LibriumArcana.Games

Alright, this is subjective, but which GPU do you like more? And what's the reason you like one better than another? Performance? Image Quality? Compatibility issues?

Currently? nVidia all the way.

Lets lay apart the criteria for comparing GPUs.

IQ, preformance, price.

On the IQ front, I honestly seee no difference.

On the Preformance-Price front(which I merge), nVidia, they consistently deliver a SOLID mid level preformer(X1600XT, I'm looking at you), and a solid top end that costs normal bucks(again, X1800XT, looking at you).

There is no convinceable need to buy ATi cards today unless you NEED ultimate IQ+AF/AA scaling.

Well, I tend to stick with nVidia, but for different reason: backward compatibility with older games.

First, ATI may have better AA and AF (at least until GeForce 6800 showed up), but those don't mean a shit if you couldn't run your (old) games without graphical glitches. Or should I mention the missing fog in European Air War again? Or the artifacts in Jane's USAF when AF is enabled?

Second, newest ATI cards may be better in supporting "new" features like Pixel Shader (X1900 has more pixel shading units than 7800) or HDR. Alas, my beloved old games has none of those features. So for me, "traditional" capabilities like fill rate or FSAA is more important than those stuff.

Unless someone has show me that new ATI cards can play my old games without problems (not to mention Windows 98 support), I'll stay with nVidia.

EDIT: I actually vote "others" because my most favorite is still 3dfx.

KAN, you make me frustrated, you clearly have no idea about wtf you are talking about.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Well, I tend to stick with nVidia, but for different reason: backward compatibility with older games.

KAN, enough of that reason in a fucking modern thread.

First, ATI may have better AA and AF (at least until GeForce 6800 showed up),

No, ATi Has better AA and AF, even today, you think I would say such a statment if I was talking about the fucking 8xxx series?

but those don't mean a shit if you couldn't run your (old) games without graphical glitches. Or should I mention the missing fog in European Air War again? Or the artifacts in Jane's USAF when AF is enabled?

..OLD GAMES, why should they care about them?

Second, newest ATI cards may be better in supporting "new" features like Pixel Shader (X1900 has more pixel shading units than 7800) or HDR.

Do you have ANY clue what you are talking about? Lets break down some terms.

Pixel Shader MODEL: This is, today, 3.0, ALL current cards support this, we can quibble about sub features but they are all 3.0.

Pixel Shader PIPELINE: An Execution unit within a GPU that calculates a pixels colors and sends it to a ROP unit, from which it is sent to a frame buffer.

Examples: nVidia is working on a near 1:1 ratio between Pixel Shaders and ROPS. ATi is working on a 48:16 ration, or 1:3.

Alas, my beloved old games has none of those features. So for me, "traditional" capabilities like fill rate or FSAA is more important than those stuff.

Wow, an ATi win there aswell. ATi, thanks to more pixel shaders, equal ROPs and HIGHER CLOCK RATE, beats in Fill Rate, and scales better in FSAA. If you KNEW WHAT THE HECK is old school AA, you would know why I say it scales better.

Unless someone has show me that new ATI cards can play my old games without problems (not to mention Windows 98 support), I'll stay with nVidia.

EDIT: I actually vote "others" because my most favorite is still 3dfx.

Wah, Wah, go play with a freaking P3 and a GF2 if you want perfect old game playability and let the engineers do what they need to do.

I prefer nVidia right now due to their Linux drivers actually working. ATi doesn't seem to care about the Linux users, though in all fairness, they are slowly making progress in that.

Ace Pace wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Well, I tend to stick with nVidia, but for different reason: backward compatibility with older games.

KAN, enough of that reason in a fucking modern thread.

Hello? What is that supposed to mean?

but those don't mean a shit if you couldn't run your (old) games without graphical glitches. Or should I mention the missing fog in European Air War again? Or the artifacts in Jane's USAF when AF is enabled?

..OLD GAMES, why should they care about them?

