Hd 4850 vs 9800 gtx+? Ur opinion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If things were fair, Nvidia would put more shaders in their cards...thats what hurting them in performance.

The shaders are clocked high, but theres not enough of them.
 
nah, its just the way it is.

more shaders - more performance.

ATI cards perform better when theyre stressed harder since they have more shaders.

Nvidia cards dont perform as well, since they have less...but perform betterr under lower
stress.

This is true for folding....though i guess you could carry it over to gaming as well.

The current work units stress the cards, but not as hard as the new ones which were supposed to be coming out (but held back for technical reasons) but for the few days they were out, the Nvidia guys were mad cause they all lost about 20-40% ppd, while the ATI guys gained some ppd, not as much but still the gap became smaller.

ATI- High performance under high stress

Nvidia - Higher performance, but under lower stress

Thats how it looks right now. If they lose the small work units and throw nothing but big ones, ill drop Nvidia from my main rig and move to ATI.
 
If things were fair, Nvidia would put more shaders in their cards...thats what hurting them in performance.

The shaders are clocked high, but theres not enough of them.

That was a choice they made. That is completely fair. Your talking about equity not equality there is a difference.


ATIs design is much more forward looking. it begin with the 3000 series, matured in the 4000 and will culminate in the 5000. ATI will have a next gen completely scalable and modular system, making things fast and cheaper to produce. While Nvidia is still doing things the old way. They can't even scale the GT200 core back to make midrange cards, so they will just relabel the Geforce 9 cards as GTX100.
 
Yeah, nvidia should have thrown in more shaders.

They underestimated things this round, and are paying for it.

And with this name scheme crap theyre pulling now, im not too happy with them. It was cool during the 8 series, but they just ruined it with geforce 9.
 
nvidia's shaders work completely differnet than ati's shaders... its a whole different process which is why they don't need as many shaders...
 
nah, its just the way it is.

more shaders - more performance.

ATI cards perform better when theyre stressed harder since they have more shaders.

Nvidia cards dont perform as well, since they have less...but perform betterr under lower
stress.

This is true for folding....though i guess you could carry it over to gaming as well.

The current work units stress the cards, but not as hard as the new ones which were supposed to be coming out (but held back for technical reasons) but for the few days they were out, the Nvidia guys were mad cause they all lost about 20-40% ppd, while the ATI guys gained some ppd, not as much but still the gap became smaller.

ATI- High performance under high stress

Nvidia - Higher performance, but under lower stress

Thats how it looks right now. If they lose the small work units and throw nothing but big ones, ill drop Nvidia from my main rig and move to ATI.
It doesn't work exactly like that.
the ATI cards have stream processors in bigger clusters than Nvidia cards do.
If a single instruction is more complex, and can be split up into more parts (and processed by more of the shaders in the clusters), ATI's architecture will be at an advantage. Otherwise, not all of the shaders are being used at the same time.

i.e. ATI's architecture can do more complex instructions better. It's not just being under more stress.
 
Well i was coming from an F@H standpoint, where larger work units with more atoms do indeed stress the card more, because they use more of the shaders.

And by using more shaders, it completes the unit faster.

On the nvidia side, all the shaders are being used already...but you can get more performance by upping the shader clock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom