The 2 sides...

[poll]

Pentium + ATI

AMD and NVIDIA

Nvidia & Intel, though I don't think I take sides particularly, they were just the best I could get when I bought my pooter.

AMD & ATI

AMD & Ati

blatently amd and ati, well thats if your clever and dont want to pay extra money for over-priced s**te flogged by Nvidia and Intel.

Pentium....

And I dunno about nVidia or ATI, I have an nVidia GeForce 4 but my brother just got an ATI RAdeon, Ill have to see how they compare. (My video card is kinda buggy?)

Ati and AMD

Rubber band and Hampster Wheel!!!

My family seems to emit radiation that ruins AMD machines, it's rather strange, so we tend to stay away from them.

As for ATI vs. NVidia...I really can't say. NVidia's always been strong and reliable,

ATI has gotten its act together, in hardware and finally in drivers(although I still vastly prefer the Omega Drivers to ATI's). ATI's are heading more towards D3D whereas NVidia leans more towards OpenGL.

OpenGL 2.0 will be out soon, although that just means everything that was optional in 1.5 will be required by the hardware vendors with 2.0. Anyone who says D3D can do more than OGL honestly doesn't know a damn thing about either API. I much prefer OGL to D3D simply because it's much much much easier to program and the updates for it are more frequent with various vendor Extensions. ATI supports NVidia's popular extensions and NVidia supports ATI's popular extensions. Eventually those extensions are usually officially added to OGL by the ARB.

The other aspects of DirectX are great though. DirectInput is great for getting input from just about any peripheral device. DirectShow makes playing music and videos in games a breeze, and DirectSound is very solid. I haven't messed with DirectPlay yet, haven't really built a networkable game to test it out on yet.

D3D is gonna take it easy for a bit, since MS working on their Longhorn OS which has something to replace DirectX altogether. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen.

Nice new feature Lep :smile:

Omai...

I prefer Nvidia, mostly because ATI's crappy earlier cards almost prevented me from mapping altogether. I also like Intel/Pentium, as when one sells their old computer off, people will be wowed by the number of Pentiums you have (Pentium 3? Wowzers!) and its generally easier to sell. :smile:

Ugh, the poll doesn't work in Epiphany.

I prefer AMD and nVidia, because the Linux drivers for ATi are s**te, and UT2k3 on Slackware > Everything.

DesPlesda said:
Ugh, the poll doesn't work in Epiphany.

Hey, is that some kind of sandwich spread or something? And how does it not work, can you not vote?

I will never buy ATI after my experience with the ATI 3d Rage Pro and my old Compaq. Old grudges die hard...and I don't care if they have their act together, they can just as easily lose it. :razz:

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.

*Edit: Heh... Intel and Nvidia. Best I could afford at the time

AMD and ATI by far.

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.

AMD & NVIDIA all the way. Simply because ATI's main focus on '3d acceleration' is using directX, otherwise known as Microsoft only. While NVIDIA is more suited for OpenGL which is compatible with all OS'.

AMD because, number one, they are less expensive. In comparison of each competitor?s basic component speed and cache size, AMD has better design.

The XPs are made to counter Celerons and the Bartons is made to counter P4s.

Dare to compare:

Celeron 2500 400MHz $89
FSB: 400 MHz
Floating Point Pipelines: 2
L1 cache: 12kb
L2 cache: 128kb

AMD Athol XP 2400+ $88
FSB: 266MHz
Floating point pipelines: 3
L1 cache: 128KB
L2 cache: 256KB

Intel Pentium 4 2.667GHz 533MHz FSB $179
FSB: 533MHz
Floating point pipelines: 2
L1 cache: 12KB
L2 cache: 512KB

AMD Barton 2600+ $114
FSB: 333MHz
Floating point pipelines: 3
L1 cache: 128KB
L2 cache: 512KB

I just thought this would be some food for thought. Yes, I know the Intel chips require more bus bandwidth, but that is only because those chips have smaller caches. A bigger cache would make the processor, to you, run faster. Unless you used this computer to run 30 different programs within an hour, every day, on a regular basis, the AMD is much more efficient.

None the less one bad thing about AMD is that, they're copying Intel. Also, you have to give Intel the acknowledgement that they invented the X86 Architecture. But, it took real genius' to invent the monstrosity called the IBM360, cringes

Oh one more thing, A mac isn't so bad if it's a G4 with OSX and a two button mousewheel mouse. Because then it is more stable then windows and can run most of the same programs (Being mostly Unix and all), except Half-Life because that was written with DirectX.

Intel & Nvidia cause i never had anyrhing else

[EDIT] I did have a Diamond Monster 3d2 but it never worked...

fraggard said:
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.

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.

wil5on said:
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? :biggrin:

Yer thats what I was thinking....

ReNo said:
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.

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!

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/.

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?

Pentium & ATi

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.

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 :smile:

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

AMD + ATi

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?

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...

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.

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)

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