Haha

I was about to write something similar, just with more LOLs & ROFLOLs. :grin:

I've always observed in any of the ATI cards that I've owned that the graphic rendering was superior to any of the NVidia cards I bought. (IMHO)

My decision to finally stay away from ATI was that every one of those cards failed within one year. It cost me more to ship them back and received someone elses used card that also failed was far to expensive for me and also created a non-confidence issue in their product.

Cheers

I never had a ati card but a friend of mine has a ati 9550 and he can not run crysis, spiderwick chronicles, Timeshift Jericho and some other games when i with my 8800gtcan run them perfectly! I will post some screenhots of my games taken with 8800 on max settings just to show you that Nvdia is better!!

You mean that this normally passively cooled absolutely low end AGP-Graphics-card with 128MB regular Memory and the old R370 chip from 2004 is really slower than a high end PCI-E 8800GT with 512MB DDR2 RAM from 2007?

Yeah, you are right. It really shows you something: That people who look at labels are pretty much blind for reality. :rolleyes:

lol
a ati 9550 was a low budget card like the nv fx5200/5500. and believe me, the nv 5200/5500 sux much more. and if you never owned a ati then shut up . the 8800 gt comes 3 generations later and was a upper midrange card. sorry, but your compares were more then silly.
i owned ati and nvidia cards and i had more problems with my last nvidiacard then to my aticards before.
a good friend is a hardcore hardware freak and he tested much more then many magazines.
he got now the ati 4750 and is very happy now about it. for this price you got enough power for all games in big resolutions. btw. he is using a tripplehead2go and got no problems with qualitysettings. and he pushed his old 3850 to 1 ghz on the gpu :D he was still able to play games with it ;)

Let me post some shots for you, Baxter:

http://www.pc-erfahrung.de/fileadmin...on_9550_01.jpg
9550 upgraded edition with 256MB RAM for 39 Euros. (Release-Price around 90Euros)

http://www.techzine.nl/uploaded/46755_543ecd47.jpg
8800GT in the front, a comparable card to the 9550 in the upper left. Costs 140 Euros (about 250 Euros when it was released)

i dont have any problems with my 8800gt because i can run all games at max settings in 1280x1024 without any problems. But i had some problems with my old 8600/ 7900 cards. And yes my friend has the 9550 agp version and he can not run almost any game. I have the GAINWARD 8800GT 512MB GOLDEN SAMPLE version 670mhz core and 1800 mhz memory. I can not overclock it becuase my comptuter is getting very hot in the summer and sometimes it shutdowns even with no overclock.

And how does this show us, that nVidia is better? :confused:

Since you posted your frequencies:
ATI 9550 GPU: 250 MHz
ATI 9550 Memory: 200MHz


The 9550 is something very useful for running Office, nothing else. Even when it was released. That has nothing to do with ATI-Quality, though, or giving a reasonable basis to say that Crysis doesn't run with ATI-cards.

When Doom3 was released in 2004 i had a athlon 2200+ 512mb ram and a 5700 128 mb. I was able to run it at medium settings 640x480 but when i try to run it at high settings 800x600 it was slow like hell . a few months after the release of Doom3 my friend bought a athlon 300+ with 512mb ram and 9550 and he was able to run doom3 in high quality 800x600 at 60 fps. A year after i bough my athlon x2 4400+ 1gb ram ddr 400 7900gt 512mb. And i had much more pefomance and better graphics in games than him. I was able to run Tomb Raider Legend with Next Gen graphics at almost full speed(they were a few slowdowns sometimes) but in his system next gen graphics were disabled. After a year in july of 2007, my 7900gt broke down due to heat problems so i went to the 8600 gt that was a piece of crap. And finaly this january i sold the 8600 gt for 80 euros and i bough the 8800gt for 160 euros( the delete 80 euros from the price of the 8800gt because i sold them the 8600)