Which ATI or Nvidia card?

[Panix]

Hello,
I am building a 2nd computer system and the last component I need to get is a video card. (Well, the motherboard, too, but I am probably going to get a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R. I noticed the DS3P was reviewed here and works so the DS3R should be good, too, right?). The other computer has a X300SE card.

I am not sure yet whether to choose a ATI or Nvidia card. This card would be for video encoding and movie/dvd/avi playback. I was considering either the 2600 pro/xt or the 8600 GT. Is there anything regarding drivers or something else that should influence my decision?

The plan is to dual or even triple boot, 2 Linux disros and XP. I will probably use Mepis/Kubuntu and Fedora as the Linux distros. I'm a Linux newbie so I hope to minimize the graphics cards issues/problems. I realize I am likely to encounter some but is ATI catching up to Nvidia regarding Linux? I've searched and read on here and the opinions seem mixed.

Can anyone recommend either Nvidia (8600) or ATI (2600) and does it matter what tasks you want to do (playback v.s. gaming). Gaming is not the priority so that's why I'm looking at the 8600 and 2600.

Thanks in advance to any replies.

[mile]

I own 2 computers, desktop with 7800gt and notebook with ATI x1600

All my desktop cards ( when 3dfx area ended ) were geforce: ti300,4200,6600 and now 7800. No major problems with drivers under Linux, but Ati on the other side is different story. And I am not talking about gaming, just regular desktop requirements.

In this moment I recommend you to avoid ATI/AMD card until they make proper drivers.

[Panix]

Thanks for your reply, mile. I appreciate it.

I am still wondering, though, which Nvidia card? Does it matter? If I was dual-booting, I think I'd want a 8600 but then there are many brands and types to choose from. What about passive cards? I am considering a 8600 GT. Is there half decent Nvidia drivers for 8600 GT cards? Can you get Beryl and Compiz working? I am just curious about that but encoding and video playback is the priority regardless of which card is chosen.

The CPU will be Quad Core (Q6600). I am a Linux newbie and although I aim to really dive into Linux, I don't have a lot of time, unfortunately, to tackle complicated projects. In other words, if a video card presents various problems (i.e. drivers), I would rather avoid it. Compiling or something advanced would probably not be something I'm ready for at this stage.

Thanks for your perspective, though. It sounds understandable given the history.

[Svartalf]

The CPU will be Quad Core (Q6600). I am a Linux newbie and although I aim to really dive into Linux, I don't have a lot of time, unfortunately, to tackle complicated projects. In other words, if a video card presents various problems (i.e. drivers), I would rather avoid it. Compiling or something advanced would probably not be something I'm ready for at this stage.

Then, for now, you DON'T want ATI on-board or as a PCI-E card for your GPU. The story might be different in a month or so (the next fglrx driver MIGHT fix most of the issues we're seeing right now...) or in about 6-12 months (they get the rest of the specs out to the Open Source community and we get things going in a timely manner...)- as it stands now, ATI is only for the brave of heart or the R600 owner...sort of... :D

Also worthy of note would be that you probably don't want any of the 8xxx series G80 based NVidia cards either- they're also currently problematic in their own way as the ATI driver/card situation is right now. Your best bet would be a 6 or 7 series NVidia, or the on-board GPU if you're getting one with a GMA950 or GMA 3000/X3000 or similar if your 3D needs aren't terribly stringent. In the case of the Intel support it usually just works and no special driver fetches needed as it's all Open Source to begin with.

[Malikith]

Then, for now, you DON'T want ATI on-board or as a PCI-E card for your GPU. The story might be different in a month or so (the next fglrx driver MIGHT fix most of the issues we're seeing right now...) or in about 6-12 months (they get the rest of the specs out to the Open Source community and we get things going in a timely manner...)- as it stands now, ATI is only for the brave of heart or the R600 owner...sort of... :D

Also worthy of note would be that you probably don't want any of the 8xxx series G80 based NVidia cards either- they're also currently problematic in their own way as the ATI driver/card situation is right now. Your best bet would be a 6 or 7 series NVidia, or the on-board GPU if you're getting one with a GMA950 or GMA 3000/X3000 or similar if your 3D needs aren't terribly stringent. In the case of the Intel support it usually just works and no special driver fetches needed as it's all Open Source to begin with.

