Originally Posted by zingzong
ATI reigned in the R300 days, lost in the R600 days badly to Nvidia and now both are pretty much trading blows accross the board. Get your facts straight.
Thanks for the elucidation big guy. How is this different from what I wrote?
Originally Posted by pakotlar
ATI's technology since r300, with the noticeable exception of the r600 series, has absolutely murdered nvidia's in longevity. At the time they perform the same, but down the road, nVidia always loses out. It seems that nVidia develops for todays games, and usually wins or ties ATI (winning more often, at least this generation, and won in x1800 vs 7800 & 7900), but down the road, ATI's vision is proven to be the superior one.
Aka: During the product cycle nVidia's cards rival ATI's, winning more games than ATI or less (during that generation) depending on which series we're talking about. But roughly on par +/- ATI's part, at the time.
I said that ATI's products have historically been more future-proof. nVidia designs great products, but with some exception (g80 for instance) their products don't have legs as long as ATI's.
Worth noticing this generation, it seems that GT200's texturing subsystem is poorly developed, as it achieves very low levels of utilizations in quite a few non-trivial cases. The GTX 280 actually has lower texturing rates for color ops than 4870, never mind the 4890 1ghz. GT200 series as a whole has significantly less ALU power.
Anyways, besides the elegance of ATI's part, the fact is that it seems to be better engineered for new, shader-intensive games, and is beginning to consistently outperform its rival (with the highest end 925mhz + sku's, especially with regards to the 1ghz SKU). That's why I'm recommending the 4890 OC over the GTX275 right now. The 275 isn't a bad card though.