Which ATI or Nvidia card?

[Svartalf]

Are the GF 8-series really that problematic? Perhaps, Nvidia is concentrating on perfecting drivers on the Direct X10 cards? For both Windoze and Linux?

In reality, both NVidia and ATI spent considerable effort and resources to get to DX10, only to have Vista fizzle on them. In the case of NVidia, they had better staffing, etc. on the Linux side, and while there ARE issues, the cards DO work at least a little better under Linux in the stability space than ATI's comparable parts. ATI kind of almost put all their eggs in one basket before AMD came along and the driver's...well...it's got good performance, in 3D, when you can get it to work on your chipset. It's less than what I would consider an honestly finished driver. The ATI fglrx 8.41 drivers are more akin to what I'd call an ALPHA in quality- which is why I'm reccomending what I am right at the moment.

But, if a 7-series is best, the 7600 GT is around $100 but is the 7900 GS significantly better (suited)?

If you're looking for largely glitch-free operation, the 7-series is the best choice right now for peak performance and all. Having said this, a 7600GT should do most of what you're gunning for. If you're looking for peak 3D performance on top of everything else, you'll want the 7900GS- hands down. In terms of what is currently available that works it's the best you can get. If you're willing to put up with a few glitches, the G80 based parts are a better bet right now and if you're willing to wait a bit for AMD to get their ducks all in a row (and they're NOT there yet...)- the X2600 has the highest promise and performance, if the on-paper specs and what we've seen from the part in the Windows world is any indicator. I'd not wait, though- it may be a while before that ATI part's really usable for any but the technically advanced and brave of heart.

[Kano]

The cheap DX10 cards are more or less a marketing gag as they are not fast enough even when you use V and a game with DX10 effects. ATI is faster with those effects in very rare DX10 benchmarks - for NV only the highend boards with 8800 or maybe the 8600 GTS would be fast enough. Funnyly V SP1 will have DX10.1 and requires a new card again The 7900 series has 256 bit ram instead of 128 bit for the 85/8600 series, so higher res are faster with it.

[Svartalf]

The cheap DX10 cards are more or less a marketing gag as they are not fast enough even when you use V and a game with DX10 effects. ATI is faster with those effects in very rare DX10 benchmarks - for NV only the highend boards with 8800 or maybe the 8600 GTS would be fast enough. Funnyly V SP1 will have DX10.1 and requires a new card again The 7900 series has 256 bit ram instead of 128 bit for the 85/8600 series, so higher res are faster with it.

Intrinsically, DX10, by and of itself is a boondoggle- something specified by Microsoft to "differentiate" Vista from XP and try to spur sales of it instead of people staying with what they've got. Performance with the stuff on DX10 has been...embarrassing...from what I have been led to believe. This is less due to the hardware, and more due to the new driver framework Microsoft INSISTED upon for Vista.

It brings some new things to the table, but the things that it DOES bring to the table aren't worth the current trouble to get 'em (Oh, and BTW, there's already part of the needed ARB extensions to support that functionality in OGL, and the rest is on it's way... NVidia should support them, and with the new driver (IF they ever stabilize it...) ATI should too...).

[Panix]

Hmmm... this is getting complicated.

What if I also want the card to be HDCP compliant/capable? I know the 8600 GTS cards and up are and some 8600 GT cards are. I'm not sure about the GF 7 series. Some are, some aren't? I am trying to research which ones are.

I think a 7600 GT sounds like a compromise and then I could wait until later (to see which company can provide the most improved drivers). I have a computer with an X300SE card in it and I haven't tried yet to install the drivers properly. So, I am unsure whether I'll run into problems. I have Kubuntu installed and just use default (VESA?) drivers for now. But, I want to learn how to install the proper open source and/or proprietary drivers for the particular card I get.

Can anyone tell me how much cpu utilization will occur depending on 7600 GT, 7900 GS and 8600 GT (considering the "quirks") with a Quad Core cpu (Q6600)? I ask this about video playback and encoding. I am just curious. Should I take that into consideration or is the processor powerful enough to make the choice of graphics card (if GF 7 series) negligible?

Sorry for more questions. I'll research, too, but it's helpful to confirm any perceptions or potential answers I might find. Thanks again!!

[Panix]

Sorry to resurrect this thread but do all your opinions and assessments still stand?:

With the recent developments with ATI's drivers, are there any ATI cards to consider or is Nvidia still the safer choice? I notice there's another 'ATI or Nvidia' thread going on, too.

Is there any updates with Nvidia G84 cards (8600 series)?

Or is the 7900 GS still the choice when it's Nvidia? It is still expensive in this neck of the woods, can you believe that? Around $200 and up. What about the 7950 GT? How does that compare? If 8600GTS cards are priced similar to the 7900GS cards, which would you choose?

I'm still looking for a video card to accommodate my 2nd system. The current computer has an ATI X300SE in there. I used Envy to install (8.41 drivers).