I need a new video card. Is there any advantage to having an Nvidia card over an ATI card, or are they pretty much about the same as far as 3d editing goes?
Nvidia. I had ATI for a while, and didn't have issues really. But Nvidia seems to be supported moreso with things like PhysX and also they updated their drivers once a month with performance increases in games and other fixes.
I was hoping that in this day and age that we wouldn't have to worry about one brand versus another, but I do think Nvidia is, overall, a little more friendly for 3d content creation.
I got an ATI card a few months ago because they had the edge on price and performance. It's been great for games, but I've not really been able to get CGFX shaders to work (yea, I know it's supposed to be an Nvidia thing), and have had other rendering artifacts when trying to preview stuff in real-time that I was able to do with my ancient Nvidia card. It's not a total deal-breaker, and it hasn't stopped me from doing most of what I want to do, but I probably would have waited for the recent Nvidia cards if I were to do it over again.
what id say, totally dependant on cpu:
ati+amd = GOOD!
nvidia+amd = EWWWWW! no, please dont!
nvidia + intel = GOOD!
ati + intel = meh ... it works... somehow
I just got the GTX 250. I know this card isn't all that great, but all you Starcraft players bought all the cards from the local stores so I was desperate and got this. It''s okay so far. Slightly better than my 9800 GT.
I just got the GTX 250. I know this card isn't all that great, but all you Starcraft players bought all the cards from the local stores so I was desperate and got this. It''s okay so far. Slightly better than my 9800 GT.
iirc the GTX 250 is a rebranded 9800GTX so it's probably not too much better :P
I fucking hate not having an Nvidia card with all the CUDA and PhysX stuff. It especially irks me when I can't utilize some really good GPU rendering applications and a few plugins with Maya.
Right now I own a 4870, but you can bet your ass I'm going Nvidia next time I buy a new system.
I'd love to support ATI cards since they're cheaper and perform just as well if not better than their Nvidia counterparts but I've read so many driver issues with 3D apps and games, my friend has a 4870 if I recall correctly and he's had issues with pretty much every game he's played lately. Plus Nvidia has PhysX, CUDA and all that shit.
Dont know how you guys are getting driver issues...had ATI for the longest time and havent had a single problem. The only thing I was longing for was EVGA or XFX to come over to ATI and now that it has been or was done, Im glad. Now the critical decision of 68xx series cards or 58xx cards...mhhmmmm
I got a 5770 for FREE, which should be a bit faster than my 8800GT, and well... Its in the HTPC as i couldn't rely on it to be stable in a dev machine.
I really like what's going on with the new 400 series cards. The Fermi chip architecture gives options for some really neat stuff.
Though, as I speak now I've had to switch out to an older card, as the only drivers available for my GTX 460 cause a lock up at windows start up that I can not work around yet.
i bought a 5770 for a old machine i use to play games (i can play l4d2 and all the games at 1080p, with all the settings to the max, crysis in high quality). It's a cool graphic videocard, but too many problems with drivers, i was sick of so many "grey banded screens" that frozens the computer. With the newest drivers, In modo it's a shit for selections, ages to select a few polygons in a typical model of mine. With the vendor driver i had crashes, windows restarts, blue screens and grey screens all the time, and just moving the mouse.
For work, it's better a nvidia (although is more expensive). Better drivers and better perfomance in apps. With nvidia we can have things like octane renderer, an unbiased renderer similar to Maxwell but in almost realtime.
The 5xxx series have too many issues with drivers, just check out http://blogs.amd.com/play/ and read the comments. I'm very with Ati, but i can't complain, i bought a cheap videocard with good perfomance, for 1/3 of what i needed to pay for a nvidia. With catalyst 10.5 i'm fine but i wish to have the perfomance of the vendor driver without crashes.
what id say, totally dependant on cpu:
ati+amd = GOOD!
nvidia+amd = EWWWWW! no, please dont!
nvidia + intel = GOOD!
ati + intel = meh ... it works... somehow
In general people feel that nVidia is the safer bet, better compatibility with apps. Then again, I haven't had any issues with my HD4870 in modo or mudbox.
