ATI Radeon or GeForce 2 GTS with...

[speedracer]

I've finished configuring my new PC and just need to decide which card will give me the least problems with my MSI K7T Turbo motherboard. The ATI Radeon 64DDR or the GeForce 2 GTS 64DDR. Someone please tell me if there is any truth to the compatibility problems between the ATI cards and the VIA chipset (VIA KT133A) on the board. I already have the MSI motherboard so suggesting another really won't help.
I chose the K7T Turbo because it supports the 133/266Mhz FSB of the the Athlon-C I have, and will let me use the 512 PC133 SDRAM I have already.

*MSI K7T-TURBO-R
*AMD Athlon 1200Mhz CPU 256K A-Cache 266FSB
*2X 256MB SDRAM DIMM 32x64 PC-133 (Total 512)
*Explora Silver Mid-Tower 7-Bay/330W P/S
*IBM 45GB Ultra ATA/100 7200rpm IDE Hard Drive
*Standard1.44MB Floppy Drive
*Toshiba 16X DVD ROM EIDE Drive
*Sound Blaster Live! PCI Sound Card
*ATI Radeon DDR 64MB AGP Graphic Card, or NVIDIA GEFORCE2 GTS 64MB-DDR SGRAM??? (I'm worried about the compatibility problems of the VIA chipset and the ATI Radeon boards I keep hearing about. Any truth to it, because I would definitely prefer the Radeon)
*Diamond 56K V90 PCI Fax/Modem/Voice
*Viewsonic GS790

Help!

 

[machow]

Wow.. you've spent a lot of time writing this. Too bad I won't spend a lot of time reading yours! :tongue:

------------------
This site is cool.

 

[noko]

My Radeon 64 VIVO Retail works great on a KT133a chipset motherboard, IWILL KK266. Video In works flawless as well as Video capture works flawless now. DVD is the best and game play is great. No compatibility problems for my setup. Worked great from the get go. I use both WinMe and W2K, more W2k then WinMe. With my 884mhz (136x6.6) T-Bird I got 3407 on 3dMark2001:
<A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?437979" target="_new">http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?437979</A>
I expect to break 4000 points when I upgrade to a 1.33gh T-Bird. Any questions you have just ask. Radeon users are c L

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 03/30/01 10:55 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[speedracer]

Thanks for the boost in confidence with the Radeon. I noticed you haven't run the board on 98SE but I'm assuming if it runs good on both WinMe and W2K, it should work fine. BTW, the link to MadOnion didn't work. (at least for me)

Speedracer

Got a new tag. What do ya think...
---
Remember the Ark was built by amateurs...
The Titanic was built by professionals

 

[noko]

Fixed link above for comparing. Now this is with an overclocked Radeon 64 at 198core/198mem. Still it was done on my 884mhz T-Bird machine using W2k, 3102 official drivers.

 

[arsend]

If you like playing around with your computer's inside parts, I would recommend a tower case with 350 Watt PS. You will have a lot more room to play with. I have a simmular config (as far as CD Rom/ CDRW and HD) and have problems with the case being very cramped. Also, if I wanted to add more HD space for video recording, I will be limited to the amount of drive space available. Also a lager case will normally be better cooled as it has more fans and better circulation.


If it works for you then don't fix it.

 

[Oni]

if you want better performance for your money I'd recomend the geforce.
Last time I checked geforce 2 was cheaper than radeon, but I could be wrong. check www.pricewatch.com first.
I know you can buy the MSI geforce 2 gts pro for $215 and it is a 64 meg card. If you like overclocking you can clock this card a tad higher and basically have a geforce 2 ultra.
Also the geforce 2 ultra's have dropped in price, you can get the Leadtek Geforce 2 ultra (of coarse with 64 megs of ram) for $320, overclock that a tad and you have a VERY nice video card as if an ultra wasn't very nice as it is (considering its the best card you can get right now)

 

[Guest]

i'd say go with nvidia. they seem more stable in my opinion. they also render things correctly. personally, i don't know why people like the radeon.