Why should we care why they care? nVidia apparently does, or at least manages to keep backwards compatibility somehow, and people like KAN and me who happen to like old games find that appreciable. That is a perfectly valid reason to prefer one product over another.
Wether a graphics card has all the latest wizz-bangs is irrelevant, if it won't run my favorite games properly it is USELESS to me.

Ace Pace wrote:..OLD GAMES, why should they care about them?

I'd loath to give away Baldur's Gate II myself. And would it kll you to stop complaining about:

Ace Pace wrote:KAN, enough of that reason in a fucking modern thread.

When KAN is the original poster.

nVidia properly keeps its reverse-compatibility. Baldur's Gate 2 is STILL my favourite game. And you can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Batman wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Well, I tend to stick with nVidia, but for different reason: backward compatibility with older games.

KAN, enough of that reason in a fucking modern thread.

Hello? What is that supposed to mean?

It seems to me every third post of his in this forum is about old games.

Why should we care why they care? nVidia apparently does, or at least manages to keep backwards compatibility somehow, and people like KAN and me who happen to like old games find that appreciable. That is a perfectly valid reason to prefer one product over another.
Wether a graphics card has all the latest wizz-bangs is irrelevant, if it won't run my favorite games properly it is USELESS to me.

I'd loath to give away Baldur's Gate II myself. And would it kll you to stop complaining about

If you like old games, buy old graphics card, don't complain when GPU makers abandon old game compatability to support newer games. I think its completly ridiculous to complain that companies that aremaking the hardware with the fastest life cycle in the industry are not taking time to support older games.

If you want to play those older games, game around with old hardware.

If you want to play those older games, game around with old hardware.

What about if you want to be capable of playing Baldur's Gate 2 for a while, and then have a small session on... say... World of Warcraft?

Dakarne wrote:

If you want to play those older games, game around with old hardware.

What about if you want to be capable of playing Baldur's Gate 2 for a while, and then have a small session on... say... World of Warcraft?

Then you have several options.

One of them is investing in a light inexpensive KVM switch that lets you quickly switch between computer controls while keeping the same I/O system.

Another is having two PCs. Considering the age of BG2, I can easily assume by today you have purchased a new PC.

Another option for the cheap crowd. A computer capable of playing BG2, and is reletively modern, can play WoW.

Ace Pace wrote: It seems to me every third post of his in this forum is about old games.

So? Last I checked this forum isn't named 'ultra-recent computers and gaming', but at least in that context your statement makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up.

Why should we care why they care? nVidia apparently does, or at least manages to keep backwards compatibility somehow, and people like KAN and me who happen to like old games find that appreciable. That is a perfectly valid reason to prefer one product over another.
Wether a graphics card has all the latest wizz-bangs is irrelevant, if it won't run my favorite games properly it is USELESS to me.

If you like old games, buy old graphics card,

Which dealers keep in stocks for ages as we all know. Oh wait they don't.
Which means you HAVE to buy new graphics cards sooner or later when the old one goes belly-up.

don't complain when GPU makers abandon old game compatability to support newer games.

Why not?

I think its completly ridiculous to complain that companies that aremaking the hardware with the fastest life cycle in the industry are not taking time to support older games.

If they don't support my favorite games I don't give a decomposing mynock WHY they do it. Their product is useless to me. I'm the consumer. They failed to provide. Thus, I buy the product that DOES provide.

If you want to play those older games, game around with old hardware.

You are quite simply not in a position to dictate what hardware anybody else is to use, especially as older hardware is simply not available or will not run in modern systems.
As long as the GPU makers want my money they have to abide by my wishes. My wishes include downward compatibility.

Then you have several options.

I was using a Random Example...

My current computer can run Baldur's Gate 2 without any error at all. It is the most versatile computer game in existance, literally.

Batman wrote:
Which dealers keep in stocks for ages as we all know. Oh wait they don't.
Which means you HAVE to buy new graphics cards sooner or later when the old one goes belly-up.

