ATI or Nvidia, Which is better?

Hey guys I don't want fanboyism here, I want cold hard facts. I want to see benchmarks comparing the ATI Radeon HD 6990 and the GTX 590 from nvidia, if possible, include pictures comparing the same game scene with each card, a video would be amazing too, since it would allow me to see how the game renders. I'm asking this cause I know this clan is rife with people who know stuff on both sides of the fence, and I have to choose between buying only one of them, and am at mixed ends...

Google it and read the reviews yourself to get an unbiased answer.

See, but when companies rate something they all do the same, they throw like, 4-5 benchmarking programs at different resolutions and throw out the wattage, the temps, and the FPS, I don't want just that, I want image rendering views, and I want more then just program benchmarks, I want visual rendering differences (I've SEEN how different a game seen on an Nvidia card, and a ATI card can be even on the same settings) I want Fan speed sound compared to other items, I want experience with driver issues, such as hiccups and just flat out crashes and errors and random small lock ups. I want people who use these cards to give me facts they've seen and back them up with graphs that show it.

its the whole computer that makes the difference not the GPU. even though for games it does over 80% of work. most online reviews are bs and bias anyway. 90% of time they always use an I7 with 6 gigs of ram and they test nvidia and amd card, but intel systems are setup for sli not crossfire. same goes for amd systems until (990X came out) you could only do crossfire. i know for a fact that if you have amd cpu, amd sidechip and amd GPU you get the spider effect. but really on a test you can't show that. there are 100+ sites that all do testing and then are many forums you can go on to read reviews. i go to newegg alot for reviews on specific products. either brand you go with nvidia or AMD you won't go wrong. both make great GPU's

Yeah I realize that, and I see that, I'd be using an Intel I7, and 16 gigs of ram, maybe an AMD processor will do it better, but I've always wanted to record my games, and do many things at once and benchmarks have systematically proven that Intel is better for multi processing and they are just "Better" I won't bring the argument of the bulldozer chip because that's a (not to sound pervy but) virgin chip, it just hit markets, drivers could make it better, but initially that 8 core processor is doing just as well as a 4 core i7, except in 3d (I personally can't STAND 3D anything it makes me nauseous unless I keep my head and eyes completely still), so maybe things are skewed a bit, but I am talking on a game by game visual by visual basis, I don't want spewed data biased by their test PC's I want sayings like "I see ATI render games better when there is X" and then showing me photos or even videos of it being shot, maybe an example will make it better idk, Me and my room mate have the same exact rig minus one thing, he has an ATI card, and I have an Nvidia card of the equivalent, when we both played Borderlands together I would look at his screen, and back at mine, his looked like his cel shaded player was running through an animated comic book almost like the colors were more crisp and vibrant, where as my player, was just cell shaded in a comic book style, flat, and just... there. We play Call of Duty Mw2 together, both on high settings cranked, I threw a knife it just flew through the air, he through a knife, it got this cool, warp look to it, almost like the knife was traveling at super speeds (Cheesy but still cool) a year later MW2 got a visual update for Nvidia cards, and we got patched to look MORE LIKE HIS gametype, Now, we play Dead island together, and when I swing a bat I get the same visual warp, he swings a bat he has the same warp, but less pronounced, That's what I am looking for, is there a constant, "Prettier" contender, or is it just a literal flip flop like the benchmarks on data is? Cause as far as benchmarks go either way, they are a shoulder shrug apart from each other, I want VISUAL referencing not just cold data facts. I know initially I said benchmarks but that's cause I didn't know the verbiage to say that I wanted visual representation.

If you have a PC with gaming specs...talking about i5-2500k and 8gb ram-type region here, the GTX 590 WILL perform better in most games. The reason I'm saying this is because the GTX 590 is just two 580 chips on one PCB. The Radeon 6990 is just two 6970 chips on one PCB. The GTX 580 out performs the 6970 in most benchmarks. So, the 590 is more powerful than the 6990. What's sad though, is I can get a second 6970 and crossfire it, and it will be slightly more powerful than a single 6970, for nearly $100 less.

i know for a fact that if you have amd cpu, amd sidechip and amd GPU you get the spider effect.

This is true. Called AMD Fusion. When you have an AMD CPU, sidechip and GPU, it boosts your overall CPU/GPU power by a small percentage. I had this with my last build.

Yeah I realize that, and I see that, I'd be using an Intel I7, and 16 gigs of ram, maybe an AMD processor will do it better, but I've always wanted to record my games, and do many things at once and benchmarks have systematically proven that Intel is better for multi processing and they are just "Better

Yeah, if you're into heavy multitasking, go Intel. Definitely. During the BF3 Alpha, and even in BC2, I would get a sharp frame drop when I started FRAPS recording with my 955 BE. With my i5, it doesn't even stutter. I think I MAY have dropped 1 frame on Caspian Border. And I'm talking full res low compression 60fps recording. Also, with my 955, BC2 would max out my CPU usage even when overclocked. On this stock i5-2500k, it hasn't jumped above 63% usage in the BF3 beta. My GPU is running at 99% all the time in the beta though lol.

See, that's the odd thing, every benchmark I see, they flip-flop 3d mark vantage says the 590 wins, passmark or some other bench mark will say the 6990 wins, so as far as raw spewed data proves it shows the 590 crushes the 6990 in 3d application and rendering but like I said I am not touching 3d with a diamond tip pole unless I want to be nauseous after every 2 hours I game.