Yeah, if you want to go with nVidia, I recommend the 7900GS, its really good bang for the buck. Its 120 US$ here. And its better than the midrange 8 series and x2k series since it has a 256-bit memory interface over their 128-bit memory interfaces.

EDIT:

Oh yeah and heres the link, if you live in the U.S. anyway.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133186

Or if you wanna wait for new ATI drivers instead, heres the rival:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102061

Basically if you want nVidia, try for a 7900GS, if you want ATI, get a x1950pro, at least in that price range.

[Moustacha]

The 8-series cards don't have XvMC support either (that's hardware accelerated MPEG-2). Not sure what the situation is on ATI for hw accel of videos. GF 6 or 7 series do support XvMC.

[Kano]

That is true for current drivers, but as dual core systems are standard now more or less for MPEG2 you don't need accelleration. H264 accelleration is what you really want to decode 1080p. Hopefully someone finds a way to use it - maybe even on newer ATI chips, don't know...

[Malikith]

For a non gaming solution, if you need a dedicated card just grab a 8500 gt. Or for ATI a HD 2400. For intergrated, you can go with a Intel x3000, Geforce 6100 or a Geforce 7025/7050.

Intel has open source drivers so if you want nice open source drivers thats a good route. Just remember that the x3100 is the one that hasn't been implemented in all distributions yet, x3000 is though.

But if you need something right in the middle, the 7900gs is priced at midrange at this moment.

[Panix]

Hey, thanks for all the replies, guys! The reason I didn't mention a GF 6 or 7-series card is that the prices where I am are still high. I'm in Canada and can't use newegg. The cheapest 7900 GS is $170 and I could get a 8600 GTS for that price. What should I do?

Are the GF 8-series really that problematic? Perhaps, Nvidia is concentrating on perfecting drivers on the Direct X10 cards? For both Windoze and Linux?

But, if a 7-series is best, the 7600 GT is around $100 but is the 7900 GS significantly better (suited)?

[Malikith]

Hey, thanks for all the replies, guys! The reason I didn't mention a GF 6 or 7-series card is that the prices where I am are still high. I'm in Canada and can't use newegg. The cheapest 7900 GS is $170 and I could get a 8600 GTS for that price. What should I do?

Are the GF 8-series really that problematic? Perhaps, Nvidia is concentrating on perfecting drivers on the Direct X10 cards? For both Windoze and Linux?

But, if a 7-series is best, the 7600 GT is around $100 but is the 7900 GS significantly better (suited)?

The Geforce 8's still have some issues to have ironed out still, I don't know every single one since I don't own one but they're pretty minor I assume, Michael would know best probably, he has some 8 series cards.

I guess they would perform pretty well, and you'd be satisfied, so I would honestly just go with whats best priced. Since that 7900GS is expensive in Canada, I would shoot for either a 7600 GT, or a 8600 GT. The differences are pretty minor, they perform at around the same level, 8600GT is a little quicker by a couple frames. Just the 8600GT is quite a bit better for videos/movies in Windows and has unified shaders.

But in Linux, they're pretty much identical. Although the 7600GT has been around longer and its bugs have been ironed out. Its a pretty flawless card from what I hear.

Or, if you feel adventurous and have faith in ATI/AMD, take a look at the HD 2600.

[Svartalf]

Are the GF 8-series really that problematic? Perhaps, Nvidia is concentrating on perfecting drivers on the Direct X10 cards? For both Windoze and Linux?


In reality, both NVidia and ATI spent considerable effort and resources to get to DX10, only to have Vista fizzle on them. In the case of NVidia, they had better staffing, etc. on the Linux side, and while there ARE issues, the cards DO work at least a little better under Linux in the stability space than ATI's comparable parts. ATI kind of almost put all their eggs in one basket before AMD came along and the driver's...well...it's got good performance, in 3D, when you can get it to work on your chipset. It's less than what I would consider an honestly finished driver. The ATI fglrx 8.41 drivers are more akin to what I'd call an ALPHA in quality- which is why I'm reccomending what I am right at the moment.