Oh, wait, *checks site* Not suprisingly, a shop nearby, still sells Geforce 4s. E-Bay does as well. GPUs don't die that quickly unless their fans break down.

don't complain when GPU makers abandon old game compatability to support newer games.

Why not?

Maybe because their job is to push forward the bounderies, and provide those who pay for nice 200$ machines the ability to play the LATEST games at quality FPS, not play games whose FPS cap has been reached several years before. There is no need for them to put in extra effort to make sure advance GPUs play your 90s games.

If they don't support my favorite games I don't give a decomposing mynock WHY they do it. Their product is useless to me. I'm the consumer. They failed to provide. Thus, I buy the product that DOES provide.

Fine, no dissagreement here, but considering KAN is asking for a current opinion, its kinda suprising to me that he would focus on older games to the ignoring of others. I'm as much of a 90s gamer as any TBS fan(I have Moo2 installed on THIS rig), but I'm not complaining when it dosn't work.

If you want to play those older games, game around with old hardware.

You are quite simply not in a position to dictate what hardware anybody else is to use, especially as older hardware is simply not available or will not run in modern systems.

No, I'm not dictating what to buy, but to complain as KAN does when they refuse to support a tiny minority of gamers, who will rarely buy any of their profitable products, is to me, inexplicable.

As long as the GPU makers want my money they have to abide by my wishes. My wishes include downward compatibility.

Intrestingly, ignoring KANs horrible use of terminology in his OP, I'm not arguing with that, I'm arguing against attacking GPU producing companies on the grounds that they don't provide backwards compatibility.

Dakarne wrote:

Then you have several options.

I was using a Random Example...

My current computer can run Baldur's Gate 2 without any error at all. It is the most versatile computer game in existance, literally.

I'm impressed by that, I thought it was just a recent fad to future proof games.

Then again, RPG companies are always weird in their forward thinking ways.

Then again, RPG companies are always weird in their forward thinking ways.

I have long held that Bioware/Black Isle, while making games, can do no wrong. Save for handing the reigns on KotOR2 over to someone else. Trust me, I've yet to see a 'bad' Bioware game. I'll even bet that you liked the MDK-series (made by Bioware) or the Fallout Series (again, made by Bioware/Black Isle), or even have taken a passing glance at KotOR/Baldur's Gate.

Either way, they're considered to be among The Best for a Valid Reason. Personally, you can keep your Mindless-Yet-Uber-Graphical Shooter #2,415 and I'll stick to my Complex-Yet-Low-Tech RPG #12.

Dakarne wrote:

Then again, RPG companies are always weird in their forward thinking ways.

I have long held that Bioware/Black Isle, while making games, can do no wrong. Save for handing the reigns on KotOR2 over to someone else. Trust me, I've yet to see a 'bad' Bioware game. I'll even bet that you liked the MDK-series (made by Bioware) or the Fallout Series (again, made by Bioware/Black Isle), or even have taken a passing glance at KotOR/Baldur's Gate.

Right all around, except I never played Fallout(though I'm intrigued) and that I fell asleep in a KOTOR combat sequance, though I still love the company.

Either way, they're considered to be among The Best for a Valid Reason. Personally, you can keep your Mindless-Yet-Uber-Graphical Shooter #2,415 and I'll stick to my Complex-Yet-Low-Tech RPG #12.

I have to take mock offense and showcase my TBS, RTS, TBS/RTS hybrids, RPG game collection just to salvage my honor. *hides UT2K4 in closet*

I have to take mock offense and showcase my TBS, RTS, TBS/RTS hybrids, RPG game collection just to salvage my honor. *hides UT2K4 in closet*

Aye, I must state that a true scotsman does play an RTS (<-NOTICE THE SMILIE, EL!)

But, provided the RTS isn't overbuild-overbuild-overbuild, it'll be fine by me. I also do enjoy a decent slash-'em-up now and then (provided it's still got depth). And I loved Deus Ex, I must admit, but that was hardly what I'd call mindless.