 

[Sihs]

Although my next card would most probably be nvidia based, I always hear people who get the radeon fall in love with it. It has a couple more features and dx8 stuff and you get better quality 2d/3d=>32 bit with little performance drop.
just my opinion.

 

[tartarhus]

The radeon does have compatability problems with via chipsets, eratic goofy display errors in some games like diablo II and baulders gate. The latest drivers available from ati seem to address many of these issues, however, i have to admit the display still isn't quite as smooth or flawless as on a intel chipset. My comparison was between a abit SH6 (intel 815e) and a Asus A7V133 (via KT133A). Hope this helps. P.S. I would only recommend buying a radeon if DVD playback and 2D games are of importance to you, otherwise, the geforce is the better buy.

 

[Guest]

My experience has been exactly the opposite. I own two Geforce cards and two Radeon cards. Geforce GTS, Geforce 256, Radeon 64k DDR, Radeon LE. I have had no end of compatibility problems with my VIA motherboards (two different vendors) and the Geforce cards (two different vendors). Every thing from crashes to only running in AGP 1x mode. No problems with either of the Radeon cards. All MBs and video cards have the latest drviers and bios. One of the Geforce cards and one of the MBs is Asus. They told me they the two were incompatible.

 

[Guest]

If you plan on using the the setup for T&L enhanced games go with the geForce 2. Both Giants and RealMyst have problems with the Radeon.( In places that use lighting effects there will be a swirl pattern in all of the textures.)

 

[noko]

Seems a number of conflicting stories here. Most reviews of the Radeon boards are very positive as well as for GF2s. Either card for games will work great. Radeon 2d and video (DVD, VideoIn and VideoOut) is significantly better. Radeon 3d rendering for the most part looks better. Radeon does have more advance features than the GF2 cards. GF2 cards run the Radeons in the ground with 16bit graphics, 32bit high resolutions it would be hard to tell the difference, if at all, between the two cards. The newest Via chipsets for Athlon KT133, KT133A work with very little problems for the most part, no more problems than GF2 cards. For games either card will perform well but if you look beyond games and do more with your computer the Radeon cards are hard to pass up.

 

[Guest]

I would go with the Radeon. You can get the 64MB DDR variant for $200 or less american dollars.I just dumped my 32 MB GF2 GTS in favor of this card as the Visual quality was noticable, and i dont notice the framerate loss.
I have an Athlon system, and have NO problemswith this card during installation or playing games.
This card to my knowledge also incorporates all of the DirectX8 features without shelling out 550 dollars.
As far as features and image quality, the GF2 series is outclassed by Radeon. Although if you want raw framerates the GF line is the way to go.( the new drivers from ATI v.7099 are more optimized for OpenGL and work awesome for me in Tribes2)

 

[speedracer]

Well I went with the Radeon and couldn't be happier! No problems at all. My 3DMark2K score seems a bit low though...??

http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?769422

 

[rcf84]

I would go for the radeon 64mb. Doesnt it get more 3dmarks(3dmark 2001) then the geforce2 GTS and even some times the Geforce2 pro. Look at the geforce3 reveiw there was 1 or 2 times the Radeon 64mb beat the Geforce2 pro. GTS and Radeon are the same speed wise. Unless you run your games in 1078x768-32bit then the radeon whips the geforce2 GTS.

Leader of the Anti VIA-Nvidia Army

 

[noko]

Good to hear that the upgrade went well. Make sure you check out <A HREF="http://Rage3d.com" target="_new">http://Rage3d.com</A>. The best support ever for any graphic card is there for the Radeon. Your looking at some 100,000 posts dealing with everything about the Radeon. Tweakers to beta drivers can be found there. New games and ideal configurations for them to maximize your jaw dropping experiences. Anyways click on some of the banners once in awhile to ensure the site has sufficient promoters. <b>Really an awesome site.</b>

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue> This card to my knowledge also incorporates all of the DirectX8 features without shelling out 550 dollars. </font color=blue>

No, the Radeon does incorporate more DX8 features than the GeForce 1 & 2, but it is definitely not fully DX8 compliant. Not even very close really. Right now only the GeForce 3 fits that bill, but fortunately it is more like $400 rather than the $550 to $800 first predicted.

Cheers,
Warden