I've joined the ATI gang...

Cheers. But I've just downloaded the latest official CAT drivers so I'll
stick with them. What does these drivers offer over the standard drivers?

Bobby

"Dark Avenger" <superxml.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8c060a4f.0401191505.5eadb295@posting.google.com...
 > "Bobby" <bobby.TakeThisOut@europe.com> wrote in message
news:<buhanl$h7e09$1@ID-205685.news.uni-berlin.de>...
  > > I've just purchased an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro card - which is a pity since
I
  > > liked nVidia cards. Good drivers and rock solid performance.
  > >
  > > I wanted to upgrade my FX5200 card (I gave it to my daughter to speed up
her
  > > PC - which it has done) and originally bought an "FX5600". In fact, it
was
  > > an FX5600*XT* - which was a pile of pants. It felt slower than the 5200.
Why
  > > does nVidia do that?
  > >
  > > Since it was sold as an 5600, I took it back to the shop. No problem
  > > replacing it - although they seemed clueless when I explained that it
was an
  > > XT and "XT appears to be rubbish". Since they had no 5600s I purchased
the
  > > Radeon 9600 Pro - which has given me the performance boost I hoped for
with
  > > the 5600. It cost a bit more than I planned but I'm happy with the card.
  > >
  > > So it's off to the ATI newsgroup. Thanks for your advice during the last
  > > couple of weeks.
  > >
  > > BTW why do so many people in the nVidia newsgroup prefer ATIs to nVidia
  > > cards?
  > >
  > > Bobby
 >
 > Ah yup, the ati 9600 pro is a good card! Gives muchos power for
 > gaming!
 >
 > I highly suggest you to use the Omegacorner drivers, they are Ati
 > but..slightly adjusted and normally work slightly better to.
 >
 > Enjoy your ati, I hope it serves as good as it should!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

"Bobby" <bobby RemoveThis @europe.com> wrote in message news:<buhoc8$hv3m6$1@ID-205685.news.uni-berlin.de>...
 > Cheers. But I've just downloaded the latest official CAT drivers so I'll
 > stick with them. What does these drivers offer over the standard drivers?
 >
 > Bobby
 >
 > "Dark Avenger" <superxml RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:8c060a4f.0401191505.5eadb295@posting.google.com...
  > > "Bobby" <bobby RemoveThis @europe.com> wrote in message
 > news:<buhanl$h7e09$1@ID-205685.news.uni-berlin.de>...
   > > > I've just purchased an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro card - which is a pity since
 > I
   > > > liked nVidia cards. Good drivers and rock solid performance.
   > > >
   > > > I wanted to upgrade my FX5200 card (I gave it to my daughter to speed up
 > her
   > > > PC - which it has done) and originally bought an "FX5600". In fact, it
 > was
   > > > an FX5600*XT* - which was a pile of pants. It felt slower than the 5200.
 > Why
   > > > does nVidia do that?
   > > >
   > > > Since it was sold as an 5600, I took it back to the shop. No problem
   > > > replacing it - although they seemed clueless when I explained that it
 > was an
   > > > XT and "XT appears to be rubbish". Since they had no 5600s I purchased
 > the
   > > > Radeon 9600 Pro - which has given me the performance boost I hoped for
 > with
   > > > the 5600. It cost a bit more than I planned but I'm happy with the card.
   > > >
   > > > So it's off to the ATI newsgroup. Thanks for your advice during the last
   > > > couple of weeks.
   > > >
   > > > BTW why do so many people in the nVidia newsgroup prefer ATIs to nVidia
   > > > cards?
   > > >
   > > > Bobby
  > >
  > > Ah yup, the ati 9600 pro is a good card! Gives muchos power for
  > > gaming!
  > >
  > > I highly suggest you to use the Omegacorner drivers, they are Ati
  > > but..slightly adjusted and normally work slightly better to.
  > >
  > > Enjoy your ati, I hope it serves as good as it should!

Omegacorner drivers generally have removed bugs out of the drivers
while it takes ati untill their next version. Also they are slightly
faster and the image quality sigthly better.

