ATI versus NVidia

[phoenix1963]

I get the impression from the people posting decent framerates that maybe ATI cards are doing better than NVidia - much as I hate to say it as a long time NVidia user.

So if my upgrade choice is between, say, a 6950 2048MB and a 560Ti 2046MB, I'm minded for the former. I only run a 1280x1024 monitor.

56RAF_phoenix aka phoenix1963

[Flanker35M]

S!

I would not draw any conclusions before the performance/bug fix patches are out within a few weeks. IMO both brands should have no issues running the game and rest is up to the drivers after Luthier's team has patched it up.

[Triggaaar]

I get the impression from the people posting decent framerates that maybe ATI cards are doing better than NVidia - much as I hate to say it as a long time NVidia user.

So if my upgrade choice is between, say, a 6950 2048MB and a 560Ti 2046MB, I'm minded for the former. I only run a 1280x1024 monitor.Remember that most people with a 560 or 570 don't have 2 gig of ram, so the 560 you are considering might be more comparible with the 6950 (could be a bit better or worse).

It's basically too early to tell, and I doubt there will be a lot in it. People with similar system are getting totally different frame rates as there are so many little variables.

[Macka]

Having only mid range NVidia gtx460s x2 but no working SLI (CPU quad @2.8ghz), I was struggling to get 30-40fps over water and low 20s over land with all settings on low (exept AC-on high). After a few days decided to change from 267 drivers to 270's last night. Whoaa!!!! What an improvement. Now averaging 45- low 50s over water in furballs (15-20 AC QMB) and not dipping below 30s over land. Even upped the Shading, Land and houses to medium and still in low to mid 30s over land.The only stutters are at treetop level and low over towns (as I play Arma II I kinda expected this to happen anyway with this configuration). Happier Camper now....cant wait for the SLI and other optimizations. So highly recommend NV owners to upgrade drivers. :)

[Mustang]

The game eat 1.5 at 2.5 GBs of PC Ram...
Its ok, its a standard for today ;)

I have a 560 Ti OC 1GB....and run fine any game :grin:...but...


But... CoD...
In any settings!!! eat 1.1 GB video ram to 1.5 GB of video o ram....

This is a madness ....
The game dont have texture compression? :mad:

I dont buy a NASA PC .....

I will go play IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey and get 140 FPS

End!

[etzi]

I will go play IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey and get 140 FPS
End!

Apples and oranges!

What's that for an alternative?

Simulation vs. Action Game?

[madFinn]

So if my upgrade choice is between, say, a 6950 2048MB and a 560Ti 2046MB, I'm minded for the former. I only run a 1280x1024 monitor.

56RAF_phoenix aka phoenix1963

Well, to give you some concrete numbers, I replaced my ATI HD4870 with an HD6970 today, and in the English countryside flight, using identical settings my framerate went from 19 to about 59 when flying past the cliffs of dover at very low level. This was with the resolution down to the 1280 by 7-something widescreen. Now with the 6970 I have res up to 1920 by 1080 and I've got medium-ish quality settings and I get between 35 and 40 fps over countryside, 30 doing the run past the cliffs, but still about 14 when flying through London. The responsiveness of the aircraft is much much improved, and with the few tweaks coming downstream in the next couple of weeks I have no doubt that I'll be able to play multiplayer very well.

This is all with a rig which is about 3 years old, Q6600 core2quad running at stock speed, 4 gig of ram. The only other new bit in there is a sandforce2 100GB SSD for the OS, but Steam lives on my 500GB HDD.

[sfmadmax]

I currently have a Nvidia 8800 GTS 512mb

I can play the game over the sea on 1920x at low settings for everything, except model and effects I turn to high. It's somewhat ok. 20 - 25fps. I imagine the majority of the hold up is my Graphics since I have a I7 3.2 with 12GB system ram.

I was planning on buying a Nvidia GTX 580 but after reading all the hype here the game takes advantage of video ram. I might hold off until the patches come out and then see what the fellow nvidia users say !

[Hellman]

Hi guys.

So far I'm not getting good numbers at all. I was running a GT 240 1gb with the original IL2:FB and getting 30-60FPS. I had 2x HD4870's but the open gl shaders for those were crap a year ago and was getting 10fps. Not good after spending £600 on cards!

Obviously the GT240 is crap with COD and gets 4-5fps on Lowish settings but I bought it for IL2:FB.

My question is this...... I was looking at getting a GTX580 which, with the coming COD improvements, should see me get a very high frame rate.

But,

After reading madfin's comment on upgrading his ATI card I'm thinking HD6970. The problem is that our squad will still be flying FB for years to come and my ATI experience with it has been less than good. I want a card suitable for both games.

