Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » The 2 sides...
The 2 sides...
« previous page 1
2
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Forceflow on Wed Dec 31st at 11:07am 2003

? posted by fraggard

I wonder if any of you have ever used a SiS graphics card. The strength of the dark force is great in that one.

Compared to my old SiS 6216 and 6326, anything is better.

My previous computer had some SiS graphics card in it. It sucks ... video memory sucks its MB's from your RAM-memory, the drivers not to be found, and the performance is near zero.

HL @ lowest res, software mode, weaponmodels off, decals 0 and a bunch of ugly tweaks: 20 fps facing a wall, 8 fps in combat.





Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by ReNo on Wed Dec 31st at 12:54pm 2003

AMD and nVidia, purely because it's the setup I'm currently using. I always plan on sticking with AMD as you get a little more for your money, and as for nVidia, it's just what was best for the money at the time I got the card. To be honest though, I think if I upgrade my card anytime soon, it would be an ATi I'd buy. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Kage_Prototype on Wed Dec 31st at 1:58pm 2003

? posted by wil5on

I like AMD & ATI. I'm a cheap bastard, you see.

OK, I am using an nvidia card at the moment, only cos I'm saving up for a new radeon.

That's a bit contradictory, yes? I'm cheap so I go with ATi, yet I have an nVidia card because the ATi cards too expensive?

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Myrk- on Wed Dec 31st at 5:12pm 2003

Yer thats what I was thinking.... [addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Gorbachev on Wed Dec 31st at 5:33pm 2003

? posted by ReNo
AMD and nVidia, purely because it's the setup I'm currently using. I always plan on sticking with AMD as you get a little more for your money, and as for nVidia, it's just what was best for the money at the time I got the card. To be honest though, I think if I upgrade my card anytime soon, it would be an ATi I'd buy.

That's sort of the situation I'm in. I have my GeForce 2 Ti....but I will not buy any of those FX cards. My next CPU is already an AMD (Bought a Barton 2500+) and my next Video Card will be an ATI. Both are for the system I'm building myself over the course of this year.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Myrk- on Wed Dec 31st at 10:19pm 2003

Yer I have a GF 2 TI, just ordered an ATi Radeon 9600XT, cost ?140 from overclockers, and comes with a free copy of HL2! [addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by scary_jeff on Thu Jan 1st at 1:19pm 2004

Well if you want the absolute fastest irrespective of price, then it's intel all the way. If you have a limited budget then normally AMD get's you something better for your money. I don't see where AMD are going now though - I thought they just said Longhorn won't be out till 2007 or something, so AMD have to wait until then for a proper 64 bit OS to take advantage of their chip, and by which time Intel will have their own version.

Have a read of this http://www.overclockers.com/articles913/.



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Myrk- on Thu Jan 1st at 11:28pm 2004

Intel had thier own version, it just didn't sell, it was aimed at businesses. The AMD 64bit is aimed at hardcore gamers, thats why its a big deal.

You probably don't realise that theres 10 Terrhertz computers flying around the place to businesses- it's 'cus only businesses care. Does anyone ever read the financial times?

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by mike9292 on Thu Jan 1st at 11:39pm 2004

Pentium & ATi



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Monqui on Fri Jan 2nd at 4:19pm 2004

I voted for AMD and nVidia, just because that is what I use the most. Although I do have an ATI All-In-Wonder card currently in use, and it has probably been one of the greatest things ever for me.

But as a whole, I'm with Yak. I had some incredibly bad experiences with them and, quite simply, they lost my trust. I've never had any issues with my nVidia cards, even if they are slowly falling behind in graphics quality. I much prefer quality of the card over quality of the graphics, since a card doesn't do you a whole lot of good once its fried. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Gorbachev on Fri Jan 2nd at 7:19pm 2004

I really don't like Intel stuff, after about the PIII I lost interest completely. Seeing how most of their claims are just fluff and marketing. I've compared the performance of the computers that everyone near me uses and by far love the AMD machines more. There are a few peeves I have with people and their old news though, such as operating temperatures of Intels and AMDs, all of the new chips are either really close or the Intels are hotter. Sure an AMD heatsink/fan is a little tougher to install, but it's not THAT hard. A little fact that I've seemed to notice is that computer technicians tend to prefer AMDs, out of the 5 or so that I know they all are pro-AMD by far. But it's sort of what I'd expect as Intel is a very consumer company that for the general public has become synonomous with a CPU. I can't really complain because it drives AMD to make better chips [addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by beer hunter on Sat Jan 3rd at 10:08am 2004

Funny, i always thought it was the other way round - AMD driving Intel to release faster chips.

AMD + ATi





Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by Gorbachev on Sat Jan 3rd at 4:08pm 2004

Intel says they have the better one, but considering AMD is just now in the profits and Intel just rakes in oodles of money it's AMD that's pressed to make better chips. As it seems lately though, AMD is pressing Intel to make a faster chip, but it hasn't actually happened, they're just releasing complete marketing ploy "EE" chips with a bazillion L3 cache...ooh, wow, whoop-dee-doo, why not work on your upcoming chips that have some 103W heat issues? [addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by scary_jeff on Sun Jan 4th at 10:59pm 2004

? quote:
Intel had thier own version, it just didn't sell


So I suppose that's it they gave up now? I don't know why people always give these sweeping statements like "AMD are by far the best" - what does that even mean? If AMD were actually that much better, they would be selling 1000s of units to the large OEMs, but for reasons such as those listed in the article I posted (did you even read that?), they aren't. Sure the EE is just a gimik, but who thinks otherwise? And it does perform better than the other P4 based chips...

? quote:
Sure an AMD heatsink/fan is a little tougher to install, but it's not THAT hard.


What difference does this make? 90%+ of customers have no idea about these kinds of issues. Other issues like heat and overclockability - they don't make a difference to a company that wants to make money by selling CPUs to large OEMs who in turn supply busineses. And if you ignore the price, with non 64-bit CPUs, guess what - the P4 works out better (even if the Athlon works out faster for games, the big buyers aren't as interested in this as the main use for a PC is content creation). You say Intel is all marketing and stuff, but there was nothing stopping AMD coming up with 200mhz dual DDR systems and calling it '800 FSB' (or buying the technology from somebody else as was the case). There was nothing stopping AMD coming up with 'hyperthreading' or 'MMX' or 'SSE'. I'm sure if they could have they would. And before you attack these new technologies as making little/no difference, remember that you would be making the same mistake as every review site and forgetting that a new instruction set won't improve the performance of applications not compiled to use these instructions, so testing with any existing application will never work...

As for the bit about busineses using computers, by far the biggest area is normal PCs bought for office use. Supercomputers may be very expensive and impressive but hardly anybody buys them. Also you say all your friends much prefer AMD - how many of them have that much more money than sense that they buy both the latest technologies and so can make a proper comparison? People are always bound to say they like what they have better. If you just bought a new ford and somebody says hey do you prefer ford or vauxhall, you are bound to say ford aren't you.



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by 2dmin on Tue Jan 6th at 1:41am 2004

pentium and ati. i would have said amd but right now the top amd chip is too expensive for its performance, relative to the top pentium chip's price/performance.

i hate nvidia, their cards are buggy and chunky, and their drivers are crap.com - until nvidia gets some good drivers and stabalises their cards, im not buying one. (w00t my ati radeon 9600 XT should be arriving tomorrow)

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: The 2 sides...
Posted by North_Star on Wed Jan 7th at 11:40am 2004

AMD and Ati - Bbecause i've always had an AMD processor, and price/performance is usually better than the Intel counterparts.

[addsig]




« previous page 1
2
Post Reply