Generally said, slightly better, but 4.1 are out and within 7 days you
can expect omega to offer you his version of it.

Remember, omegacorner is member of the ati beta driver test team,<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:21:24 -0000, "Bobby" <bobby DeleteThis @europe.com> wrote:

 >I've just purchased an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro card - which is a pity since I
 >liked nVidia cards. Good drivers and rock solid performance.
 >
 >I wanted to upgrade my FX5200 card (I gave it to my daughter to speed up her
 >PC - which it has done) and originally bought an "FX5600". In fact, it was
 >an FX5600*XT* - which was a pile of pants. It felt slower than the 5200. Why
 >does nVidia do that?
 >
 >Since it was sold as an 5600, I took it back to the shop. No problem
 >replacing it - although they seemed clueless when I explained that it was an
 >XT and "XT appears to be rubbish". Since they had no 5600s I purchased the
 >Radeon 9600 Pro - which has given me the performance boost I hoped for with
 >the 5600. It cost a bit more than I planned but I'm happy with the card.
 >
 >So it's off to the ATI newsgroup. Thanks for your advice during the last
 >couple of weeks.
 >
 >BTW why do so many people in the nVidia newsgroup prefer ATIs to nVidia
 >cards?
 >
That was an easy question...........

Trolls from the Ati newsgroup or postings to both groups by Ati fans.

John Lewis


 >Bobby
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:21:24 -0000, "Bobby" <bobby.TakeThisOut@europe.com> wrote:
 >
 >I wanted to upgrade my FX5200 card (I gave it to my daughter to speed up her
 >PC - which it has done) and originally bought an "FX5600". In fact, it was
 >an FX5600*XT* - which was a pile of pants. It felt slower than the 5200. Why
 >does nVidia do that?

ATI's 9600se is slower than the 9200/9000Pro... So its just than
Nvidia does it that much worse.

 >Since it was sold as an 5600, I took it back to the shop. No problem
 >replacing it - although they seemed clueless when I explained that it was an
 >XT and "XT appears to be rubbish". Since they had no 5600s I purchased the

Cause they STOPID.

 >Radeon 9600 Pro - which has given me the performance boost I hoped for with
 >the 5600. It cost a bit more than I planned but I'm happy with the card.

Good for you.

 >BTW why do so many people in the nVidia newsgroup prefer ATIs to nVidia
 >cards?

Because many 3D Card video owners are NOT brand loyal as they used to
be. When the ATI 9700 came out, many Nvidia couldn't believe it for
a while on how fast the card was. There were some die-hardcore freaks
(some moron called "ME" who called himself a computer god) who said it
was bull.

For years ATI made good cards, but they weren't much faster - if they
were and their drivers were CRAP but have gotten a whole lot better.
Nvidia drivers were great, but have gone to crap. So I consider both
of them to be equally junky.

When ATI9700Pro came out, it was $400... the Ti4600 was also $400 -
kinda hard to sell a card like that, when its half as fast!

A few months later (okay 4+) Nvidia shows the 5800, a $500 video card
that was LOUD, HUGE and exotic... IT should have stomped the ATI into
the ground.... being an extra few months late didn't help.... It
didn't compete well against the 9700Pro.... but as of today, with
current drivers- Nvidia fixed many of their performance problems.

It tooks months before it could be replaced with the 5200/5600/5900.

When the 5900 came out, Ati came out with the 9800Pro... and so now,
we have a GOOD healthy competition from these two.

Drivers cause severe damage to Nvidia's sales... Then they cheated
the drivers (Lower quality for faster frames) - that wasn't good.
With proper visual drivers, they were very slow... but todays 50.xx
drivers, they do very well agaisnt. ATI - which is still considered
the faster card for most cases - but OpenGL. But Nvidia's still
weaker with the FSAA modes compared to ATI.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-13.html#unreal_tournament_2003" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-13.html#unrea...ourname</a>

At one point, the drivers were SO bad (performance) that even the
9600Pro was better than a 5900 in some games.


I'm a UT2003 (more UT-classic still) player... so here, even the
9800Pro is still faster than the 5950Ultra (with 256mb).

