Nvidia or ATI?

I was just invited to SL yesterday. My main computer is a toshiba laptop with 900mhz PIII and a 32mb Geforce2go. It was a little rough. I also have a desktop set up as a test server. It has a 1.3ghz Athlon and a TNT 2 Ultra. Time to upgrade.......

My question to the all the Second Lifers out there is;
What brand card would you recommend I buy for SL?
Is 1.3ghz enough if I get a high performance Geforce or Radion?
So it boils down to which chipset has performed better with the SL client, Radion or Geforce?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

You have the same laptop I have, except I only have 16mb ram. I run it fine. Its not the best but it handles ok.

I do have an upgraded hard drive (bigger, faster more cache) and 512 RAM though.

RAM is a big issue to get, and yeah 1.3ghz will be ok if you have enough RAM and a good graphics card. Of course a faster CPU will always help too.

I'm running beautifully with a GeForce2 GTS. The only nVidia owners I've seen who've had issues are GeForceFX owners (which is detailed in the 0.5 release notes) or people using beta drivers.

I'm no expert on ATI cards. Consequently, I have seen people with problems, but even if they were easy fixes, I wouldn't know how to fix them. ^_^

NVIDIA! GF2 GTS 64 DDR my self!

Also, which is better, vi or emacs?

I am using a GF3 with a lot of the candy turned on and find it quite serviceable

I've been through a number of cards and generally find the nVidia stuff to be the least problematic. I've been using various Vidtek cards in my main machine for some time and everything has always run fine. I liked Voodoo too but that's gone .

The opinion that follows is based on my own personal technical and practical research over the course of many years (I used to do this for a living, ya know...) through on-line, interactive questions and discussions on various forums and usenet groups, and practical actual in-person live product testing and evaluation on the nVidia/ATI (or GeForce/Radeon, if you prefer) debate. Let it be known right now that I am neither an nVidia or ATI fanboi--I am an impartial purveyor (and consumer) of components and go with which parts and vendors make sense based on where I need to be for any given machine.

If you are looking for a new video card, there really are only two main choices: nVidia and ATI. Yeah, there's Matrox, 3DLabs, Trident is (trying to be) making a comeback, etc., but if you want the biggest bang for your buck, it's one of the aforementioned contenders.

Some basics about nVidia
They don't actually make boards any more these days...at least not ones for user consumption. They make the chipsets that other companies put on their boards. Their chipset brand name is the GeForce chipset (usually code-named NV-##). Dozens of people make nVidia-based graphics cards. All a company has to do is follow the reference design (geek to english: generic ready-made card data) that nVidia lays out and use default nVidia drivers and they got a product.

Each vendor is allowed to make small variations in board implementation, though these days those variations are getting fewer in both count and variance. For example, companies must put a minimum of xMHz-speed memory on their boards, but some companies put x+15%MHz speed memory instead. Some put different, larger, more powerful cooling fans, etc. Some companies change the default memory and GPU clock timings in the card's BIOS (yes, your video card has had a BIOS since the VGA days, in case you didn't know). Companies like MSi, Leadtek and WinFast tend to make the fastest nVidia boards.

Some people will tell you all nVidia boards are the same +/- a small differential in performance. Others will tell you that the differential is significant. My advice to you: if you're not likely to know the difference, save your $. You know who you are.

What can definitely be said is that while nVidia may be playing a game of leapfrog with ATI lately regarding who's more powerful, nVidia has always produced very stable products, which is something NOT to be underestimated. EVER!

Some basics about ATI
ATI not only makes the chipsets like nVidia does, they also make their own boards, as well as sell the chips so that third-party companies can make their own variations in the boards as well.

Like nVidia, ATI's third-party manufacturers can make small changes and variations in board design, components, and drivers, or can opt to go with the standard ATI reference design.

ATI has had a long history of driver problems, however. They usually have more bugs, and have said bugs longer than nVidia does. Yeah, they eventually get them cleared up, but not before they release a new product with more bugs in it. What can also be said of their latest technologies (the Radeon 9x00 series chips) is that they are as fast (if not faster, in some cases) and definitely less expensive than their nVidia counterparts.

ATI's self-produced cards are ALWAYS more expensive than their third-party counterparts, and some would argue that there is no difference in performance or quality (whereas others would).

Thanx for the blah blah blah...now tell me something useful
Ok, before you even enter the nVidia/ATI debate, you need to ask yourself one question: What is your tolerance level for being able to support system crashes, bugs, and display issues. If you have little to no tolerance, I would advise you to get an nVidia card without even thinking about it. Their install and operation are usually event-less, trauma-less and sometimes even flawless.

If you are at the other end of the spectrum and are an extremist performance nut ("I'd write my own drivers if I knew how to code in 32-bit color..."), then it comes down to performance, which means your decision is not that easy.

If you fall somewhere in between, then ask yourself another question: Which am I closer to? The low-tolerance type, or the performance wacko? Then fall into one of their two categories.

