Originally posted by jnev_89
did you read what i wrote? nvidia's perform 99% as good as ati in games like HL2 (which caters to ati), whereas ati cards barely run games like doom 3 (which cater to nvidia). overall, nvidia has better performance. now, if you only run games like HL2 and don't care about games like doom 3, then yes, ati is probably better for you. otherwise, nvidia offers better overall performance. plus, if you run linux, nvidia has a HUGE advantage.
I have to disagree 100%. My Sapphire Radeon 9800SE LITE was able to get 30~40FPS in Doom 3, on Medium (I think, or High can't remember)... except a few parts where it dropped to 3 FPS but we won't go there hehe
You see, OpenGL is not truely *designed* for games. It's supposed to be used for multimedia applications (not games). Of course, Doom 3 is great and was designed with OpenGL. DirectX is optimized for gaming, designed for gaming, and is a lot better then OpenGL in many ways. And OpenGL is a lot better in its own ways.
I bet if Doom 3 was designed in Direct 3D, ATI would run just as good as any Nvidia.
Yes, I am an ATI guy- I will always stick with ATI.
My question is--how many games (commercial and big like Doom 3) actually USE OpenGL? I can't name many, really, all I can name is Doom 3.
So really, why should ATI spend extra time optimizing their cards for one simple game, when the developers of Doom 3 should of made it in DirectX?
Oh well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still my opinion
. Personally, I didn't like Doom 3. I like Half-Life 2 better.Doom 3 was dark, scary, and uh boring... although I do like being able to play on the computers such as the security cameras
As for Nvidia supporting Linux, that's all good and well but there are like no good games for Linux... very few. Also, for those few games ATI will just do fine with their current drivers.