The 5950 is a speed bump faster than the 5900. In the above link, the
fsp is 3! Than an extra $200 for 3fps! While an ATI PRO > ATI XT is
9fps... still not worth an extra $200 in my book

Depending on budget and gaming, I do recommend both cards... As long
as they are NOT 5200/5600 or ATI's 9200 or 9600se - UNLESS the person
is not a gamer.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:54:39 GMT, john.dsl.TakeThisOut@verizon.net (John Lewis)
wrote:

 >On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:21:24 -0000, "Bobby" <bobby.TakeThisOut@europe.com> wrote:
 >
  >>I've just purchased an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro card - which is a pity since I
  >>liked nVidia cards. Good drivers and rock solid performance.
  >>
  >>I wanted to upgrade my FX5200 card (I gave it to my daughter to speed up her
  >>PC - which it has done) and originally bought an "FX5600". In fact, it was
  >>an FX5600*XT* - which was a pile of pants. It felt slower than the 5200. Why
  >>does nVidia do that?
  >>
  >>Since it was sold as an 5600, I took it back to the shop. No problem
  >>replacing it - although they seemed clueless when I explained that it was an
  >>XT and "XT appears to be rubbish". Since they had no 5600s I purchased the
  >>Radeon 9600 Pro - which has given me the performance boost I hoped for with
  >>the 5600. It cost a bit more than I planned but I'm happy with the card.
  >>
  >>So it's off to the ATI newsgroup. Thanks for your advice during the last
  >>couple of weeks.
  >>
  >>BTW why do so many people in the nVidia newsgroup prefer ATIs to nVidia
  >>cards?
  >>
 >That was an easy question...........
 >
 >Trolls from the Ati newsgroup or postings to both groups by Ati fans.

Uh nope... Bobby is kind of like me... we both OWN and use ATI and
Nvidia cards. My 2nd PC is used regularly with my Ti4200.

I've owned: Nvidia (6 of them) and ATI (2 cards) and Voodoo (3 of
those).


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:44:51 GMT, Darthy
<DarthGates RemoveThis @microsoftsucksass.com> wrote:


 >Drivers cause severe damage to Nvidia's sales... Then they cheated
 >the drivers (Lower quality for faster frames) - that wasn't good.
 >With proper visual drivers, they were very slow... but todays 50.xx
 >drivers, they do very well agaisnt. ATI - which is still considered
 >the faster card for most cases - but OpenGL. But Nvidia's still
 >weaker with the FSAA modes compared to ATI.
 >
 >http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-13.html#unreal_tournament_2003
 >
 >At one point, the drivers were SO bad (performance) that even the
 >9600Pro was better than a 5900 in some games.

The non-existent HL2 ??
 >

And the Ati drivers created so many artifacts in so many games
that Ati finally decided to fix a few of them in Cat3.10 long after
some of the games were released. Too busy with DX9 optimizations
for Half-Life 2 and cozy chats with Valve, I suppose. See the
release notes on Cat 3.10.

John Lewis<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

John Lewis wrote:

 > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:44:51 GMT, Darthy
 > <DarthGates.RemoveThis@microsoftsucksass.com> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>Drivers cause severe damage to Nvidia's sales... Then they cheated
  >>the drivers (Lower quality for faster frames) - that wasn't good.
  >>With proper visual drivers, they were very slow... but todays 50.xx
  >>drivers, they do very well agaisnt. ATI - which is still considered
  >>the faster card for most cases - but OpenGL. But Nvidia's still
  >>weaker with the FSAA modes compared to ATI.
  >>
  >>http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-13.html#unreal_tournament_2003
  >>
  >>At one point, the drivers were SO bad (performance) that even the
  >>9600Pro was better than a 5900 in some games.
 >
 > The non-existent HL2 ??
  >>
 >
 > And the Ati drivers created so many artifacts in so many games
 > that Ati finally decided to fix a few of them in Cat3.10 long after
 > some of the games were released. Too busy with DX9 optimizations
 > for Half-Life 2 and cozy chats with Valve, I suppose. See the
 > release notes on Cat 3.10.

What do the release notes on an outdated driver have to do with anything?
 >
 > John Lewis

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

"Darthy" <DarthGates.RemoveThis@microsoftsucksass.com> wrote in message
news:4uqp00d4ubebr9gmavboba0nvj23li4oab@4ax.com...
   > >>BTW why do so many people in the nVidia newsgroup prefer ATIs to nVidia
   > >>cards?
   > >>
  > >That was an easy question...........
  > >
  > >Trolls from the Ati newsgroup or postings to both groups by Ati fans.
 >
 > Uh nope... Bobby is kind of like me... we both OWN and use ATI and
 > Nvidia cards.

The question wasn't why do you and Bobby prefer ATI. The question was why
do "so many people". His answer was intuitively the correct and obvious
one. Unless you're implying that anyone who owns both ATI and nVidia will
automatically prefer ATI, but then that fits in the "troll" category, eh?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

Its been well documented that Nvidia is highly optimizeing to compete, an on
the fly recomplier that takes DX9 code and donwgrades it to Nvidia specific
code or DX8 code, not enableing true tri-linear filtering. The FX line
doesn't "really" meet DX9 specs. ATI on the other hand just developed a
card which meet DX9 spec, no special code needed and has better visuals.

Your reply is a trool's reply.

RF

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:bujfpp029ih@enews1.newsguy.com...
 > John Lewis wrote:
 >
  > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:44:51 GMT, Darthy
  > > <DarthGates.TakeThisOut@microsoftsucksass.com> wrote:
  > >
  > >
   > >>Drivers cause severe damage to Nvidia's sales... Then they cheated
   > >>the drivers (Lower quality for faster frames) - that wasn't good.
   > >>With proper visual drivers, they were very slow... but todays 50.xx
   > >>drivers, they do very well agaisnt. ATI - which is still considered
   > >>the faster card for most cases - but OpenGL. But Nvidia's still
   > >>weaker with the FSAA modes compared to ATI.
   > >>
 >
  >>http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-13.html#unreal_to
urnament_2003
   > >>
   > >>At one point, the drivers were SO bad (performance) that even the
   > >>9600Pro was better than a 5900 in some games.
  > >
  > > The non-existent HL2 ??
   > >>
  > >
  > > And the Ati drivers created so many artifacts in so many games
  > > that Ati finally decided to fix a few of them in Cat3.10 long after
  > > some of the games were released. Too busy with DX9 optimizations
  > > for Half-Life 2 and cozy chats with Valve, I suppose. See the
  > > release notes on Cat 3.10.
 >
 > What do the release notes on an outdated driver have to do with anything?
  > >
  > > John Lewis
 >
 > --
 > --John
 > Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
 > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:57:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:

 >John Lewis wrote:
 >
   >>>
   >>>At one point, the drivers were SO bad (performance) that even the
   >>>9600Pro was better than a 5900 in some games.
  >>
  >> The non-existent HL2 ??
   >>>
  >>
  >> And the Ati drivers created so many artifacts in so many games
  >> that Ati finally decided to fix a few of them in Cat3.10 long after
  >> some of the games were released. Too busy with DX9 optimizations
  >> for Half-Life 2 and cozy chats with Valve, I suppose. See the
  >> release notes on Cat 3.10.
 >
 >What do the release notes on an outdated driver have to do with anything?
  >>

And the release notes on 4.1 to fix a few more games.
I would hate to think what artifacts are present on legacy DirectX
games that Ati have not bothered to cobble a fix for.

John Lewis


  >> John Lewis
 >
 >--
 >--John
 >Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
 >(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

