Originally posted by Beowulf:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
I don't agree with this at all. (And I have a full 3D QA lab at my house, including every GF and ATI card made.) I am a certified developer for both ATI and Nvidia, and ATI's drivers blow Nvidia out of the water. GF's are known for everything from screen artifacts to loss of textures, simply from driver issues. Not to mention the shader support in the ATI cards actually follows the standards, instead of inventing their own (PS/VS3.0 on the GFFX line). Plus, side by side, the ATI's consistantly outperform the GF cards (fresh machines, loaded via my central Ghost server). I am not talking about "on paper" tests, I am talking full out 3D benchmarking my entire 3D engine against multiple cards, which pinpoint exact bottlenecks in the ASM calls, directly pointing me to hardware faults. I have reported no less than 5 serious bugs with NV drivers over the past 2 years, and I have yet to find a single flaw like this in any of the ATI drivers.
E1
That is great for whatever other hardware you are running, but in my experience, ATI = crashes. So far the only crashes I have had with my Nvidia card are when I was pushing it a little harder than I should have.
I would have to agree, i have also owned 4 ati cards in the past 3-4 years, 2 all-in-wonders, I have had so many problems with them its not even funny. You try over clocking them and half the time even at small overclocks things would just scramble in games. I have my card overclocked 30% on my nbox 5900u. no problems what so ever, and I run everything I do at top resolutions and have yet to have any problems with my nvidia card. Been running it for almost a year now.
A good alternative to ati and nvidia drivers are omega drivers.
95 SES Sold
99 SE Sport Sold
99 SVT T-Red Tan Interior. K&N, Magnecors, 19' Theorys, And some audio stuff.
| 