Autocon & arrangemonk:
I just have to ask: based on what? It doesn't matter if you run AMD+ATI, Intel+AMD, Intel+nVidia or AMD+nVidia. The combinations aren't important.
The thing that is important, is how well CPUs compare with each other and same with GPU. Then you pick the best from both categories. "Oh I have Intel, I can't get ATI GPU now". I don't see how it has any relevance. This is some sort of a misconception that has been going on for a long time it seems.
I haven't used any Nvidia but yea, if I was making a separate box for work and then games I'd have Nvidia consumer card in there. Tends to work better with Maya/Max etc. I mention consumer though cuz if you have the money, the professional cards from ATI work just as well as the Nvidia counterparts for quite a bit cheaper if I remember correctly.
BTW, I've only had a few problems with ATI drivers, nothing that'd get me to switch in a gaming rig. My 4870 works 100% for what I need so far.
Short version:
All hardware is unreliable shit but at least ATI is cheaper.
Long version:
I've always gone with Nvidia but after they fried my card with shitty drivers that completely broke the auto-fan control so it was permanently set to 40% fan speed (which I still can't get to work to this day so I have to use a separate program just to boost the fan speed) I'm probably going to switch to ATI next time. ATI cards may have lots of annoying little problems but at least if I have to replace one it's $150 instead of $300.
I'd try ATI again if I didn't have to pay for it. Nvidia has never caused me a problem and always done what I've asked with minimal fuss, I can't say the same for ATI.
The cards are fast, they get driver updates very regularly, Physx is native and Cuda is much more mature than OpenCL and supported by more programs.
Easy choice for me
I'm a little confused by some peoples comments on price, yes ATI is cheaper at the same performance point, but.... Like blaizer said, Nvidia is 3x more expensive? That is just silly man, generally you're looking at ATI being like 80% the cost of Nvidia, for the same performance, i'de like to know where some of you are getting the idea that there are these HUGE price differences... Yeah ATI is cheaper, but not so much so that you'de be crazy not to buy it, you just pay a little extra for Nvidia, which is worth it for the extra stability.
If Nvidia was 3x more expensive, they would go out of business. If people didn't think there was value in paying more for Nvidia over ATI, they would go out of business. Clearly the market has spoken time and time again, you look at steam hardware survey and see these numbers:
Nvidia prices has been dropping in direct response to when ATI launched the HD58xx series though, back when nvidia only had their 2xx cards.
Nowadays the fastest cards are from nvidia, since they recently launched new cards.
ATI has progressed quite a bit from their bad-driver ridden days though.
When i bought the ati 5770, i had as alternative the nvidia old gtxs. My ati cost me 130 euros with shipmment in pixmania, and a gtx260 was like 300 euros with shipment. The gtx 275 were too expensive for me. I really don't understand why such high prices.
Prices has been dropped, but not much, now that 5770 can be found for 100 euros and it's a real good choice for games.
The new GTX 460 is here for more than 200 euro, and its perfomance is not quite good.
The 470 is in perfomance like the old gtx285 (330 euro now), and you see prices around 299-350 euro.
Ati has better prices compared to nvidia, and a wider range of choices with good perfomance.
People know about the driver issues with ati, and they pay more for better perfomance/stability. I wish i could have the gtx285 my brother has, but i'm not going to pay 400 euro for a brick that will be obsolete in 2 years, and more for gaming.
Anyways, although Ati still have problems with their drivers, i don't care a lot when there are some stable drivers like 10.5.
Although as some have mentioned that dollar for dollar ATI will get you more bang for your buck, however, I've had bad experience with ATI cards not properly supported in Maya and Max, so I went back to Nvidia and never looked back.
the cheaper fermi cards are coming out soon and should give equal price/performance as the ati ones. for me the developer stuff that nvidia provides is also a major reason to go with them (cuda, optix...).
Although as some have mentioned that dollar for dollar ATI will get you more bang for your buck, however, I've had bad experience with ATI cards not properly supported in Maya and Max, so I went back to Nvidia and never looked back.
Same, it was hell with blender, framerate was always constantly low, but all those problems were gone with the HD series.