john.dsl.DeleteThis@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote in message news:<400df6f7.1939111.DeleteThis@news.verizon.net>...
 > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:57:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
 > <jclarke.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
 >
  > >John Lewis wrote:
  > >
   > >>>
   > >>>At one point, the drivers were SO bad (performance) that even the
   > >>>9600Pro was better than a 5900 in some games.
   > >>
   > >> The non-existent HL2 ??
   > >>>
   > >>
   > >> And the Ati drivers created so many artifacts in so many games
   > >> that Ati finally decided to fix a few of them in Cat3.10 long after
   > >> some of the games were released. Too busy with DX9 optimizations
   > >> for Half-Life 2 and cozy chats with Valve, I suppose. See the
   > >> release notes on Cat 3.10.
  > >
  > >What do the release notes on an outdated driver have to do with anything?
   > >>
 >
 > And the release notes on 4.1 to fix a few more games.
 > I would hate to think what artifacts are present on legacy DirectX
 > games that Ati have not bothered to cobble a fix for.
 >
 > John Lewis
 >
 >
   > >> John Lewis
  > >
  > >--
  > >--John
  > >Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  > >(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Well John, until you self have tried the latter drivers on a nice
piece of DX9 ati card, you can complain what you wish.

Ati nowadays is rock solid the best gamers choice, with the next GPU's
coming out..all might change again!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

Darthy <DarthGates.RemoveThis@microsoftsucksass.com> wrote:
 > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:54:39 GMT, john.dsl.RemoveThis@verizon.net (John Lewis)
 > wrote:
 >
  > >On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:21:24 -0000, "Bobby" <bobby.RemoveThis@europe.com> wrote:
  > >
   > >>I've just purchased an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro card - which is a pity since I
   > >>liked nVidia cards. Good drivers and rock solid performance.
   > >>
   > >>I wanted to upgrade my FX5200 card (I gave it to my daughter to speed up her
   > >>PC - which it has done) and originally bought an "FX5600". In fact, it was
   > >>an FX5600*XT* - which was a pile of pants. It felt slower than the 5200. Why
   > >>does nVidia do that?
   > >>
   > >>Since it was sold as an 5600, I took it back to the shop. No problem
   > >>replacing it - although they seemed clueless when I explained that it was an
   > >>XT and "XT appears to be rubbish". Since they had no 5600s I purchased the
   > >>Radeon 9600 Pro - which has given me the performance boost I hoped for with
   > >>the 5600. It cost a bit more than I planned but I'm happy with the card.
   > >>
   > >>So it's off to the ATI newsgroup. Thanks for your advice during the last
   > >>couple of weeks.
   > >>
   > >>BTW why do so many people in the nVidia newsgroup prefer ATIs to nVidia
   > >>cards?
   > >>
  > >That was an easy question...........
  > >
  > >Trolls from the Ati newsgroup or postings to both groups by Ati fans.
 >
 > Uh nope... Bobby is kind of like me... we both OWN and use ATI and
 > Nvidia cards. My 2nd PC is used regularly with my Ti4200.
 >
 > I've owned: Nvidia (6 of them) and ATI (2 cards) and Voodoo (3 of
 > those).


Have you ever thought what are you going to do with all those cards in
the closet? I have Hercules Kyro II in the closet and I have no idea
what to do with it. Maybe tangle and curle up my hairdo? Use it as a
frisbee? A coffee mug blanket? I can't even give it to poor people
without feeling guilty of its crappy performance on a 800 MHz Intel
Pentium III. I like graphics cards, but when they get expired in the
muscle power, they're just pain in the ass.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang... 

john.dsl.RemoveThis@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
 > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:44:51 GMT, Darthy
 > <DarthGates.RemoveThis@microsoftsucksass.com> wrote:
 >
 >
  > >Drivers cause severe damage to Nvidia's sales... Then they cheated
  > >the drivers (Lower quality for faster frames) - that wasn't good.
  > >With proper visual drivers, they were very slow... but todays 50.xx
  > >drivers, they do very well agaisnt. ATI - which is still considered
  > >the faster card for most cases - but OpenGL. But Nvidia's still
  > >weaker with the FSAA modes compared to ATI.
  > >
  > >http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-
  > > 13.html#unreal_tournament_2003
  > >
  > >At one point, the drivers were SO bad (performance) that even the
  > >9600Pro was better than a 5900 in some games.
 >
 > The non-existent HL2 ??

The game does exist in one form or another, unless half the
internet-based hardware sites were lying their heads off last fall.
The non-existent "Half Life 2"- engine is already pirated all through
the Russian borders as we type. I doubt there will be any _major_
changes to the game or the engine that doesen't exist.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: I've joined the ATI gang...