That's pretty cool? Does this take into effect volume of products? i.e. Nvidia has more GPUs out there and so higher crash figure? (as much as I hate to admit that Nvidia has a higher user base...)

don't see how this regardes the ongoing “Vista Capable” lawsuit, but alright...
but nvidia...:shadedshu

ExceededgokuThat's pretty cool? Does this take into effect volume of products? i.e. Nvidia has more GPUs out there and so higher crash figure? (as much as I hate to admit that Nvidia has a higher user base...)

No, it doesn't, which is a very good point.

so much for ati's drives being crap..

lol at nvidia

I'm not surprised. nVidia drivers were always twitchy. Although, right now almost all of my machines are running ATI/AMD cards, except one, over the last decade I have owned at least a dozen nVidia cards. One thing that remained constant was poor driver quality. It seemed like every new version fixed something for a newer game but broke something in an older game. To this day nVidia still hasn't fixed issues with AvP which appeared with 7x.xx drives, like all the way back in 2005. If you run the latest titles nVidia might be decent, if you give them time to do few driver revisions, but if you have a large library of older titles, Dx7/Dx8 stuff, well....

And nVidia has twice the number of graphics card in Vista machines compared to ATi, and I would guess the highest market share of graphics cards in Vista machines.

A more accurate measure would be the number of crashes per user. These numbers don't tell use that nVidia's drivers are bad in any way, or even that ATi's drivers are better than nVidia and Intel's. Though I'm sure it will be used by the fanboys to try and make it seem that way.

Let me just set up an example for you all:

Say we have 100,000 Vista users that participated in the survey.

Lets say 60,000 use nVidia cards, 20,000 use ATi cards, and 20,000 use Intel cards.

Using their percentages.

17,900 people experienced crashes because of nVidia. That means 35.8% of nVidia users had crashes caused by nVidia.

9,300 people experienced crashes because of AMD(ATi). That means 46.5% of ATi users had crashes caused by AMD.

8,800 people experienced crashes because of Intel. That means 44% of Intel users had crashes caused by Intel.

That paints a very different picture doesn't it? Now we don't actually know the numbers of actual users of each card that were included in the survery, I just made those numbers up to show that the real picture depends on those numbers. And because they are not presented to us, we can't accurately say that nVidia's drivers are any worse than the others, even if the article tries to claim that. Without that needed information that conclusion can't be made or justified.

newtekie1A more accurate measure would be the number of crashes per user. These numbers don't tell use that nVidia's drivers are bad in any way, or even that ATi's drivers are better than nVidia and Intel's. Though I'm sure it will be used by the fanboys to try and make it seem that way.

Why is someone a fanboy when they knock your beloved nvidia, but you are not even though you consistently knock ATi?

DarknovaWhy is someone a fanboy when they knock your beloved nvidia, but you are not even though you consistently knock ATi?

+1

I've used NV cards since the longhorn beta's and through and I have not had a single VC related crash yet :confused: And yes I use ATI also no problems there either :D

Well this is what i think if microsoft cant get vista right how can nvidia and amd vista has so many issues.

Nitro-MaxWell this is what i think if microsoft cant get vista right how can nvidia and amd vista has so many issues.

lol, true

DarknovaWhy is someone a fanboy when they knock your beloved nvidia, but you are not even though you consistently knock ATi?

They are a fanboy if they try to use this data to make ATi seem better than nVidia. Show me where I have untruthfully knocked ATi? Pointing out that there is no reason to actually buy an ATi card at present other than preference or because you already have a Crossfire board is not fanboyism, it is the truth.

Sorry, talking the truth about your beloved ATi doesn't make me a fanboy, even if it is negative truths.

And nVidia isn't beloved to me, I have owned more ATi cards in my lifetime than nVidia cards. There is litterally no good reason to buy an ATi card currently, and that is all I have said, and it is the truth. You can not show me one ATi video card worth buying. Go on, try. I challenge you. Show me an ATi card that is worth buying.

newtekie1They are a fanboy if they try to use this data to make ATi seem better than nVidia. Show me where I have untruthfully knocked ATi? Pointing out that there is no reason to actually buy an ATi card at present other than preference or because you already have a Crossfire board is not fanboyism, it is the truth.

Sorry, talking the truth about your beloved ATi doesn't make me a fanboy, even if it is negative truths.

And nVidia isn't beloved to me, I have owned more ATi cards in my lifetime than nVidia cards.

sorry but you are full of it, you run around every chance you get badmouthing ati, ur a fanboi/nvidiot, just be a man like btarunr and admit it.

and there are reasions, you just wont accept them because they arent strong points for nvidia, i wont bother listing them again, but most of us know what they are.

BumbRushsorry but you are full of it, you run around every chance you get badmouthing ati, ur a fanboi/nvidiot, just be a man like btarunr and admit it.

and there are reasions, you just wont accept them because they arent strong points for nvidia, i wont bother listing them again, but most of us know what they are.