Both nVidia and ATI have their share of driver problems. I don't think there's a big difference between the two regarding drivers. nVidia has had some issues like with the Vista BSOD debacle and so fort. They aren't perfect either.
Blaizer, actually the GTX460 is the card to get right now in it's price range. Performs really good, do some research.
I got the 5870 and i dont have any driver issues with it + it's pretty much noise-less and operates in low temperatures and is not extremely power hungry.
I switched from 8800gt which i ran for 2 years (i think) with custom (quite quiet as well) cooling.
Had an ATi card once, never again. Nothing but headaches. Nvidia has run flawlessly for me on AMD and Intel systems alike. Been using a 9800GT card for two years now, works perfect, even with modern games. More than I need for now.
Blaizer, actually the GTX460 is the card to get right now in it's price range. Performs really good, do some research.
I already own a 5770 , when i bought it, i only had GTXs 260, 280 or 285 as nvidia options. The new gtxs weren't in the market. I really would like to have the new 460 as option, but i could not be always waiting.
Now, the gtx 460 is one of the cheaper options from nvidia and it perfoms almost a 40% more than the 5770 (in some games). But, its price is almost the double.
Now, the gtx 460 is one of the cheaper options from nvidia and it perfoms almost a 40% more than the 5770 (in some games). But, its price is almost the double.
Yep, it's really crazy. The RAM modules here are very very expensive aswell. We bought 4GB Corsair DDR2 800mhz CL4 for 68 euro, and now, the same 4 gbs, are for 170 euros. And it's not DDR3.
Here's an updated bench of the new Final Fantasy XIV. There's no doubt that for games, actual 5870 are better than nvidia. This is just another bench.
With my 5770, in high, and 1080p, the bench is very smooth, i have great fps.
ATI have good reviews so far and I couldnt find a good review for Nvidia. Who knew that making of entry level work station would be such a 6 month worth of hassle on just deciding.
Nitewalker, ATI's workstations cards have really nice reviews. I'd also double check the underlying architecture of those two cards. That FirePro could be from the 48xx generation or the 58xx generation of cards. Likewise, that Quadro could be from the G92 or the G100.
Hmm, tempted to buy a new graphic card, though can't really afford it these days, but my ATI Radeon HD 4800 is always crappying out when doing shaders. Thought about getting a nVidia GTX 460 1024 mb, for about £185. Just wish I could afford something better. :P
ATI have good reviews so far and I couldnt find a good review for Nvidia. Who knew that making of entry level work station would be such a 6 month worth of hassle on just deciding.
I know what you mean. I've just ordered a 1GB FirePro v4800 (which isn't that much more than the 3800s btw) and that will complete my system that's taken about 5 months to Build, well, afford.
There's no doubt that for games, actual 5870 are better than nvidia. This is just another bench.
With my 5770, in high, and 1080p, the bench is very smooth, i have great fps.
Actually, I do have quite some doubts when you show a benchmark where the 5970 is outperformed by the 5850, 5870, GTX470 and GTX295. IMO this has written 'shitty optimization' all over it.
Most benchmarks I've seen so far show the 460 slightly below the 5850 and slightly above when overclocked.
Well, noob question: what are the real advantages of using a professional card like these instead of a gaming video card? Is there any performance gain in doing game art? I've always figured it must enhance things like offline rendering times and other heavy calculations of this kind.
Well, noob question: what are the real advantages of using a professional card like these instead of a gaming video card? Is there any performance gain in doing game art? I've always figured it must enhance things like offline rendering times and other heavy calculations of this kind.
When doing game art there's little to no gain. I'm using a Quadro FX 4800 at work and even though I'm working in architectural visulization where you get a shitload of polygons onscreen I only notice a larger performance boost above 5.000.000 tris. The real performance gain seems to come when you put your viewport down to wireframe mode - then the Quadro is about 3-4 times faster than a consumer card.
Considering the price of these cards I wouldn't recommend them for creating game assets.
