of different custom builds, over nearly a decade, and factors in reliability in all areas, including failure and replacement. The biggest thing we noticed early on was that Nvidia nearly always had better compatibility across a wide variety of machines with their drivers and software. Again, an opinion worth exactly that, but an opinion not based on owning 4-5 computers in a lifetime, but building and testing thousands of different configurations with my own hands, and running the stress tests, burn in's, and handling the software issues and returns I had to eat profit wise. Take it for what it's worth. Either choice in a mid to high level machine should be able to eat this game however. The problems here are with game engine, code, and their implementation methods. I've been building my own custom gaming rigs for about 15 years now and I completely agree with this post Driz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildwa Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I average between 60-75 with 2 6850's. Keep in mind also it's not ALL about your GPU, there are other factors that will effect your performance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keldare Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 i have a GTX 580m running smooth as smooth can be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssBen Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I've got one ATI/Intel system and one Nvidia/AMD system......they both run smooth as butter (apart from in fleet ofc ). The Nvidia/AMD runs it best, but it is newer and higher spec so no mystery conspiracy there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qweets Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 ITT blind fanboys. I buy whatever is good at the time price per performance, so I usually end up with ATI stuff. Running crossfire 5850's and have no problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReynoldsCK Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) People still use Radeon video cards? Why? Nvidia is clearly better for gaming. Of course that's just my opinion. Edited January 13, 2012 by ReynoldsCK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Vala Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) I have ATI Radeon HD 6950 1Gb and game looks beatifull and there is no lag whatsoever. Cant really compare with Nvidia since I dont have their card and not going to get one just to do comparison. What I like about Nvidia is that getting every game to work in 3D is easier. And yea I do like 3D no headaches or other funky side effects here. Had I known that at the time I made the selection I would have propably gone with Nvidia. And my processor is Intel Core i5 2500K. Edited January 13, 2012 by Darth_Vala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkirus Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 People still use Radeon video cards? Why? Nvidia is clearly better for gaming. Of course that's just my opinion. Only for the FPS fanatics. There is more to good video cards then just FPS. How much noise do they make? How long will they last? What is the quality of the graphics?...etc...etc. I serously donot think anyone can see the difference between 50 and 100 fps. They convince themselves they can...but..if they kept the FPS visuals turned off..I donot think they could see any difference at all. I am running a Radeon 6850 and TOR looks great and runs smooth. What is my FPS?...I could'nt care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandybeaver Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) i-7 3.26Ghz Overclocked to 5.0ghz 2x 6970's Overclocked 12Gigs DDR-3 2333Mhz SSD Water Cooling 100+ FPS consistantly in max settings. 110+ FPS in BF3 in Max Settings. If your an ATI user and you have 6970's and your framerate sucks, your pc sucks and probably your settings. Also, anyone who states "play an fps and youll notice the difference between 70 and 90 fps". Is lying thru thier teeth or dillusional. The human eye can register no more than like 30fps (cant remember if this is correct tbh). Either way, at 60 FPS consistantly you will not be able to see ANY fps issues. ALL YOU EVER NEED IS 60FPS ANYTHING ELSE IS FLUFF. Your dillusional if you thin kyou can see a difference between 70 and 90FPS. Edited January 13, 2012 by Sandybeaver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firequill Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 i have an old 4870 hd 1gb, and don't have any issues except the clunky shadow-mapping in this game. it's more of a leveldesign issue than a card issue. Doublefaced polys, redundant effects etc. some of the tombs on korriban are prime examples of how *not* to stack effects in a scene. but, meh, i just set the shadows to low and enjoy smooth 80 fps or so. not a biggie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inseeisyou Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 My GTX 560 eats the game up with ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesahgo Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I generally prefer nVidia cards from experience as well, but I'm in the process of buying one of the new ATI 7970's (soon as they come back in stock) for the fact of 2 mini display ports needed to run my Apple cinema displays. nVidia 590's come with mini-DP but I'd rather a single GPU card. Don't think I'll have many issues with the new ATI, it's been getting some solid reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pEEtrsCZ Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Owner of Intel + ATI combo and game plays fine. Friend has Intel + NV combo says the same. Other friends have AMD + ATI combos says thay can't play WZs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozirizo Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) I play with an AMD+ATI, highest settings and no lag. So cool story Nvidia bros. Edited January 13, 2012 by ozirizo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korizan Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 On a 6970 average 50 FPS On a Nvidia GTX 260 average 90 FPS. Yeah. My 6850 gets a higher FPS then your 6970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VainEldritch Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I have ATI Radeon HD 6950 1Gb and game looks beatifull and there is no lag whatsoever. Cant really compare with Nvidia since I dont have their card and not going to get one just to do comparison. What I like about Nvidia is that getting every game to work in 3D is easier. And yea I do like 3D no headaches or other funky side effects here. Had I known that at the time I made the selection I would have propably gone with Nvidia. And my processor is Intel Core i5 2500K. I second this! I use 6950 2Gb and with i7 2500k (4.1) and 8Gb system RAM I couldn't be happier (and this is at 1900x1200, 8x AA forced through Catalyst Control Centre - probably overkill on the AA at this resolution even on a 24" flat screen but since it made little difference to FPS, what the heck). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts