Question for ATI Radeon over the GeForce2.

[bungee]

Following my post about the price of GeForce3, if it is too expensive for me, I have to choose between GeForce 2 or Radeon. I was not really attracted with the radeon, considering GeForce 2 much more superior, but lots of people seems to consider Radeon as equal or better than GeForce2. I wish to play in 1024x768x32. And for Radeon, I want no less than the 64 meg DDR. Is there more than one version of 64 meg DDR? And I want your opinion for Radeon. And I have to say, that I don't always play game so other advantages are welcome, but I don't do video and I don't plan to plug my TV on my computers. I hope that you will answer my big bunch of questions!
Thank you in advance!!! I love so much that forum!!!
(sorry, my joy exploded....)

Dasdrasvyet Sovyetskikh Soyuz! (not true)

 

[rcf84]

Well the Radeon 64mb VIVO is a good choice my Radeon 32mb ddr runs 1028x768x32 in half-life runs great. Well i have seen 64mb VIVO radeon's for $150.00

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... Yummy

 

[arsend]

If you can wait, I do beleive that the new Radeon will be coming out shortly, and what this will do is lower the prices of all the other cards as competition has a way of doing. I Use the AIW Radeon and it has done a good job with what I use it for.

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

 

[Makaveli]

The Geforce 2 is not superior to the Radeon at all! For playing in 1024x768 32bit colour you will get the same frame rate if not better on the radeon! Geforce card is great for 16bit but when it come to 32bit the radeon is equal if not better! Texture compression on the Geforce card sucks to! Image quality is also better on the Radeon!

One more thing it's a great price!

 

[noko]

I have a Radeon 64 and I usually play above 1024x768x32 without any problems, the Radeon shines at High Res, 32bit gaming. The quality is awesome. The new Radeon 64s are better then the orginal due to faster memory and a revised Radeon core. They are quit frankly screamers and beat GF2 Ultras in 3dMark2001 and some games.

 

[Crashman]

Radeon's a great card, GF2 is also. There is a newer version of the retail 64DDR card that has faster ram and a higher clock, so go for it.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[ajmcgarry]

I was not really attracted with the radeon, considering GeForce 2 much more superior

A common mistake. NVidia have more partners and therefor more variations of their card and more advertising.

So far I've recommended Radeon cards to 2 friends of mine and both are nothing short of flabbergasted.
Just because the GeForces can be configured to give enormous benchmark scores in 3DMark does not make it superior.


<font color=blue>GeForce2 Cards.</font color=blue>
<i>Pros</i>
Lightning Fast especially in 16bit modes
Driver support second to none
Availability and support
<i>Cons</i>
Relatively poor image. Some people say little improvement over 128ZX chips
Some incompatability issues with Socket-A Motherboards


<font color=blue>Radeon Cards.</font color=blue>
<i>Pros</i>
32bit speed performance almost matches 16bit performance.
Superior image quality over Geforce in Games (On par with Voodoo 5)
Superior 2D quality and DVD playback second to none.
Radeon LE (Ask and I'm sure someone will tell you)
<i>Cons</i>
Relatively poor driver support.
Some reported bugs in Win2K drivers.




Basically with the Radeon your getting speeds in 32bit that are always close to the Geforce and in many games supassing it, because of Hyper Z (Z occlussion and culling in memory). It losses out in 16 bit, but you don't care about that. You also get a higher quality image, and crisper DVD playback.


<font color=blue>Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!</font color=blue>

 

[ajmcgarry]

You could wait for the Radeon 2 to come out for a price drop on the Radeon, or even get the Radeon 2. Personally I can't wait for the Radeon 2. If it does has Truform (N-Patches) then Nvidia are going to [-peep-] themselves. Unfortunately ATi are not giving us the full story, all we know is that they are working on the technology.
Check out this site or Anandtech for more on that.
Or you could ask Noko.


<font color=blue>Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!</font color=blue>

 

[noko]

I disagree with the poor driver support, that is more of a reputation from the hell drivers of the Rage128 chip. I had a Rage Fury with a super7 mother board, I know what hell drivers are. Radeon drivers are very good now. The Win9x drivers where from the beginning rather good, now they are very good. W2K drivers are like night and day, when first release they just plain sucked, now they are also very good. I do most of my gaming in W2K without to many problems, in fact the only problem I have is with FLY2, the first real game problem I had with my Radeon. Everything else just screams.

 

[Bud]

Well the RADEON gang has chimed in I like how when someone posts this question how they all rush in to convert
people.

I sugest you look at benchmarks at various res and detail
levels. Don't just take someone's word...see the empirical
evidence for yourself.

I can tell you that GF2 really holds great frame rates at high res and detail.

But the Radeon gang seems to love their cards too. But I always get the impression that they're rebeling against the establishment though.

I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bud on 07/13/01 11:43 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

hehe, well we just know it is a great card. I do have a MX400 card and the 3d quality really doesn't compare. Colors are much better, textures look better, Anisotropic filtering kicks major butt with the Radeon. Plus the superior 2d, DVD and video quality, more DX8 features such as Enviromental bump mapping, 3d textures, 4 matrix skinning. We know what we got and most of us are very very happy with the Radeon. Even us W2k users. FPS benchmarks counts for about 30% for my overall ratings, too many other considerations need to be made in which the Radeon does very good overall. Just locking in on FPS I think is a big mistake.

 

[Bud]

I'm so glad you are comparing your MX to Radeon...NOT
Poop on MX. That's not even the real GeForce man! It don't mean a thing!

We've been over this before and I simply disagree you.
GF2gts/pro/ultra are all better cards for gaming than
Radeon...Radeon is good but not as good.

And looking at frame rates is NOT "a big mistake", as you put it. It all depends on what you want.
I want to kick people asses on-line And I do...in spades...with Geforce2

I couldn't care less about slightly better image...Hell,
I've instructed my GF2 (in my primary machine), to go for
higher frames rates at the expense of image quality as it is!

...And even those lower quality images are really good.
I mean seriously....If I can see and hit people at 300M with a saw,
or snipe people at 1000M over cascading landscapes (which actually REQUIRES HIGH image quality (unlike the dungeon motif in Quake where people are in your face at 50m or less), then the image quality is NO problem, Is it?

I tested my D3d settings at high image quality and it really wasn't ALL THAT much better.....but when I instructed GF2 for frame rate over image quality...I got ass kicking game speed...just ask anybody who plays DFLW who Bud Bogart is....
heheh....People either love me or accuse me of cheating...depending what team they're on, LOL

And I do no video watching or editing so there's really no reason for me to own a Radeon simply because it has a little better image quality. Other People here (who actually own a GTS & Radeon), have already said the Radeon is slower....and that's that...it confirms what I've already seen as far as benchmarks go....your propaganda isn't going to work on me The empirics are in, GF2 is a better card for games.

Now go be happy with your slower Radeon and I'll go be very happy with my faster GeForce.

I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bud on 07/13/01 04:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

The image quality of a MX200 is the same as a GF2 Ultra dude. The speed maybe different but the image quality is the same for all the GF2's. I wasn't compairing speed between the two. Do you want me show you some images showing the weakness of the GF2 line?????

If you are happy with your setup thats great, keep it.

So what benchmark are you talking about dude??? I am sure my measly slow Radeon would wipe your GF2 all over the place in VillageMark. In 3dMark2001 and probably in a number of other benchmarks. While in QuakeIII the GF2 would do ok and a number of other programs. If the game is playing at a smooth playable rate then what the hell good is adding more FPS, especially when your FPS is exceeding the monitor refresh rate. Your right, not a damn.

So image quality should be improved and that is what the Radeon does, gives you alot more substance in game image, alot more. Not propaganda but truth, just except it.

 

[noko]

Oh yea the new Radeon 64's would indeed be faster then a GF2 due to its 5ns ram and faster core. The new Radeon 64's are getting over 4500 in 3dMark2001, are you???

 

[Guest]

"That's not even the real GeForce man! It don't mean a thing!"
sports the same image quality as a gts/pro/ultra and that is what he was talking about. I don't think that you understand that if you have a certain amount of fps in a game having more won't make you better in a game. You obviously don't care about image quality so why are you even here? Changing your setting to go from 100fps to 120fps and making the image even worse is pointless. Man, you probably set all your games for 16bit...

 

[Bud]

Man, you crack me up.

"If the game is playing at a smooth playable rate then what the hell good is adding more FPS,.."

Well to enlighten you….It makes my program run faster…understand??
And if my program runs faster, My game character runs faster, and when my game character runs faster than yours….you're toast….The people I'm shooting at have a harder time hitting me. It has some to
do with lag aslo …but the frame rate and game speed increase that in my favor. I can prove it if you want to meet me in a LW room.

I can get better image quality simply by forcing it in the properties menu…but RAW FPS is where it's at.

Maybe I'll post some benchies when I get time.

I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!

 

[Bud]

Blow me dufas...read my previous post.

I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!

 

[Bud]

I've got 5 and 5.5 nano on my cards...what r u talking about??? And since we're talking about ram nano now, GF3
has 3-3.5 nano...whatever...

I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!

 

[noko]

So are you saying the GF2 makes you run faster, jump taller buildings and dodge bullets?? That the cpu will process the game code faster too?? So then a GF3 would really make you be able to leave orbit right?

Really that is not how it works, at least in every game I've ever played. So then you should play in 640x480x16 all the time, so that you can be SuperBoy. Just kidding there.

 

[Bud]

Actaully, YES, IT DOES

That IS how it works. The game runs faster. Is that hard for you to understand?? Haven't you ever played an old game on your new computer and noticed that is was totally to fricking fast. I've got tons of old games that simply run to freaking fast to play on my newer machines. Try scrolling WarcraftII for instance.

I can actaully jump up on roofs (from fences) when I have faster frames (100+)...really. I couldn't do that at lower FPS.


I can clear more ditches, dodge more bullets...

You medicore gamers think you know it all....LOLOL.

Mess with the killers and we'll show you how it's done.

==8-_)




I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!

 

[Guest]

Well bud, if framerate is everything. Why don' u get a card withno EMBM, no bumpmapping, no fsaa, no nFinix engine, no pixel shader, no vertex shader, no Dx 8 compatability, no HDVP( in the GF3), no 32bit Z-stencil, with 16 colour, 640x480 resolution, no Digital Vibrance control(it's in your geforce MX) , no Twinview, no DVI support, no DVD hardware decoding. Then you just need add some Superfast ram and core clock, it will become the perfect card for u? Correct???

 

[Bud]

LOLOL....Dork. I play LW @1024x76x32 bump and bit maps are on....detail is high...texture is high color is 32-bit...keep ranting dude. I play Superbike2001 at
1280x1024...or 1600x1200 in single player where a simple 50 FPS will do....bit mapping on....details on "ultra", as high as they will go...

...put that in your pipe and smoke it...LOL

You slay me man....keep tryng though


I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bud on 07/13/01 05:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Bud]

All this talk about games is making me want to play....I need to go home!! ....hehehehe.

I sold about 50 games on e-bay 2 sets of 25 CDs and manuals.

And I still have about 50 games left.....I NEED MORE GAMES!

I think I'll go buy a new game in a few min when I get off
work. Any recomendations??

You see, I play games for competion. Kicking all your
inept asses relievs stress...aaahhhhhhh.

I like to be #1 in a fifty player room!!! (Maybe #2...heheh)

You play a couple rounds against the computer and you think
you know it all about games.....my GOSH what ignorance!

You novices crack me up.....You're the little whimps who
whine and cry that all the high scorers cheat....LOL

Get a GeForce.




I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!

 

[Makaveli]

I'll challenge you to a game of Quake 3 or Counter Strike Anytime Friend and lets see if your 90fps to my 77fps will make a difference when my superior Skill kicks in.
Don't listen to that Nividian Troll Frame per second is not everything! U want the card that suites u best overall, who give a flying [-peep-] if some guys gets 125 fps in 16bit with his GTS 2. I don't know about you but I play all my games in 32bit. There are many benchmarks of the radeon beating GTS 2 in 32bit.

 

[Bud]

READ THE POSTS ...TARD...who said anthing about 16-bit??
I sold my quake3...and I've tired of CS....But, I'll be hosting LW tonight in public at 9pm pacific, buttmunch. I'll call it "radeonwussies"....hmmm hope that fits. cya there pussy


I'm not in touch with my feeings, and I like it that way!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bud on 07/13/01 06:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>