PDA

View Full Version : ATI selected for Xbox 2. Which is better for Mac? ATI or Nvidia?


macphoria
Aug 16, 2003, 01:36 AM
Microsoft selected ATI to supply graphics card for its next generation Xbox. Obviously Microsoft thinks ATI is doing something better than Nvidia.

My question for you is, as far as Macs are concerned, which company do you think makes better product? ATI or Nvidia?

LethalWolfe
Aug 16, 2003, 01:42 AM
Actually Nvidia distanced itself from MS and didn't want to be a part of the next Xbox. I prefer ATi because their cards tend to have a superior 2D picture compared to Nvidia (w/the current cards that difference might be too small to matter but I haven't spec'd out cards for over a year) and sense I do absolutely zero 3D on my Mac (aside from what's built into OS X) 2D was my biggest concern. :)


Lethal

Powerbook G5
Aug 16, 2003, 01:48 AM
nVidia used to be the top dog, but for a while now, ATi has been really impressive and really outmuscles the nVidia chips just about in every case. If I could choose, I'd go for ATi.

Rezet
Aug 16, 2003, 01:59 AM
Heh I remember when VooDoo was some really hot stuff. BTW what happend to them?

ATi is very good. But it seems nVidia is one step ahead now with it's 256mbs video card. And considering that it's cheaper than ati 9800 pro, I'd go with nvidia. Honestly, i think either way you go, You will get enough power to last....

Sun Baked
Aug 16, 2003, 02:05 AM
Microsoft wanted better control of the chip and it's cost so ATI was the only company willing to give up a chip in exchange for a lump sum and royalties (or that's how it'll probably play out in the long run).

ATI's not going to be making the chip for the XBOX, MS will be licensing the chip and doing it themselves.

So it'll be a royalty stream from XBOX sales, and no huge revenue numbers for ATI if MS can turn the machine around.

But the extra revenue will help MS. :rolleyes:

Nvidia Loses XBox (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/15/BU190365.DTL&type=business)

Also, unlike the current arrangement, in which Nvidia makes the chips and sells them to Microsoft, the new deal calls for the software company to license ATI's chip technology and make the parts using a contract manufacturer.

In turn, Microsoft will help fund ATI's research and development and pay royalties for each game console sold.

Peddie said he believes that the new arrangement with ATI will save Microsoft more money, but leave narrower margins for the chipmaker than Nvidia had been getting.

LethalWolfe
Aug 16, 2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
Heh I remember when VooDoo was some really hot stuff. BTW what happend to them?

ATi is very good. But it seems nVidia is one step ahead now with it's 256mbs video card. And considering that it's cheaper than ati 9800 pro, I'd go with nvidia. Honestly, i think either way you go, You will get enough power to last....

Poor business decission killed 3Dfx. In short, they wanted 100% control of their chips so they bought a fabrication plant. Then they also aliented other card makers, found out they didn't know squat about fabrication, start loosing $$$ and missing product cycles. Mean while Nvidia got on the rampage and started the 6 month product cycle "standard" which made 3Dfx look even more behind. By the time the VooDoo 5x00 cards came out they were 6 or 8 months late and 3Dfx closed it's doors a few months after that. Parts of 3Dfx, the name, some R&D, etc., were purchased by Nvidia. Also, game developers moved away from Glide to OpenGL didn't help much either.


Lethal

Powerbook G5
Aug 16, 2003, 01:21 PM
I remember back when I had a Gateway, having a 3Dfx card in your gaming rig was the ultimate show of your coolness factor.

iJon
Aug 16, 2003, 02:59 PM
well this is different than computers. xbox probably chose this because ATI had a better bid than nvidia and ati won the bid.
also the problem with ati and computers has been driver problems with computers. this wouldnt be a factor since every xbox would be the same and every game would be made to fully utilize the xbox2.

iJon

Independence
Aug 16, 2003, 03:11 PM
i have an ATI Radeon 9000 in my current machine. the last (and only) two nvidia cards i've had both caused me grief. i'll never have another nvidia card in my computer again. i just don't see the reason in supporting a company that screws its customers.

iJon
Aug 16, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Independence
i have an ATI Radeon 9000 in my current machine. the last (and only) two nvidia cards i've had both caused me grief. i'll never have another nvidia card in my computer again. i just don't see the reason in supporting a company that screws its customers.
just because you have problems doesnt mean the screw their customers. i have had no problems with my nvidia cards and its a year old and i can still play games at full detail. most of my friends, including myself had problems with our ati cards as well as my amd chip. its all dependent on the computer. all i know is i went from amd/ati to intel/nvidia and it has been awesome, not a single problem. but like i said, its all in the computer, but i dont think nvidia rips off their customers.

iJon

job
Aug 16, 2003, 03:44 PM
I think ATi's cards offer more bang for their buck.

A comparison at insidemacgames.com between the Radeon 7500 and Geforce 4MX shows that while both offer similar 3D performance, the Radeon beats the Geforce in 2D, color, and DVD playback.

If you want raw 3D horsepower, it's a near tie between the two, the only difference being cost and your AGP connection type (2X/4X). However I think ATi's products are better all-round cards allowing for a more balanced every day use.

cb911
Aug 16, 2003, 04:47 PM
i'd go for the ATi anytime. besides from most of the benchmarks i've seen, for some reason i always associate nVidia as having the mentality of going for more MHz, and ATi as having a better way of handling data.

