03-12-2003, 03:18 AM
Amazing how folks get so split on video cards.
I can't really speak on the different cards anymore. Back when I was cranking out 400+ 'puters a year, I would budget at least $20,000 per year on evaluation of hardware, and checked everything that went into the mainstream systems for compatibility with a range of OS / Application / Components.
Except for the early ATI cards (1987-1992), ATI rarely had cards that were at the top of the heap for performance, especially with games. But, ATI always had decent compatibility. The first-release Rage drivers would have consistent "bugs", that would show up in certain apps. (mouse-turds in some CAD apps was a biggie). It would be easy to work around by dropping the acceleration, and they always would have it fixed in the next generation of the drivers.
Build quality of the ATI cards was always as good as it could get, and I don't recall having any ATI card fail. I have heard some bad things about component and build quality on other cards lately, however. Fan failure seems to be a big thing lately.
About the only advice I have anymore is to NOT get the top of the line card from anyone. This has pretty much held true for more than a decade. For games, if you have more money than brains, I guess you could go ahead and blow $400+ on a video card. If the system is going to a time is money application, like an engineering or design workstation, the top end card will pay for itself, too.
BUT, if money is an object, and top end performance isn't going to be making you money, you can get away with the second or even third from the top end card. Save yourself 200-300 bucks, get mature drivers, and be able to scrap the card after the current top-end cards get cheap in a year or so.
Of course, if what you're looking for is a status symbol to impress your chums, go ahead and get whatever has the best benchmarks. Myself, I never run benchmarks anymore. I'm too busy actually USING my 'puter.
-rcv-
I can't really speak on the different cards anymore. Back when I was cranking out 400+ 'puters a year, I would budget at least $20,000 per year on evaluation of hardware, and checked everything that went into the mainstream systems for compatibility with a range of OS / Application / Components.
Except for the early ATI cards (1987-1992), ATI rarely had cards that were at the top of the heap for performance, especially with games. But, ATI always had decent compatibility. The first-release Rage drivers would have consistent "bugs", that would show up in certain apps. (mouse-turds in some CAD apps was a biggie). It would be easy to work around by dropping the acceleration, and they always would have it fixed in the next generation of the drivers.
Build quality of the ATI cards was always as good as it could get, and I don't recall having any ATI card fail. I have heard some bad things about component and build quality on other cards lately, however. Fan failure seems to be a big thing lately.
About the only advice I have anymore is to NOT get the top of the line card from anyone. This has pretty much held true for more than a decade. For games, if you have more money than brains, I guess you could go ahead and blow $400+ on a video card. If the system is going to a time is money application, like an engineering or design workstation, the top end card will pay for itself, too.
BUT, if money is an object, and top end performance isn't going to be making you money, you can get away with the second or even third from the top end card. Save yourself 200-300 bucks, get mature drivers, and be able to scrap the card after the current top-end cards get cheap in a year or so.
Of course, if what you're looking for is a status symbol to impress your chums, go ahead and get whatever has the best benchmarks. Myself, I never run benchmarks anymore. I'm too busy actually USING my 'puter.
-rcv-