i've actually had a few nvidia cards die on my (TI 4200, a GeForce 5200FX) whereas the ATI cards i've used have never had any problems at all.  I'm using an 8600GT though in my laptop right now though, and its been fine for the last 2 years.

eds confusing hardware with software. catalyst sucks but you don't have to run it, i'm pretty sure nvidia has an equivalent that you also won't need to use unless you're still on windows 98SE (best os for gaming)

Catalyst! That's what it was called. Terrible. So many hours wasted fiddling with that bollocks. They need to keep it simple, keep it clean.

i've actually had a few nvidia cards die on my (TI 4200, a GeForce 5200FX) whereas the ATI cards i've used have never had any problems at all.  I'm using an 8600GT though in my laptop right now though, and its been fine for the last 2 years.

My geforces never died (geforce 2 and 4 mx and fx 5500 ) but my cousin's 8600 GT died

I think they die so quickly because they use too many megawatts

i don't know how you figure that at all, they've got both the most powerful and the best budget cards out and since they were taken over by AMD you can expect greater compatibility with other AMD hardware

Catalyst! That's what it was called. Terrible. So many hours wasted fiddling with that bollocks. They need to keep it simple, keep it clean.

i hated it because it used a bunch of ram but i'm pretty sure nvidia has an equivalent (that's easier to use). still unless you're constantly fiddling with gamma levels and clock speeds you shouldn't really need to use it more than once a format, if that.

I knew a guy who would upgrade to the latest graphics card every year. He told me he has had several ATI cards die on him, but never an NVidia.

a couple of things. ATI makes chips and a dozen or so other companies make them into cards, hence GIGABYTE RADEON, TACHYON RADEON, etc etc etc. so it's pretty hard to make quality complaints. if the card is working and over time stops working that's wear and tear, caused generally by your power problems or temperature problems (i.e. stuff you do to it). also if the card died within a year it'd be covered by warranty, either through the manufacturer or through consumer gaurantees.

seriously buy with your pocket, choosing between the two only makes a difference if you're buying the same dang card or if you want to use their specific technology (hybrid whatever etc). a green eye or a bright red square can't compete with a smaller manufacturing process

i gotta go with bretly on this one the only reason i'd be concerned with amd support is if you already have an amd processor in your computer, very few people are going out and buying them right now


i still have one but i built my computer a good five or six years ago now (still runs good since it was a really high end machine at the time, but now it's just average.....and has an nvidia card in it btw!)

budget cards are all trash so 'most powerful budget card' is pointless, but i'd be willing to bet that nvidia cards are basically just as powerful as ATI cards at the same price point

midrange the GTX260 beats the 4870 since they introduced the core 216 model and is about $20 cheaper on average

high range i dont know at all because youre an idiot if you buy that shit

compatibility with other AMD hardware is pointless because nobody buys amd over an intel right now unless youre an idiot with too much brand loyalty to amd (literally if you buy an amd over a core i7 youre bad person)

ATI chips have really bad hardware video acceleration, they only supprt like 1 bluray x264 profile (meaning no bluray rips will be hardware accelerated, it has to be exactly whats on a bluray disc) whereas nvidia chips support a wide variety of formats and resolutions

maybe next generation ATI will come out ahead (doubtful because fermi is going to own) but for now buy nvidia.

i don't know if you're just clowning about but this is pretty silly. idiots buy high range and budget cards, the HD5770 is a budget card that nearly as powerful as the core 216 that's cheaper and does direct x 11

compatibility with other AMD hardware is an advantage because amd make more than cpus; the dragon platform is synergistic. in terms of cpu alone the topic is talking about a replacement in a computer he already has, but here are some situations in which an AMD cpu may be a smart choice over a core i7:
-you're building a budget rig (the cheapest core i7 here is ~$200 more than the most expensive phenom II)
-you're building a gaming rig (the cpu is rarely the limiting factor in gaming, extra cash goes to graphics)
-you're building an HTPC (amd integrated graphics are insane in terms of HD stuff)
-you're likely to want to upgrade your cpu without changing your motherboard (intel has more sockets than transistors)

i don't even know what you're talking about that it only supports one h.264 profile unless you mean it supports only bluray profile 1, which doesn't mean what you said it does and is also wrong as avivo hd supports profile 1.1

AMD stuff is still an option, though if you have the cash and desire for BEST AVAILABLE you're going to want an intel chip with a nvidia card or two.

Argh does this really need to turn into an AMD/Intel Nvidia/ATI thread? They both have their merits, seriously.

On the proc front:
-AMD is king in the budget arena.
-Intel has captured the high end market by a long shot.

GPUS:
-ATI currently has the most powerful GPU on the market and typically has better price:performance. Catalyst is sort of infamously not good. Has Eyefinity in 5000 series.
-Nvidia is falling behind but still has some solid hardware and exclusive features. PhysX, 3D vision, CUDA.

Why would anyone use catalyst anyway? My ati card is old as fuuuck but I always just get the drivers only and use ati tray tools to mess around with options

you can also say the hd5770 is a cheaper card that is worse and doesnt support physx and cuda
look at a core i5 or even a core 2 for this, but i will admit that amd cpus seem to be better for price:performance
its enough of a limiting factor that it still needs consideration. this isnt an outright AMD win at all
rather get an atom
cool argument bro

i could also say the hd5770 is a cheaper card with similar performance, and physx and cuda are part of the extra performance. it's definitely worse but its cheaper and really close behind, ie a couple frames.
"outright AMD win" what are you talking about, this isn't AMD OR INTEL WHO'S BETTER this is in response to (literally if you buy an amd over a core i7 youre bad person) and "don't ever buy an ATI card because catalyst sucks."which are both pretty dumb things to say 
i'm a huge fan of RISC processors but i would rather get a digital projector
and the fact that you need to change motherboards everytime you change your cpu is kinda important, especially as intel mobos tend to be more expensive also.

i couldn't care less about which anime mascot's inside my case, i'm more interested in what's in my wallet, and unless you're buying the LATEST STUFF it's really not black and white, especially when you bring time into consideration (eg latest low vs older high end)

I think he's got you in check there Climbtree.

argh why is this topic still going

Have you tried looking into the warranty policy for your card? I've had two cards fail on me (both nvidia cards) and I've used the warranties on them. Both of the cards I sent in were manufactured by evga and they have lifetime warranties where they'll replace your card with an equivalent or better card. It's worth a try, especially since the GT 220 is complete shit compared to the card you currently have.