Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDude
My next card will probably be ATI though, I like their drivers better now that I have used both (I had a 9600pro way back).
BTW ATI can do dual cards too, it's called Crossfire. Unless you mean the 7950x2s. Which I think are a complete waste as many games make no use of the extra card at all.
|
I have used almost exclusively ATI cards for over 6 years now, and can't see that changing in the near future. They have long put in features that NVidia does not (DVD encoder, TV Tuner, stable all-in-one drivers). And they have an impressive line of cards going back for 15 years.
NVidia simply seems to have far to many bugs for me to ever consider them. Who cares if they have the "current best" card on the market, if they can't consistantly make stable drivers? It seems that every-other weak I read or hear about the newest NVidia driver being buggy, and causing lock-ups and crashes.
Many times I have downloaded a GeForce driver from the NVidia website, only to discover that for some reason it does not work. I then have to hunt around for the driver that really will work for that card. I have never had that problem with any Radeon that I have ever installed.
And I agree about the single-card SLI cards. The "one card SLI" simply has not performed as promised. And in every review of the X1950 I have ever read, it gives better performance then any single-card SLI card made (and even better then a lot of dual-card SLI systems).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TESAmadeus
Microsoft are wanting to release vista as 64 bit only, which would put AMD back in the lead if they did that because the AMD processors are 64 bit, whereas the intel including the conroe chip are not true 64 bit they have 64 bit memory extensions but that is it.
|
Vista is going to come in both 32 and 64 bit versions. In fact, both versions will be on the same install DVD. The key number you enter during install will determine which version of Vista is installed on your system.
In fact, even the next versions (Vienna) is going to support 32 bit systems. However, that will more then likely be the last version (althought that is always subject to change).
The major reason why Intel does not use the "true" 64 bit chipset is that it would mean they have to pay AMD royalties to do so. Needless to say, Intel is very reluctant to do so.
AMD has been trumping Intel for the last 6 years, and this is simply another example. Intel had the chance to be the "64 bit standard" 4 years ago, and they blew it. They released the "Itanium", and MicroSoft made a special version of XP (XP for IA-64) just for it. However, the chip was so expensive that it never saw wide-spread use, and MS lost millions of dollars on the project.
At the same time, AMD released a much lower cost 64 bit chip (AMD64), and agreed to allow other chip makers to license it (Intel refused to allow licensing of Itanium). Because of this, when MS made their next versions of 64 bit Windows (XP for 64 Bit and Vista), they decided to use the AMD instruction set instead of the Intel set.
After being the only maker of 64 bit chips for the home market for 3 years, Intel finally decided to enter the field in the middle of this year with the Intel EM64T. But for a large segment of the market, it was seen as "to little - to late". After all, for the last 3 years they have been trying to tell us that 64 bit computers were only for businesses, and the homeowner would never need them. And while every chip AMD now makes is 64 bit, Intel is still selling both 32 bit desktop processors (P4) and almost all of their laptop chips are 32 bit.
Overall, Intel no longer impresses me. I build and repair over 20 systems a week, and still prefer AMD over Intel. And I can't see that changing in the next 3 years. And with AMD now buying ATI and Intel wanting to enter the market with their own video card again, it makes me even more resistant to buying Intel. I remember their last entries into the graphics market, and frankly they all sucked.