About the product lines
Now, both competitors offer a huge array of boards in various versions (high-end, mid-range, low-end). Typically, the way nVidia does thins is create four versions of it's chipset at any given time: high-end version (1), mid-range version (2), low-mid version (3), and low-low version (4). Usually, the difference between versions 1, 2, and 3 is clock (CPU speed, and memory size and speed). For example, the GeForce Ti4600 (1), 4400 (2) and 4200 (3) were all the exact same CPU running at and/or limited to different clock speeds. Additionally, the max memory size between the versions tended to differ. Originally, versions 1 and 2 had 128mb and version 3 originally had only 64mb (yes, I know that changed later on). Version 4 was usually given letters or a phrase like the 440FX or MX or 440ToGo or some such. Basically, this was a repackaging of nVidia's previous chipset line. For example, when the 4x00 series came out, the 4x0 series chip was actually a redo of their GeForce3x0 series chip.

nVidia's latest offerings are the 5x00 series of chips and they've once again added new letters to their stuff (FX5800, etc.). And they have the same format: a high, mid, low-mid, and low version.

Over in the ATI camp, they usually run three versions of their chips: just a simple high, medium, and low. In addition, they usually make a special version of their high-end version and add integrated video capture, cableTV in, and a few other video features and call it the All-in-Wonder xxxx. For example, there was the Radeon 9700 Pro, Radeon 9700 All-in-Wonder, Radeon 9500, and Radeon 9000.

ATI's newest upcoming offerings are the 9800 series, 9600 series, and 9200 series.

The Nitty Gritty
Ok, this is where I get flamed, but I everyone is entitled to my opinion so here it is. Lots of hardware reviewer web sites (www.tomshardware.com, www.anandtech.com, www.sharkyextreme.com, www.guru3d.com, just to name a few) have run benchmark after benchmark to see what the overall power is on each card, each platform, each version.

One important thing about benchmarks that you need to understand (if you do not understand already) is that there are three kinds of lies in the high-tech industry: lies, damn lies, and benchmarks. Benchmarks are nice, but do not always cover how an ACTUAL card will perform in an ACTUAL game, which is why right along those benchmarks, those reviewers will put the actual cards through their paces with several popular and worthy games (from a technical power and usage point of view) to see how each card really performs when the rubber hits the road, so to speak.

With the latest rev of each companies products (nVidia 4x00 and early 5x00 series, ATI 97/5/00 series as well as early 98/6/2 series) has proven that nVidia has more potential power and more beef under the hood, but ATI is tending to win the rubber-hits-the-road tests lately. Yeah, they probably crash while doing it more than likely, but they are winning tests more and more often. Tom's Hardware and Guru3d have some of the articles where this data comes from.

So does that make ATI better than nVidia? Again, ATI crashes more whereas nVidia is stable. So what's more important to you?

Ok, so what does that mean to SecondLife?
Good question, glad you asked. Right now, the developers will tell you (at least, they've told me) that they have plenty of bugs with the ATI products right now, whereas the nVidia people are largely working smoothly. Does that mean that EITHER is perfect? Nope. That's why SL is B-E-T-A, folks. nVidia is probably closer to perfect than ATI at the moment, and it will probably always be that way. But it is hard to tell if, when the final-release rubber hits the final-relese road, which card will be faster in the case of SL.

So what do you have in your machine, Mr. SmartyPantsTypesAlot?
This machine I am running now has an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, and as soon as the 9800 comes out, I'll be getting that. My last machine had a nVidia GeForce3 500 in it which I really liked and served me well. I can tell you first hand: nVidia-based products are way more stable and a lot less prone to debilitating bugs than ATI products. But in the games that I play, the ATI card is a significantly faster card, and I have a high-enough tolerance to the bugs (I get the latest ATI drivers every few days, it seems ) that it does not bother me.

I'll be the first person to tell you there are a lot of rabid fans in both camps (nVidia and ATI) and I am not out to upset or argue or annoy either group. I am just stating my own PERSONAL observations and research in the hope someone else may be able to benefit from it, or at least corroborate something they've been told from some other source and wondered if it were true or not.

You kidding, Zanlew? That was one of the more honest and balanced pieces I've read, particularly when speaking on a non-ultra-hardcore-gamer level.

/clap indeed. ^_^

Thank you very much, Yuniq! Those are two of the qualities I strive for in everything I do, inside SL and out!

Thanks for the input!

I am running 256 MB RAM right now, do you think just upgrading the RAM to 512+ would make a significant improvement? Enough that I can use my laptop as my primary SL computer? This would be great for me because the laptop is my primary machine!

Zanlew Wu,

Thanks for the great read! Exactly what I was looking for! I was thinking something along the same lines, ATI has the better performance right now, while Nvidia has the better drivers, but its great to hear it explained so well. A well earned Thank you!