OK here is my take on things,
when it comes down to were I'm going to invest my money in i don't just look at the product, i have to look at the company as a whole. Nvidia has been known for padding there drivers so it appears that there cards run faster when in reality there are forcing the card to render less information, providing a lower image quality. now i don't know if this is still true today but honestly i wouldn't doubt it. looking at two systems side by side (find a pc store a microcenter close to you and go look this is how i found the difference) i have always found since the start of ATI's HD area that they have always had the better image.

now for my personal reasons, after having 4 different nvidia cards from 3 different generations die pretty much at the two year mark that show me that nvidia has some serious quality control issues. realize that none of those had been overclocked, and i keep my rigs very clean. so none of that was my fault. my HD4870 has been buzzing along for 3-4 years now, overclocked the entire time, and i have never had a hiccup. now with my past experiences as well as Nvidia's past behavior i would continue with ATI.

Also, with my 955, BC2 would max out my CPU usage even when overclocked.

I have the excact same CPU, and it doesent in my opinion "Max out". When running BC2 @ max, the CPU works at 63% (Lowest I have seen) to 'bout 80%.I wouldnt say maxed out, but It I know that Intel CPU outpreformes it quite hard.. Just throwing in my opinion..

OT: I have always chosen nVidia. Because, I dont really know, but every one of them has been stable, cool, and silent. I currently have a GTX 560 Ti, and Im happy with that for now. If you want comparisment, id say it had an overall 45 FPS running BF3 BETA on High. It never went below 60 when I mixed some stuff on medium, and some on high.
Overall, I think that it is a good GFX card. I might just get one more in a while, tho..

Also, with my 955, BC2 would max out my CPU usage even when overclocked.

I have the excact same CPU, and it doesent in my opinion "Max out". When running BC2 @ max, the CPU works at 63% (Lowest I have seen) to 'bout 80%.I wouldnt say maxed out, but It I know that Intel CPU outpreformes it quite hard.. Just throwing in my opinion..

1.) You have more RAM.
2.) You have a better motherboard.
3.) I meant in a full 32-slot server. lol. I was seeing anywhere from 65% (empty to ~5ppl on a server) to 98% (full 32-slot server).

I like kingwolf's post it helps me more or less guage how nvidia does things, I know they still pad the meters cause in Crysis 2, they added unnecessary tessellation loads like, 600K of pixels on a speed bump, and they would have the game render that speed bump well past it, so that Nvidia looked better with their higher tessellation, I also know they've had driver issues from personal experience, considering that they push drivers out that have cooked graphics cards before (My 9800 for example) and I believe back in SC2 there was an issue with them.. not sure, Also I have a question, ATI boasts HD quality, does the Nvidia do it and not boast it? Or do they just not do it, and that's why ATI seems to have the better card?

[(TKC)-o]T3[o]

OK here is my take on things,
when it comes down to were I'm going to invest my money in i don't just look at the product, i have to look at the company as a whole. Nvidia has been known for padding there drivers so it appears that there cards run faster when in reality there are forcing the card to render less information, providing a lower image quality. now i don't know if this is still true today but honestly i wouldn't doubt it. looking at two systems side by side (find a pc store a microcenter close to you and go look this is how i found the difference) i have always found since the start of ATI's HD area that they have always had the better image.

now for my personal reasons, after having 4 different nvidia cards from 3 different generations die pretty much at the two year mark that show me that nvidia has some serious quality control issues. realize that none of those had been overclocked, and i keep my rigs very clean. so none of that was my fault. my HD4870 has been buzzing along for 3-4 years now, overclocked the entire time, and i have never had a hiccup. now with my past experiences as well as Nvidia's past behavior i would continue with ATI.

But dude, I have the exact opposite experience. I have never had problems with nvidia, but the one time I went ATI the card actually burned up and died within 1 year. Luni of course said he liked your post, but how can you base anything on a personal experience like this when others will tell you the exact opposite? Nvidia would have to start sucking some serious butt before I would ever go back to ATI/AMD.

as i said it is simply my experience.

my cousin experienced the same problem you did, video card blew up and took a few things with it, and it was a ati card. from then on we both were nvidia. what really changed are minds at the time we bought out new cards was price to performance and the nvidia fiasco. so when i bought my 4870 i took into consideration what happened to my cousin (which mind you was before AMD bought them out) what happened to me with a failed 6600 gt out of the box, a 6800 which failed 6 months in, two 7900 gs that took a year to go, and a 8800 gt that was dead in 8 months. all that negative from one company plus the games it was play on top of there cards "at the time" being over priced, was why i took the chance and switched sides. and since then i have not had a issue.

now Luninariel to get the best of the best you need to sit down yourself and do some research, because everything we say will be pushed towards one way or the other because we have for the most part made up our minds. you need to do the research or buy both and make your own opinion.

[(TKC)-o]T3[o]

we have for the most part made up our minds. you need to do the research or buy both and make your own opinion.

Actually to me it sounded like he had made up his mind too.

But dude, I have the exact opposite experience. I have never had problems with nvidia, but the one time I went ATI the card actually burned up and died within 1 year. Luni of course said he liked your post, but how can you base anything on a personal experience like this when others will tell you the exact opposite? Nvidia would have to start sucking some serious butt before I would ever go back to ATI/AMD.

I will agree with T here. I have never ever had any issues with ANY of my cards. Every one of them still runs, and they run well. I don't have any ATI/AMD cards, so I have nothing to say there, tho

1.) You have more RAM.
2.) You have a better motherboard.
3.) I meant in a full 32-slot server. lol. I was seeing anywhere from 65% (empty to ~5ppl on a server) to 98% (full 32-slot server).

Yea, didn't know ram had anything to do with this, but I agree with you since I know you know alot more than me about computers. Imma just lay flat and admit that thus we both know it.. Anyway.. Mine works at 75-85% on a full 32 server, and 80-90% on a full 64 Caspian border server. Those are just facts. How they are just that, I don't have a clue..