But, even so, nothing replaces Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn as being (almost to the point of objectivity) the best computer game I've ever played. Even examining it without an opinion, you've got hundreds of hours of gameplay with not a second of boredom. Whether it's party-interaction, side-quests or the immense main plot. The only game that could come-close IMO would be Oblivion (and, if it's modable... I'd give anything for a Forgotten Realms mod, who wouldn't ).

Ace Pace wrote:

don't complain when GPU makers abandon old game compatability to support newer games.

Why not?

Maybe because their job is to push forward the bounderies,

Their job is to provide me with a graphics card that does what I want.

and provide those who pay for nice 200$ machines the ability to play the LATEST games at quality FPS, not play games whose FPS cap has been reached several years before. There is no need for them to put in extra effort to make sure advance GPUs play your 90s games.

Not if they don't want my money,no.

If they don't support my favorite games I don't give a decomposing mynock WHY they do it. Their product is useless to me. I'm the consumer. They failed to provide. Thus, I buy the product that DOES provide.

Fine, no dissagreement here, but considering KAN is asking for a current opinion, its kinda suprising to me that he would focus on older games to the ignoring of others.

Err-that does not follow. He asks what manufacturer you prefer. Wether or not a manufacturer focuses on new games has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on wether or not one likes it. In fact, if you play a lot of old games KANs freference makes perfect sense.

No, I'm not dictating what to buy, but to complain as KAN does when they refuse to support a tiny minority of gamers, who will rarely buy any of their profitable products, is to me, inexplicable.

The reason that minority of gamers doesn't buy their products is BECAUSE they don't support old games, genius. Unless you can show the money needed to achieve downward compatibility exceeds the profit from that tiny minority of gamers it's a stupid move.
Besides, KAN is a consumer. The industry is not providing what he wants. He has every right to complain. As they have every right to ignore him.

As long as the GPU makers want my money they have to abide by my wishes. My wishes include downward compatibility.

Intrestingly, ignoring KANs horrible use of terminology in his OP, I'm not arguing with that, I'm arguing against attacking GPU producing companies on the grounds that they don't provide backwards compatibility.

Why not? I'm a consumer, KAN is a consumer, we want backwards compatibility. The job of a consumer-oriented industry is to meet the consumer's wants. Ours aren't being met (at least by ATI).

Ace Pace wrote:Intrestingly, ignoring KANs horrible use of terminology in his OP, I'm not arguing with that, I'm arguing against attacking GPU producing companies on the grounds that they don't provide backwards compatibility.

M'boy, I have mentioned in the OP that this thread is about subjective preference; not about "this GPU is good" and "this GPU is bad" debate. It is a fact that nVidia has better compatibility with older games (like USAF, or F/A-18), and it is a fact that old games don't need ATI's HDR or extra shader pipelines. If I prefer nVidia due to those reasons, it is entirely my subjective choice and not something to be debated about.

If ATI can run European Air War without removing the fog, or enabling AF in USAF without screen artifacts, then by all means I will pick ATI. Not to mention I'm actually interested to try ATI's superior image quality on those old games.

On the other hand, ATI is probably a better choice for shader-intensive games due to its more numerous pixel shader pipelines. X1900 also shows better performance when HDR is enabled. If there are gamers who pick ATI based on those (and I guess there is many), it is also their subjective preference and I have nothing against them either.


This thread is merely about why do we prefer a GPU vendor over another, and why. Other people may choose nVidia based on entirely different reason than mine (like yourself), and that's also fine by me.

Batman wrote:*snip*

Lets try to sum this up: You, as an old school gamer, would like for GPU designers to create modern GPUs that will work with your old games.
These GPU designers, frankly, don't care about a tiny subsection of the market like yours. They don't really care for the sub percentage point that wants backwards compatibility.

End of story, its also, to me, shocking that you expect they will bend over backwards for a few consumers.

That goes for KAN aswell.

And just a nitpick at KAN.

On the other hand, ATI is probably a better choice for shader-intensive games due to its more numerous pixel shader pipelines. X1900 also shows better performance when HDR is enabled. If there are gamers who pick ATI based on those (and I guess there is many), it is also their subjective preference and I have nothing against them either.