The 5970 has issues with drivers. Too many people has problems with its perfomance in too many games. FFXIV is one example, but wait, ATI will fix the drivers making more bugs for other things :P
For gaming assets, talking about Quadros, we need the newer quadros (the equivalent to actual gamer cards), and for their price... it's better a cheap desktop graphic card of 100 dollars as much. For the work, we don't need to pay for the ultimate Hardcore gamer graphic card because in max, a 8400gs (20 euros) offers almost the same as an expensive GTX285 with OC (400 euros). Gamer cards are limited.
I work with a quadro 5500 i bought in ebay for more than 400 euro (it's Dell OEM), dx9, and well, i can't complain, and i don't change it for a silly gamer card like the ati 5770 i use for games. I can move more than 20 million of polygons in Max with ease and i create all the game art i do with it. A quadro is something quite serious, it's meant for work.
In modo, with the 5770 i have problems selecting the polygons, all very slow, but working with quadro... all is in a different universe. Anyways, i can work with the ati, but not in the same league.
FirePro's and Quadro's have same GPU's in their heart as the consumer cards. The biggest difference is in the other hardware, as PCB quality, better components - and of course drivers. That's the thing that differentiates them from the gaming line. And you pay a hefty premium for those advantages.
Drivers optimized for workstation software. They have a guarantee to work. Unlike the consumer drivers that are mostly geared towards gaming, but most do run professional software without a hitch.
Blaizer, I haven't noticed that issue on my HD4870. Could you describe the selection issue in more detail? Is it linked to the amount of polygons on screen or ?
When doing game art there's little to no gain. I'm using a Quadro FX 4800 at work and even though I'm working in architectural visulization where you get a shitload of polygons onscreen I only notice a larger performance boost above 5.000.000 tris. The real performance gain seems to come when you put your viewport down to wireframe mode - then the Quadro is about 3-4 times faster than a consumer card.
Considering the price of these cards I wouldn't recommend them for creating game assets.
What about, Game assets and 3d WIPs, 3d animation (in high def)
Cuz I would buy Dell Studio XPS 9100, instead of Dell T3500 with ATI FirePro. If you would recommend that.
Because I figured Quadro and FirePro are at the same level.
I am not a professional 3d artist/game developer, but a learner. And been planning on creating my work space for some time now.
I do wish to learn every aspect of 3D art/animation, along with game dev.
This may not be worth mentioning at a place like this, but I saw an article some time ago concerning 2D acceleration and performance - and ATI cards won out. Not initially (newer nVidia and ATI cards both had surprisingly sub-par performance - cards that could knock Crysis on its ass had pathetic 2D acceleration), but they specifically responded to the article and their new catalyst drivers really helped out in the 2D department, putting them atop nVidia from that standpoint.
Personally I've been using ATI cards for as long as I can remember, and I've never had issue. On my old 9800 Pro I had a few driver issues but it wasn't difficult to find a compatible version. Since then my x850xt pe, and my sapphire HD4890 toxic have both run flawlessly.
My work computer's running an nVidia card and it seems stable enough, though. I've just never bought one myself. At some point in the future, my next upgrade might be an nVidia card just so I can try it out. It's a little disappointing going without PhysX and the like...but I've had such good experiences with ATI I'm not sure if I can convince myself to switch.
Blaizer, I haven't noticed that issue on my HD4870. Could you describe the selection issue in more detail? Is it linked to the amount of polygons on screen or ?
With medium detailed Subdiv models, at the time of selecting polygons, it does not select them as they should. With a rectangular selection, it takes ages to select them, and i need to press tab to turn the subdivision off for a fast selection.
And it's the same with the other kind of selections like the paint selection, it does not select all what i paint. It's something very annoying, it kills the workflow when we reach models of more than 500k subdivided, that is nothing great in details.
With the vendor driver this weren't a big problem, but with the catalyst 10.x, it's a nuisance for atis 5xxx. A friend of mine had the same problem with a 5870, and he returned the graphic card.
Replies
I got an ATI card a few months ago because they had the edge on price and performance. It's been great for games, but I've not really been able to get CGFX shaders to work (yea, I know it's supposed to be an Nvidia thing), and have had other rendering artifacts when trying to preview stuff in real-time that I was able to do with my ancient Nvidia card. It's not a total deal-breaker, and it hasn't stopped me from doing most of what I want to do, but I probably would have waited for the recent Nvidia cards if I were to do it over again.
ati+amd = GOOD!
nvidia+amd = EWWWWW! no, please dont!
nvidia + intel = GOOD!
ati + intel = meh ... it works... somehow
ATI really jumped ahead of nvidia with that series, extremely fast, and much cheaper than the nvidia equalents.
