Aww, don't worry, no one said this is easy If you have any questions, then just ask.L_Plates said:Its all confusing to me i feel so lost
So many ppl say stay with nvidia but im always tempted to try ati
Thanks for the info so far fellas
Jonty said:Aww, don't worry, no one said this is easy If you have any questions, then just ask.
In terms of nVidia/ATI, I think whichever card you bought you would be happy. ATI have a great bundle with their cards at the moment (free Half-Life 2, for a start), and their DirectX 9 performance is, in some tests, better than nVidia's at this moment in time. Personally, I think their drivers still have some way to go in terms of stability, but that's just me.
nVidia, having has a shakey year at times in 2003, have finished strongly. Their mainstream to high-end/mainstream cards are all good performers, and usually outclass ATI's mainstream offerings, if only by a little way. nVidia are currently bundling Call of Duty with their 5900 cards, which is a good deal (if perhaps limited to the US at the moment, it seems). In terms of driver stability, I'm tempted to give nVidia the edge here, but I'm yet to make any direct comparisons.
Anyway, I'm sure other people will help and advise you too. In short, whichever you went for you'd probably be happy. If you have any more questions, just shout.
P.S. This might be a bit technical, so don't worry if so, but the 9600XT doesn't require an external power connector and the PCB itself is small (in contrast to nVidia's cards on both points) which makes it great for Shuttles, if you happen to be running one.
been looking at this card. at 200€ it looks like the most bang for the buck card i can get
ATI 9600Xt 128MB is about 8 € more expensive
Anything about asus cards i should be aware off ?
Jonty said:Hi Sibanac
Looks like a nice card, and ASUS are known as a good manufacturer. However, be aware that the card you're looking at is just a straight 5700, not a 5700 Ultra. I forget the differences off the top of my head, but it shouldn't perform quite as fast as the Ultra model, even though it may have twice the RAM etc. How much are you looking to pay for it, just out of interest?
Thanks for the help, its so confising these days with all the SE/XT/PRO/ULTRA stuff going on.Jonty said:Hi Sibanac
Having very quickly asked Xavier, since I wasn't sure of the differences, it seems the clock speeds are about the main differences between the non-Ultra and Ultra models, which in turn can produce a performance variation of up to 20% at worst (although it does vary from card to card). Going on name alone, I'd like the ASUS card more, but whether it could keep up with Creative's Ultra model I don't know (I'm guessing not). Sorry, not much help, I know.
Sibanac said:Thanks for the help, its so confising these days with all the SE/XT/PRO/ULTRA stuff going on.
sibanac said:Thanks for the help, its so confising these days with all the SE/XT/PRO/ULTRA stuff going on.
I agree, when one is a cut-down version of a card, and the other is an enhanced version, it would be very confusing for the vast majority of purchasers. As far as I know, however, nVidia's stance is justified as their XT line of cards is designed to compete against ATI's XT range. In that light it's reasonable, but otherwise it is a little confusing.MrBlack said:The cynic in me is seeing NVidia's recent use of the XT suffix for its (not quite as good as the normal one) products is a direct attempt to confuse the hell out of people looking at ATI's XT products, thereby attracting more sales to their own stuff and scaring people away from ATI's.