I'm sorry, what benchs are you basing this on? On Anandtech its a dead heat, on Tech Report nVidia takes it by a few points.

I just have to say this to Batman and KAN:

GPU makers don't owe you fucking anything. Their entire goal is to make money. There simply isn't enough demand for full backwards compatability. They make their money by selling MODERN graphics cards for MODERN games. Making their cards backwards compatible might even cost them money, we don't know. But it's not a driving concern, and no amount of refusing to buy their cards is going to change that.

Ace Pace wrote:

Batman wrote:*snip*

Lets try to sum this up: You, as an old school gamer, would like for GPU designers to create modern GPUs that will work with your old games.
These GPU designers, frankly, don't care about a tiny subsection of the market like yours. They don't really care for the sub percentage point that wants backwards compatibility.

End of story, its also, to me, shocking that you expect they will bend over backwards for a few consumers.

That goes for KAN aswell.

The Cleric wrote:I just have to say this to Batman and KAN:

GPU makers don't owe you fucking anything. Their entire goal is to make money. There simply isn't enough demand for full backwards compatability. They make their money by selling MODERN graphics cards for MODERN games. Making their cards backwards compatible might even cost them money, we don't know. But it's not a driving concern, and no amount of refusing to buy their cards is going to change that.

Sigh...

This is not whether GPU makers "owe us fucking something" or not; this is about what product we CHOOSE based on our own subjective and specific wants. ATI is not obliged to design their card to be compatible with old games like Jane's F/A-18 or European Air War, but of course I have every right to choose nVidia because their cards run those games without problem.

As Batman has stated:

Batman wrote:Err-that does not follow. He asks what manufacturer you prefer. Wether or not a manufacturer focuses on new games has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on wether or not one likes it. In fact, if you play a lot of old games KANs freference makes perfect sense.

Should I remind everyone again the purpose of this thread? This is not about whether backward compatibility is a universally good thing or not. This is about your preference on GPU manufacturer, based on your own subjective needs and wants.

(1) Newest nVidia GPUs are generally faster than their ATI counterparts, but if you don't mind trading frame-per-second for better AA and AF, and pick ATI for that reason, should you be blamed and berated for it?

(2) ATI X1900XT and GeForce 7900 GTX are among the fastest 3D GPUs around, but if you are a 2D artist and prefer Matrox for that reason, should you be blamed and berated for it?

(3) Ace has said that ATI has better AA and AF even now, but if he thinks price-performance ratio is more important for him, and chooses nVidia for that reason, should he be blamed and berated for it?

(4) Some people may say that ATI makes excellent GPU (HDR and pixel shading pipelines and such), but if I think backward compatibility with old games is more important for me, and choose nVidia for that reason, should I be blamed and berated for it?

I still can't believe you berated me for my subjective, personal preferences like my gaming taste. I also can't believe a thread intended to share our subjective choices and preferences would have ever degenerated into this. Fuck.


Now how about staying with the goddamn motherfucking OP?





.

KAN, you offer an opinion, someone decided to comment on it, whats so shocking about it?

Ace Pace wrote:KAN, you offer an opinion, someone decided to comment on it, whats so shocking about it?

Ace, I don't mind comments. I don't even mind corrections on the inaccuracies I made.

What I mind is unecessary heating up based on strawmen. No one expected that ATI should bend over backwards to satisfy few consumers. No one claimed that GPU manufacturers "owe us fucking something" and should keep backward compatibility as we (as a miniscule portion of the market) want.

I merely stated that ATI GPU does not statisfy my personal and subjective gaming needs, and I choose nVidia because their GPU does. That's it. Nobody said that ATI is obliged to keep backward compatibility with old games.

On the other hand, I, as a consumer, has every right to pick the GPU that suits my subjective needs.

Quick note: Pretty soon there will be no new GPUs that fit your needs.

As we reach SM4, technicly DirectX10, and Vista, every single non DX9 game will break. Apart from OpenGL1.4