There's only so much you can do by making your cards faster and bigger. 256MB RAM might 'futureproof' your machine for a while, but 256MB provideds virtually no performance increase over 128MB, except when playing games in high resolution, where large texture's are used. (for example 1280x1024, more noticable when playing at 1600x1200 or higher.)

I'm betting that ATi will develop better technology, instead of just making their cards bigger and faster.

Rezet
Aug 16, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by job
I think ATi's cards offer more bang for their buck.

A comparison at insidemacgames.com between the Radeon 7500 and Geforce 4MX shows that while both offer similar 3D performance, the Radeon beats the Geforce in 2D, color, and DVD playback.

If you want raw 3D horsepower, it's a near tie between the two, the only difference being cost and your AGP connection type (2X/4X). However I think ATi's products are better all-round cards allowing for a more balanced every day use.

Nah man, I disagree. nVidia's latest 256mbs card (forgot the name of it) costs just as much as Ati's 9600 pro i think.

Powerbook G5
Aug 16, 2003, 08:42 PM
ATi seems to have the lead on technology right now, how things will be a year from now is anyone's guess, but if I could choose which chip goes in my next PowerBook, I'd go for ATi without a moment's pause.

mim
Aug 16, 2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
ATi seems to have the lead on technology right now, how things will be a year from now is anyone's guess, but if I could choose which chip goes in my next PowerBook, I'd go for ATi without a moment's pause.

Yeh, I'm with you Powerbook G5 - ATI were the first of the graphic chip guys who started taking laptop graphics power seriously. However unreasonable that errr....reason is, I would choose them.

The little sticker on my GameCube that says "powered by ATI" probably doesn't hurt either....:)

Vlade
Aug 16, 2003, 09:22 PM
Just to let some of you know, a 256 MB has the same performance as a 128 MB card 99% of the time, the only exception was in some games at 8X anti aliasing (but nobody would use that because 8X slows everything down too much on most newer games).

Anyways, it keeps going back and forth, whenever ATI releases something, its king, 3 months later, nVidia is king, 3 months later...

Powerbook G5
Aug 16, 2003, 09:26 PM
The Gamecube is just awesome, seriously--IBM PPC processor and ATi GPU...what else could you want?

mim
Aug 16, 2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
The Gamecube is just awesome, seriously--IBM PPC processor and ATi GPU...what else could you want?

Eternal Darkness 2!

Powerbook G5
Aug 16, 2003, 09:49 PM
When I got Eternal Darkness, I played it to death until I finally beat it. I swear, that game is just too awesome, I love all the ambiance...and for the longest time, I was freaked out by the insanity effect when things would "go wrong" or just baffle me until I figured out what was happening...dude, I got a heart attack when it flashed to a blue screen of death...I seriously thought it had crashed and I was like "Noooo, I didn't save yet!"

Rezet
Aug 16, 2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
When I got Eternal Darkness, I played it to death until I finally beat it. I swear, that game is just too awesome, I love all the ambiance...and for the longest time, I was freaked out by the insanity effect when things would "go wrong" or just baffle me until I figured out what was happening...dude, I got a heart attack when it flashed to a blue screen of death...I seriously thought it had crashed and I was like "Noooo, I didn't save yet!"

Eternal darkness is a good game. Too bad it's one of not many on gamecube. I persoanlly prefer XBOX's edition of Silent Hill 2 for "Creepy - Scary" effects...

Powerbook G5
Aug 16, 2003, 10:58 PM
I just recently saw the commercials for Silent Hill 3, it looks cool but it just says it's for PS2 for now. I never bothered playing the Xbox version of Silent Hill 2 since I already beat it on the PS2 long before it came out for the Xbox...but since I sold my PS2 (for more than I paid for it, too!) I guess I'll have to wait and see if it comes out.

couch potato
Aug 17, 2003, 03:08 PM
ill still go with nVidia, although i like both companies. nvidia has much better drivers, especially on the PC......but that doesny make a difference.....does it. crud, i just proved myself wrong again:rolleyes:

Powerbook G5
Aug 17, 2003, 03:23 PM
I don't really care which chip goes into Xbox 2 as long as it runs games like Halo 3...

capitalhood
Aug 17, 2003, 04:00 PM
Hold it!

Remember something first.

The g4 is only and can only be made by moto, if t could be done by ibm they would be much faster so apple should get cards from both incase one company goes bad

Powerbook G5
Aug 17, 2003, 04:33 PM
I'm confused...where does the G4 come in when asking what graphics chip one prefers?

LethalWolfe
Aug 17, 2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I'm confused...where does the G4 come in when asking what graphics chip one prefers?


I'm more confused. What does the G4 have to do w/MS using ATi in its next console?


Lethal

Vlade
Aug 17, 2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I'm confused...where does the G4 come in when asking what graphics chip one prefers?

I think he replied to the wrong thread :p

Mac Kiwi
Aug 17, 2003, 06:19 PM
Nvidia at least have dual planes ability in their game cards as well the Quadros,with ATI you have to buy a Fire GL to get it.Dual planes gives you the ability to have many many objects in your veiwer window and be able to move them all around more easily within a 3D app,dont know if it would make any difference or not to gaming,am assuming not.

ColoJohnBoy
Aug 17, 2003, 06:19 PM
In my experience ATI card last longer and maintain high performance throughout their lifetime. nVidia's have broken down peristently in my experience, wearing out, and seriously degrading in performance over a relatively short period of time. Go ATI.