Will a newer ATI card(the 6970, say) sort it so that I can run both games smoothly? Is it that ATI now have better drivers/shaders etc?

Or should I just pay the money and get a gtx 570 or 580?

Oh, my resolution is 1920x1200.

~S~

86FG_Wolf.

[Mustang]

The point is ...

Video card with 2 GB of Ram.

Win 7 64b Sp1 and 4 GB of Pc ram its OK.. or maybe 6 to make Ramdrive disk

[sfmadmax]

The point is ...

Video card with 2 GB of Ram.

Win 7 64b Sp1 and 4 GB of Pc ram its OK.. or maybe 6 to make Ramdrive disk


Not really a good point. lets wait at least a month's worth of patching then see how the game performs.

The real point is, I can play rise of flight with medium graphics and have silk smooth gameplay over land. with my Nvidia GTS 8800 512MB. I can't go no where near that with ClOd.. I do agree I need a way better graphics card. But I don't buy the idea "your gfx card needs 2GB of vram to play this game"

[Hellman]

Not to mention, the 4870 is a dual core 2gb card. So that kinda doesn't help

[sfmadmax]

Not to mention, the 4870 is a dual core 2gb card. So that kinda doesn't help

Exactly, Each core == 1GB VRam ,

[IbnSolmyr]

Not to mention, the 4870 is a dual core 2gb card. So that kinda doesn't help

Some HD 4870 2Go are just one core. Mine is. There is a difference between the 4870 X2 (2x1Go, for 2 cores) and the 4870 2Go (1 core). ;)

[RocketDog]

I started CloD with an Nvidia GTX 285 (1GB VRAM) and then swapped to a 2GB AMD 6970 card. Obviously, the Nvidia card was slower (although after the second patch it was actually very playable). I don't remember seeing any graphics problems with the Nvidia card but there are a number with the 6970 (blue lines on the horizon and occasional black lines on the terrain). Not show stoppers, but annoying still the same.

I guess they developed the game on Nvidia cards.

[sfmadmax]

I started CloD with an Nvidia GTX 285 (1GB VRAM) and then swapped to a 2GB AMD 6970 card. Obviously, the Nvidia card was slower (although after the second patch it was actually very playable). I don't remember seeing any graphics problems with the Nvidia card but there are a number with the 6970 (blue lines on the horizon and occasional black lines on the terrain). Not show stoppers, but annoying still the same.

I guess they developed the game on Nvidia cards.

I agree they are annyoing , however I like my 6970. It's my first ati card in a long time. So im pretty happy with it. Give it time , the kinks will be worked out!

[RocketDog]

Yeah - the ATi bugs are very obvious and everyone has them so I guess they will get fixed soon. The performance in terms of frame rate is very good. I have to say that the 6970 is great in RoF as well.

[*Buzzsaw*]

I get the impression from the people posting decent framerates that maybe ATI cards are doing better than NVidia - much as I hate to say it as a long time NVidia user.

So if my upgrade choice is between, say, a 6950 2048MB and a 560Ti 2046MB, I'm minded for the former. I only run a 1280x1024 monitor.

56RAF_phoenix aka phoenix1963

If you run a smaller monitor, you'd probably not be able to use 2 gigs of VRAAM. The card which would give you better performance at 1280 X 1024 would not necessarily be the best at higher resolutions, which is where you need more video memory. Clock speeds may be more important at lower res.

[Hellman]

I gotta say. I've been switching between ATI and Nvidia for 3 yrs now. I was an avid ATI fan but everytime I go green, it's mean. Everytime I go red, it's dead.

I've lost the faith. I'm staying with Nvidia. I just never get any problems.

~S~

[Thee_oddball]

clean your glass's and get a cup of coffee :)
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=560ti+vs+6950&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[matsher]

If its any help, I've been doing much reading about the best regarded cards and the
variances in performance. Looking at the same cards you've been looking at and the
vs shootout test on different games.

The ATI 6950 is looking to be "the" card of the current generation, its far less money than the 6970 with almost the same performance stats across the board. Literally not more than 3-5 frames difference at extreme settings and highest resolutions.

If run in SLI the 2gb 6950 will outperform the brand new Nvid 590 4gb and ATI 6990 4gb.
Apparently the new deul core cards 590 / 6990 cannot fully access the 4gb onboard ram where in SLI the 6950's can... Worth considering, especially when you can get 2 x 2gb 6950's for far less than the price of 1x 6990 or 590.

read this little article about the top 15 GPUs - especially the 6950...

http://www.gadgetstech.co.uk/2011/04/updated-15-best-graphics-cards-in-the-world-today/

Hope this helps...