You have not given me any reason.

A build in sound card, big deal, I have one of those on my motherboard that is better already thanks though. That is essentially your only valid point though.

And again, speaking the truth does not make me a fanboy. Funny how you have been unable to challenge my truth. I have not bashed ATi, I have not stooped to saying crap like their "drivers are shitty" like you have about nVidia. I have provided several pieces of evidence showing that nVidia cards consistantly outperform the current ATi offerings at the same prices, or perform the same at lower prices. Saying crap like "well nVidia used to use lower IQ to get better performance so they suck" is a fanboy argument, one that you have tried to make already. It doesn't fly here.

Again, you are more than welcome to show me where I have "bashed ATi". Just remember speaking the truth isn't bashing.

newtekie1And nVidia has twice the number of graphics card in Vista machines compared to ATi, and I would guess the highest market share of graphics cards in Vista machines.

A more accurate measure would be the number of crashes per user. These numbers don't tell use that nVidia's drivers are bad in any way, or even that ATi's drivers are better than nVidia and Intel's. Though I'm sure it will be used by the fanboys to try and make it seem that way.

Let me just set up an example for you all:

Say we have 100,000 Vista users that participated in the survey.

Lets say 60,000 use nVidia cards, 20,000 use ATi cards, and 20,000 use Intel cards.

Using their percentages.

17,900 people experienced crashes because of nVidia. That means 35.8% of nVidia users had crashes caused by nVidia.

9,300 people experienced crashes because of AMD(ATi). That means 46.5% of ATi users had crashes caused by AMD.

8,800 people experienced crashes because of Intel. That means 44% of Intel users had crashes caused by Intel.

That paints a very different picture doesn't it? Now we don't actually know the numbers of actual users of each card that were included in the survery, I just made those numbers up to show that the real picture depends on those numbers. And because they are not presented to us, we can't accurately say that nVidia's drivers are any worse than the others, even if the article tries to claim that. Without that needed information that conclusion can't be made or justified.

the trouble is that nvidia doesn't have near the amount of users that intel does. thus intel would be 70% of the graphucs market, nvidia 20%, ATI 7% with the other 3% going to via, matrox etc.

though I think it's total bs that microshaft is blaming other manufacturers for crashes that occur in their software.

This is funny, more than half of this thread is hidden to me. All I see instead of posts is: "This user is on your Ignore List." Usual suspects, eh?

My ignore list just grows and grows and TPU becomes a quieter and more civil place with each new addition.

god please i beg of you all for my sanity no more ati vs. nvidia threads they both do the job that they are intended to do, they both have their strong and weak points

*glares at 8800 GTS on the table* to bad, hope they make up pretty soon,

yogurt_21the trouble is that nvidia doesn't have near the amount of users that intel does. thus intel would be 70%, nvidia 20%, ATI 7% with the other 3% going to via, matrox etc.

Overall, yes. Though I'm not too sure about Vista, though I am sure it is still true. Though I see more and more Vista pre-built computers being sold with descrete graphics solutions. Intel definitely is on the ball with their drivers though, as I am sure they have the most graphics cards in use with Vista. However, without knowing the actual figures, saying that these percentages are a sign that nVidia's drivers are worse than other is a false conclusion.

newtekie1And nVidia has twice the number of graphics card in Vista machines compared to ATi, and I would guess the highest market share of graphics cards in Vista machines..

But ati still doesnt make the top tier of the list .... food for thought

show me an nvidia card with hdmi audio and vivo support, good luck, no nvidia card till the new 9800 has them :)

AddSubThis is funny, more than half of this thread is hidden to me. All I see instead of posts is: "This user is on your Ignore List." Usual suspects, eh?

My ignore list just grows and grows and TPU becomes a quieter and more civil place with each new addition.

good idea *adds newtekie1 to iggy list*

newtekie1Overall, yes. Though I'm not too sure about Vista, though I am sure it is still true. Though I see more and more Vista pre-built computers being sold with descrete graphics solutions. Intel definitely is on the ball with their drivers though, as I am sure they have the most graphics cards in use with Vista. However, without knowing the actual figures, saying that these percentages are a sign that nVidia's drivers are worse than other is a false conclusion.

Yeah I think chipsets are more than likely the culpret for the crashes, in which case ati's numbers there start too look much much worse. as with chipsets they're in the 5% mark or so. with 9.3% of the crashes. all in all nvidia and ati are quite similar ratio wise in these charts, it's Intel that comes off looking like a champ, 70%+ of the products on the market and yet causing only 8.8% of the crashes. wow, I think ati/amd and nvidia have along way to go in comparison.

BumbRushshow me an nvidia card with hdmi audio and vivo support, good luck, no nvidia card till the new 9800 has them :)

Show me an ATi card that meets those requirements. There is one on newegg, a 2900XT. Vivo is dead. People aren't buying graphics cards for VIVO anymore. Not even the 9800 series has it. I don't know what you are going on about now.