I'm going to try and add more RAM to my laptop and see if that helps first. Cheeper, and someone earlier said he was running a similar machine with less VRAM but more RAM and it ran ok.

$150 for a 512MB SODIMM vs $299 for a GF4/9700

BTW, Thank you all for your input! And I'm off to Fry's.....

Thank you so much, Zanlew...that was very informative. I currently run a Radeon 9000 pro (128 mb), and like you said, the drivers are buggy, but the performance is pretty awesome. If I had to do it over again, I think I would still stick with the Radeon, as I enjoy the smooth graphics and playability...especially with something like MSFS 2002...that is just awesome on my machine.

J

I will put it this way, right now this laptop is my only computer, and I run SL on it a lot -with all the features turn on as of last night! -. The frame rates are acceptable to me (~10 - 15fps with all things on, higher with them off, but not much above 20). That is pre .5.0 obviously, which is supposed to improve frame rates (and did for me durring the alpha test). And all that said, I'm looking for a way to get the fund so that this isn't my main SL computer. I will be building a new one as soon as I can afford one that will run EQ2. heh.

- Ama

Hey AMA,

I just built a new computer for a friend. Check this out:
o Asus P4S8X mobo, SiS648-based (very hot mobo with AGP 8x, onboard networking, sound, USB2.0, FireWire, SerialATA, the works!)
o 2.53GHz Intel P4 Proc
o 512mb DDR333 RAM (single DIMM)
o 120gb WD1200JB 8mb cache 7200RPM ATA100 HD
o Sapphire ATI 9000 w/64mb (OEM board)
o 16x DVD-ROM drive (Toshiba)
o 48x CD-RW drive (BenQ/Acer)
o Antec PLUS660 AMG MiniTower Case
o Floppy Drive, cables, blah blah blah...

Under $850 plus tax and shipping. That's a helluva system. And it enhances nicely as you add parts (faster/better video card, better sound card, RAID, etc.) presuming you have the $ to do so.

So know that it is possible to buy and/or build good machines for relatively little $--especially compared to the game-system makers like Alien, Falcon and others.

I just graduated and don't yet have a job. My funds are nil currently, but yes I have built for myself in the past and others more recently, many great machines for under $1000.

I'm a computer science major, and I love computers. I have always had 'old' computers, low end of what you can buy new. My gift to myself for graduating and finding a job, once I get one, will be to build myself a truly top of the line computer in the $2k - 3k range.

I know I won't get it right away, but my laptop does run SL decently enough and its the only game I'm playing right now so I'm good to go. EQ2 and World of Warcraft are the next 'big games' I want my machine to be able to run, and they won't come out this year so I have time.

Thanks for the info though.

My understanding of the graphics card market agrees perfectly with Zanlew's essay. I personally fall into the nVidia category. I've got a GF3-Ti500 in my workstation and it's been working great.

However, I would like to insert a rumor here that ATI will soon be releasing a newer version of their drivers that will solve about 5 out of the 6 problems SL was experiencing with ATI cards that were not our own fault (we now have connections inside ATI who have been listening to our bug reports).

Also, we started developing SL on nVidia because that's all there was at the time. Since then nVidia has removed support for some of their own OpenGL extensions which has caused us some pain, but useful pain since we now strive for more card-generic coding solutions.

You just gotta love both nVidia and ATI... the future looks bright for computer graphics capabilities. Let's hope they keep racing each other for video card supremacy.

Although Zanlew's explanation was very detailed and accurate for the most part, I believe the part regarding the GeForce4 MX series needs more elaboration.

The GeForce4 MX series really aren't GeForce4's at all. You can get a much clearer picture by looking at the chip model number, as follows:

NV15: GeForce 2
NV17: GeForce 4 MX
NV20: GeForce 3
NV25: GeForce 4 Ti
NV30: GeForce FX

As you can see, the GeForce 4 MX is worse off than a GeForce 3, in terms of capabilities. Although it is clocked faster than most GeForce 3's, it lacks the vertex and pixel shaders of the GF3 and GF4Ti, which are starting to be used more and more in newer games. You can still play these games on GF4MX, but the vertex and pixel shader instructions will be executed by your CPU instead of your video card, potentially resulting in a major performance hit.

With regards to your choice of either laptop memory or a desktop video card, I put it to you this way: Which system will you play on more? If you don't mind playing on the laptop, then I'd definitely suggest the memory upgrade, as the GF2Go (equivalent to a GF2MX on the desktop) seems to be adequate for most people, but SL is a terrible memory hog. However, if you'll only be using the laptop to play on the road, I'd suggest getting a video card for the desktop. Actually, if you were looking at spending $199 on the memory or $299 on the video card, why not spend $199 on the memory, and then take the extra $100 and buy a GeForce4 Ti4200? Personally, I'd recommend the 64MB model, as the 128MB models generally have a slower memory clock, which actually makes the card perform slower than it's 64MB cousin.