Chaotic Dreams

Hehe, I just couldn't resist.

"And the mighty armies of Nvidida shall rain death upon Radeon's pitifull villags"

I think whatever brand card is in my machine is the best one. I am not limited to brand preference, just the more economically priced of the card relative to card power at the time of purchase.

each company has good products. no one is better than the other at everything. ATI cards seem to be good at D3D games and a bit slower in OpenGL while NV cards seem to be the oppsite. I have owned both and buy which ever I need that fits my budget at that time

I had an Nvidia card break on me once for no reason, I never overclocked it or turned off the fan or anything, and I couldn't find the recipt(it was probably 31 days after anyway), so i switched to ATI . That was like a year ago at least. It can still run half life 2 smoothly on almost max settings. Sucks at morrowind though Figures. Oh, and it only cost me about $100 too.

ive only ever used nvidia cards, since my first card (voodoo4). my current geforce4 ti4200 gives good frames on all my games (av 70 on cs and ut2004 on full detail mode) but i think the excellent running i get of games has more to do with the 1.5gbs DDR i have....

Nvidia win for me. My mate has a radeon of about the same time and pricetag and he gets about 20-30 fps less than me on games like rogue spear etc. (its not ram either...he has 2gbs...)

worst frames ive had is with doom3 before i did the chunkmegs_256 thing to it. i used to get around 19fps on ultra detail, now it get at least 45fps. doom3 is odd tho, even at 19fps, it still looks like it flows well...

anyone ever get any ridicoulosu fps? i know a guy who claimed 500fps on q3 using overclocked geforce cards......

anyone ever get any ridicoulosu fps? i know a guy who claimed 500fps on q3 using overclocked geforce cards......

Hehe, I can get 250+ fps on ut2004... the menus, that is... But really, 500 true fps is impossible, because your frames can only go as fast as your monitor can update them, so, depending on your monitor, usually anything above 75-85 FPS doesn't make a difference... not to mention eyes cannot tell the difference between anything more than about 60 fps I think...

I would go for Nvidia, but the last one I bought crashed the computer when I ran graphics intensive games... but that was probably a one off thing. I'm using a radeon 9800 pro now and it seems to work fine.

What really impresed me when I upgraded from my old card were all the fancy direct X things my old card couldn't do properly, like the swirly bit on the UT2k4 shock rifle.

Steyr wrote: not to mention eyes cannot tell the difference between anything more than about 60 fps I think...

Conciously, no, the human eye will not detect image flicker over about 45Hz vertical refresh on a CRT. However, due to an number of reasons, mostly to do with the way the eye scans the world to build a picture, people can detect the difference between two refresh rates if they are displayed together... Ditto, FPS.

On topic - I have used Nvidia for convenience sake for a while now; the unified driver thing has saved my ass more than once now...