Page 1 of 2
Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 29.04.2009, 02:18
by danielj
It is a question still debated.I am not sure if an ATI video card still have too many bugs or poor perfomance running Celestia.I know that HD 4850 is generally cheaper than the 9800 GTX+/GTS 250 with a similar perfomance,but I don?t know if I go to Nvidia or ATI.
My new computer is:
-Core2Duo E7200
-2 GB DDR2 800
-XFX 8800 GS
-HD 500 GB SATA II+HD 160 GB SATA
-PSU Corsair VX 450
And on July,I will put a new video card (one of above) and more 2 GB DDR2 800.What do you think?
And will I have a boost in Celestia perfomance?Or only with the new video card?
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 29.04.2009, 02:21
by BobHegwood
Just from my own experience, mind you, but I'd go for the Nvidia card anytime.
ATI's have often been reported on this forum as having some difficulty with the
graphics of Celestia.
These can be overcome, but not without some work. Have you the patience
for that?
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 29.04.2009, 15:33
by Reiko
Go with nvidia. Those seem to like openGL 2.0 better.
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 01.05.2009, 06:32
by John Van Vliet
--- edit ---
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 01.05.2009, 16:49
by LordFerret
Having been involved with gaming for
many years (Half-Life: Day Of Defeat), ATI's were always notorious for having driver problems... nVidia consistently being the serious hard-core gamer's choice. I myself have never had anything but nVidia, zero complaints here!
(my fumbling about while installing my drivers does not count here! LOL!)
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 02.05.2009, 21:49
by danielj
Well,I will stick with Nvidia.
I completed my change to my new computer:
Core2Duo E7200
2 GB DDR2 800
XFX 8800 GS
HD 500 GB SATA II+HD 160 GB SATA
PSU Corsair VX 450
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
I will probably buy a 9800 GTX+ or GTS 250,besides more 2 GB DDR2 800,on July.Am I going to feel a boost in perfomance?
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 06.05.2009, 11:57
by duds26
Only if you use a lot of very heavy addons.
That configuration is already way above what celestia needs.
(Without a lot of heavy addons.)
There is actually not a need to do that for celestia.
For running Celestia without addons, everything will run as fast as it gets on that configuration.
It will be limited by the screens refresh rate.
Again, without addons.
You might want to try out some heavy virtual textures and stuff to test it.
Then you could see a performance improvement.
When picking out a video card, try to find a recent card.
Newer design means better architecture and Direct X 10 compatibility.
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 06.05.2009, 14:01
by danielj
Actually,it?s not a question anymore.I probablly won?t change my video card before August.Anyway,thanks for the answers...
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 06.05.2009, 14:04
by danielj
It?s not so heavy addons.I am having trouble even to run Io?s volcanoes with sprites.It?s better than before.My maximum frame rate is above 30 fps even with Jupiter on the screen.However,it can get as low as 11 fps or even 4 fps,depending on the distance and angle!
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 07.05.2009, 17:24
by danielj
It?s not always a good idea to update your driver.
I updated to the latest driver 185.85 and things gets a LOT WORSE.Now the Io volcanoes runs between 10 and 15 fps.The biggest anoying thing is that Nvidia don?t accept repplacing with old drivers.So now I have to uninstall the driver and put the original driver of my video card and only then,I can return to 178.13...
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 07.05.2009, 19:04
by John Van Vliet
--- edit ---
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 07.05.2009, 21:36
by Reiko
danielj wrote:Well,I will stick with Nvidia.
I completed my change to my new computer:
Core2Duo E7200
2 GB DDR2 800
XFX 8800 GS
HD 500 GB SATA II+HD 160 GB SATA
PSU Corsair VX 450
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit
I will probably buy a 9800 GTX+ or GTS 250,besides more 2 GB DDR2 800,on July.Am I going to feel a boost in perfomance?
I bought a cheap 9400gt and it looks great runs smooth.
Since you are running vista you might see a boost in performance if you get more ram. Vista seems to eat a lot of memory.
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 07.05.2009, 22:46
by danielj
Ok,I will only buy another 2 GB RAM module on July.
About the driver.I restaured the computer and the driver is now the old one.
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 07.05.2009, 23:33
by John Van Vliet
--- edit ---
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 08.05.2009, 10:44
by selden
A warning:
Under Windows XP, the current Nvidia drivers cause confusion in how the system treats the screen resolution. Desktop icon sizes and layout change unpredictably from one reboot to the next. I had to reboot my computer three or four times before they stayed the same.
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 08.05.2009, 11:14
by cartrite
A note.
It is always wise to examine the supported products list when updating a Nvidia driver. Some with older cards should not update to the newest driver because the newer drivers may not support the card.
cartrite
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 08.05.2009, 15:27
by danielj
What?s the problem?It appears that you didn?t read my post.I updated to the newest driver and the perfomance was
WORSER.Probably the 185.85 is useless on Geforces 8,and it only give gains on Geforces 9 or even 200 series...
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 08.05.2009, 16:49
by t00fri
Daniel,
when I read this, I can't suppress a smile. With my
VERY old FX 5900 Ultra/256 MB NVIDIA card and a
very old computer (Pentium4 3.2 GHz/3 GB RAM) and everything activated like galaxies (+labels) globulars (+labels) etc,
+++++++++++++++++++++
I still get
36 fps on my 1600x1200 monitor screen.
+++++++++++++++++++++
See here:
Compared to mine, the system you are talking about is an absolutely HIGH-END one, Nevertheless, I can smoothly display 64k VT textures without the slightest problems etc.
Of course, I would never have bought Windows Vista, since from the start it was obvious to me that it was a dead animal, now being taken off the market ASAP!
I still use Windows XP SP3 or Linux with great performance.
Fridger
Or with
8192 stars of Omega Centauri rendered
together with large-size Io, still
36fps
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 09.05.2009, 00:52
by danielj
It is true,but Io volcanoes with sprites are not static textures.They are pseudo animations.And the interesting thing is that I had similar problems EVEN with Windows XP!
But in fact,things are a bit more complicated.The problem seem to be with Celestia 1.6.0.Because Celestia 1.5.1 loads much faster and display high textures without problems.Another thing that can be take in account is the number of addons you have.I have more than 15 addons and Io itself is using 2 addons:iovolcanoes and iovolcanoes-sprite.So it is not necessarily a problem with Vista or even with a particular configuration...
I am not using a fresh install.I?m using Celestia 1.6.0 SVN 4632.
Re: Nvidia or ATI?
Posted: 09.05.2009, 01:02
by t00fri
danielj wrote:It is true,but Io volcanoes with sprites are not static textures.They are pseudo animations.And the interesting thing is that I had similar problems EVEN with Windows XP!
But in fact,things are a bit more complicated.The problem seem to be with Celestia 1.6.0.Because Celestia 1.5.1 loads much faster and display high textures without problems.Another thing that can be take in account is the number of addons you have.I have more than 15 addons and Io itself is using 2 addons:iovolcanoes and iovolcanoes-sprite.So it is not necessarily a problem with Vista or even with a particular configuration...
I am not using a fresh install.I?m using Celestia 1.6.0 SVN 4632.
Of course I don't use Celestia 1.5.1 but rather always the latest 1.6.0SVN version.
Certainly, this was my point "between the lines" : add-ons will slow you down badly! I never use any (for various reasons...)
Fridger