But, if a 7-series is best, the 7600 GT is around $100 but is the 7900 GS significantly better (suited)?

If you're looking for largely glitch-free operation, the 7-series is the best choice right now for peak performance and all. Having said this, a 7600GT should do most of what you're gunning for. If you're looking for peak 3D performance on top of everything else, you'll want the 7900GS- hands down. In terms of what is currently available that works it's the best you can get. If you're willing to put up with a few glitches, the G80 based parts are a better bet right now and if you're willing to wait a bit for AMD to get their ducks all in a row (and they're NOT there yet...)- the X2600 has the highest promise and performance, if the on-paper specs and what we've seen from the part in the Windows world is any indicator. I'd not wait, though- it may be a while before that ATI part's really usable for any but the technically advanced and brave of heart.

[Kano]

The cheap DX10 cards are more or less a marketing gag as they are not fast enough even when you use V and a game with DX10 effects. ATI is faster with those effects in very rare DX10 benchmarks - for NV only the highend boards with 8800 or maybe the 8600 GTS would be fast enough. Funnyly V SP1 will have DX10.1 and requires a new card again ;) The 7900 series has 256 bit ram instead of 128 bit for the 85/8600 series, so higher res are faster with it.

[Svartalf]

The cheap DX10 cards are more or less a marketing gag as they are not fast enough even when you use V and a game with DX10 effects. ATI is faster with those effects in very rare DX10 benchmarks - for NV only the highend boards with 8800 or maybe the 8600 GTS would be fast enough. Funnyly V SP1 will have DX10.1 and requires a new card again ;) The 7900 series has 256 bit ram instead of 128 bit for the 85/8600 series, so higher res are faster with it.

Intrinsically, DX10, by and of itself is a boondoggle- something specified by Microsoft to "differentiate" Vista from XP and try to spur sales of it instead of people staying with what they've got. Performance with the stuff on DX10 has been...embarrassing...from what I have been led to believe. This is less due to the hardware, and more due to the new driver framework Microsoft INSISTED upon for Vista.

It brings some new things to the table, but the things that it DOES bring to the table aren't worth the current trouble to get 'em (Oh, and BTW, there's already part of the needed ARB extensions to support that functionality in OGL, and the rest is on it's way... NVidia should support them, and with the new driver (IF they ever stabilize it...) ATI should too...).

[Panix]

Hmmm... this is getting complicated. :)

What if I also want the card to be HDCP compliant/capable? I know the 8600 GTS cards and up are and some 8600 GT cards are. I'm not sure about the GF 7 series. Some are, some aren't? I am trying to research which ones are.

I think a 7600 GT sounds like a compromise and then I could wait until later (to see which company can provide the most improved drivers). I have a computer with an X300SE card in it and I haven't tried yet to install the drivers properly. So, I am unsure whether I'll run into problems. I have Kubuntu installed and just use default (VESA?) drivers for now. But, I want to learn how to install the proper open source and/or proprietary drivers for the particular card I get.

Can anyone tell me how much cpu utilization will occur depending on 7600 GT, 7900 GS and 8600 GT (considering the "quirks") with a Quad Core cpu (Q6600)? I ask this about video playback and encoding. I am just curious. Should I take that into consideration or is the processor powerful enough to make the choice of graphics card (if GF 7 series) negligible?

Sorry for more questions. I'll research, too, but it's helpful to confirm any perceptions or potential answers I might find. Thanks again!!

[Panix]

Sorry to resurrect this thread but do all your opinions and assessments still stand?:

With the recent developments with ATI's drivers, are there any ATI cards to consider or is Nvidia still the safer choice? I notice there's another 'ATI or Nvidia' thread going on, too.

Is there any updates with Nvidia G84 cards (8600 series)?

Or is the 7900 GS still the choice when it's Nvidia? It is still expensive in this neck of the woods, can you believe that? Around $200 and up. What about the 7950 GT? How does that compare? If 8600GTS cards are priced similar to the 7900GS cards, which would you choose?

I'm still looking for a video card to accommodate my 2nd system. The current computer has an ATI X300SE in there. I used Envy to install (8.41 drivers).