ATI has redeemed themselves nowadays, and are equal with nvidia, and have much stable drivers nowadays.
iirc the GTX 250 is a rebranded 9800GTX so it's probably not too much better :P
Right now I own a 4870, but you can bet your ass I'm going Nvidia next time I buy a new system.
which is simmilar to cuda
Though, as I speak now I've had to switch out to an older card, as the only drivers available for my GTX 460 cause a lock up at windows start up that I can not work around yet.
For work, it's better a nvidia (although is more expensive). Better drivers and better perfomance in apps. With nvidia we can have things like octane renderer, an unbiased renderer similar to Maxwell but in almost realtime.
The 5xxx series have too many issues with drivers, just check out http://blogs.amd.com/play/ and read the comments. I'm very
It's a pity all the thing about ati drivers.
this is what i have noticed over the years
Autocon & arrangemonk:
I just have to ask: based on what? It doesn't matter if you run AMD+ATI, Intel+AMD, Intel+nVidia or AMD+nVidia. The combinations aren't important.
The thing that is important, is how well CPUs compare with each other and same with GPU. Then you pick the best from both categories. "Oh I have Intel, I can't get ATI GPU now". I don't see how it has any relevance. This is some sort of a misconception that has been going on for a long time it seems.
BTW, I've only had a few problems with ATI drivers, nothing that'd get me to switch in a gaming rig. My 4870 works 100% for what I need so far.
All hardware is unreliable shit but at least ATI is cheaper.
Long version:
I've always gone with Nvidia but after they fried my card with shitty drivers that completely broke the auto-fan control so it was permanently set to 40% fan speed (which I still can't get to work to this day so I have to use a separate program just to boost the fan speed) I'm probably going to switch to ATI next time. ATI cards may have lots of annoying little problems but at least if I have to replace one it's $150 instead of $300.
OpenCL will be nice when its stable, but I think for now the only art related GPGPU project that isnt using CUDA is the realtime Luxrender spinoff.
The cards are fast, they get driver updates very regularly, Physx is native and Cuda is much more mature than OpenCL and supported by more programs.
Easy choice for me
If Nvidia was 3x more expensive, they would go out of business. If people didn't think there was value in paying more for Nvidia over ATI, they would go out of business. Clearly the market has spoken time and time again, you look at steam hardware survey and see these numbers:
59% Nvidia
33% ATI
There must be something to it.
Nvidia prices has been dropping in direct response to when ATI launched the HD58xx series though, back when nvidia only had their 2xx cards.
Nowadays the fastest cards are from nvidia, since they recently launched new cards.
ATI has progressed quite a bit from their bad-driver ridden days though.
Prices has been dropped, but not much, now that 5770 can be found for 100 euros and it's a real good choice for games.
The new GTX 460 is here for more than 200 euro, and its perfomance is not quite good.
The 470 is in perfomance like the old gtx285 (330 euro now), and you see prices around 299-350 euro.
Ati has better prices compared to nvidia, and a wider range of choices with good perfomance.
People know about the driver issues with ati, and they pay more for better perfomance/stability. I wish i could have the gtx285 my brother has, but i'm not going to pay 400 euro for a brick that will be obsolete in 2 years, and more for gaming.
Anyways, although Ati still have problems with their drivers, i don't care a lot when there are some stable drivers like 10.5.
the cheaper fermi cards are coming out soon and should give equal price/performance as the ati ones. for me the developer stuff that nvidia provides is also a major reason to go with them (cuda, optix...).
Same, it was hell with blender, framerate was always constantly low, but all those problems were gone with the HD series.
Blaizer, actually the GTX460 is the card to get right now in it's price range. Performs really good, do some research.
I switched from 8800gt which i ran for 2 years (i think) with custom (quite quiet as well) cooling.
I already own a 5770
Now, the gtx 460 is one of the cheaper options from nvidia and it perfoms almost a 40% more than the 5770 (in some games). But, its price is almost the double.
ati 5770 ~ 100-120 euros
nvidia gtx 460 ~ 200-250 euros
Anyways, with the ati 5770 i have a videocard for various years, and i can play at 1080p with max specs
That's crazy. These two cards are like ATI 5770($160) vs GTX460($200) in the US, which makes the GTX460 deal all the better.
Here's an updated bench of the new Final Fantasy XIV. There's no doubt that for games, actual 5870 are better than nvidia. This is just another bench.
With my 5770, in high, and 1080p, the bench is very smooth, i have great fps.
And if you want to try the bench and see the art: http://download.nvidia.com/downloads/nZone/demos/FFXIVBenchmark.zip
256MB ATI FirePro V3750.
and
512MB NVIDIA® Quadro® FX 580
ATI have good reviews so far and I couldnt find a good review for Nvidia.
Who knew that making of entry level work station would be such a 6 month worth of hassle on just deciding.
I know what you mean. I've just ordered a 1GB FirePro v4800 (which isn't that much more than the 3800s btw) and that will complete my system that's taken about 5 months to Build, well, afford.
Most benchmarks I've seen so far show the 460 slightly below the 5850 and slightly above when overclocked.
Considering the price of these cards I wouldn't recommend them for creating game assets.
For gaming assets, talking about Quadros, we need the newer quadros (the equivalent to actual gamer cards), and for their price... it's better a cheap desktop graphic card of 100 dollars as much. For the work, we don't need to pay for the ultimate Hardcore gamer graphic card because in max, a 8400gs (20 euros) offers almost the same as an expensive GTX285 with OC (400 euros). Gamer cards are limited.
I work with a quadro 5500 i bought in ebay for more than 400 euro (it's Dell OEM), dx9, and well, i can't complain, and i don't change it for a silly gamer card like the ati 5770 i use for games. I can move more than 20 million of polygons in Max with ease and i create all the game art i do with it. A quadro is something quite serious, it's meant for work.
one example from ebay but a bit expensive to be OEM: http://shop.ebay.es/data-flow/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p3686
In modo, with the 5770 i have problems selecting the polygons, all very slow, but working with quadro... all is in a different universe. Anyways, i can work with the ati, but not in the same league.
Drivers optimized for workstation software. They have a guarantee to work. Unlike the consumer drivers that are mostly geared towards gaming, but most do run professional software without a hitch.
Blaizer, I haven't noticed that issue on my HD4870. Could you describe the selection issue in more detail? Is it linked to the amount of polygons on screen or ?
What about, Game assets and 3d WIPs, 3d animation (in high def)
Cuz I would buy Dell Studio XPS 9100, instead of Dell T3500 with ATI FirePro. If you would recommend that.
Because I figured Quadro and FirePro are at the same level.
I am not a professional 3d artist/game developer, but a learner. And been planning on creating my work space for some time now.
I do wish to learn every aspect of 3D art/animation, along with game dev.
Personally I've been using ATI cards for as long as I can remember, and I've never had issue. On my old 9800 Pro I had a few driver issues but it wasn't difficult to find a compatible version. Since then my x850xt pe, and my sapphire HD4890 toxic have both run flawlessly.
My work computer's running an nVidia card and it seems stable enough, though. I've just never bought one myself. At some point in the future, my next upgrade might be an nVidia card just so I can try it out. It's a little disappointing going without PhysX and the like...but I've had such good experiences with ATI I'm not sure if I can convince myself to switch.
With medium detailed Subdiv models, at the time of selecting polygons, it does not select them as they should. With a rectangular selection, it takes ages to select them, and i need to press tab to turn the subdivision off for a fast selection.
And it's the same with the other kind of selections like the paint selection, it does not select all what i paint. It's something very annoying, it kills the workflow when we reach models of more than 500k subdivided, that is nothing great in details.
With the vendor driver this weren't a big problem, but with the catalyst 10.x, it's a nuisance for atis 5xxx. A friend of mine had the same problem with a 5870, and he returned the graphic card.