Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Geforce2 vs Radeon - the results are in

  • Graphics Cards
  • Radeon
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
July 17, 2001 7:50:13 PM

Okay, I did it…I bought a frickin Radeon32ddr….My wife doesn't know I've spent more money though.
So here's the setup….2 basically identical machines except for CPU and amount of RAM and H/D.

Rather than pull my 1200c and replace it with my spare 1000b (making both machines identical except for the amount of ram & HD), I simply reclocked the 1200 down to 1000/100fsb and changed the dram clock to host+pci, which should make the playing field even. I didn't pull the extra stick of ram from my primary machine because it seemed more trouble than it was worth and I couldn't see 384mb making that
much difference from 128mb….but I know some radeon groupie will end up calling me a moron for that, and say that my test was completely unbalanced - I don't care at this point.

I had my friend come over and play-test with me on my LAN.
First we tested SuperBike2001. I decided to go all the way and test the cards at 1600x1280 ultra high
detail, bit mapping on, maximum rendering distance.
At first I was surprised by the Radeon's 1600x1200 performance….But after several minuets of gameplay
we began noticing that there would be random moments (just 2 seconds really) that readeon seemed to stop and recalculate or something…which could be a real drag if it happens just as you're entering a curve because then you find yourself nearly off the road once the frame rate gets going again.
but really I don't see much difference between 1600x1280 and 1280x1024 in the game anyway, so it's not like I need 1600x1280 in that game to be happy. 1280x1024 is enough. 1600x1280 didn't improve much.
And here's the real kicker….neither of us could see a difference in visual quality which contradicts what
I (and others) have been saying about radeon…go figure.

Next we tested LandWarrior at 1024x768x32 max details. I'll admit visual quality was good with radeon…but like I said before…I can get good enough visual quality with GeForce as well. I actually set the Geforce d3d quality to be blended…right in the middle, not leaning toward frame rate and not leaning toward Image. I do see better image quality when I set the properties to lean toward image, but it's not so
radical that I would sacrifice the frame rates for it. However, I play on-line in competition and lead my
own team and I can't afford to be beaten in front of my team mates. Whereas someone who only plays
single player missions against the ridiculously stupid computer opponents will probably be more impressed with maximum window dressing as opposed to supper frame rate.

My friend is playing on the secondary machine with the radeon and I'm spending most of my time watching his screen…the game looks good…smooth enough….So at this point I'm thinking, the
Radeon is not a bad card. We didn't have time last night to test any other games, so when my friend leaves, I decide to really put it to the test. I pulled the Radeon and put it in my primary machine, load drivers, no problems. I log on and go play (under a new name) and jeeez….the radeon is sucking like a cheap whore! What's up with that? It definitely was not as smooth as my Geforce2. Granted, my geforce is overclocked like a mofo….but c'mon…The gameplay was simply choppy as hell…that's when I decided to go to bed, too tired to deal with that problem. My preliminary conclusion is that this card isn't going to cut it for me!!! I can't except any chopping or dropping of frames rates when I'm trying to out lag my opponent anyway. I still played really well and got #1s and #2s on the score card but the chop was fully pissing me off.

So this morning I got up early (I just don't have extra time otherwise), and put the radeon
back in my wife's machine for the simple reason….she takes lots of digital pictures and does
photo-editing everyday….question: Will she see the difference in image quality??? I've got
a dime-note that says she doesn't…..but I'll ask when I get home.

I suppose if I didn't already have a super video card to compare it with, I'd think radeon was great.
But fortunately I do have a bunch of geforce cards to compare it with.

The Driver installation did go really well with radeon, which is more than I can say for my non-Asus
Geforce cards. However, the lack of separate D3D, OpenGl, Desktop, color properties still
really irks the hell out me.

Don't expect me to respond to the plethora of Radeaon gang insults that I know are coming.
I'm sure I'll be called, "IGNORANT", "MISINFORMED", "NVIDIOT TROLL", "RETARD",
"MORON", etc, etc, etc….accuse me of playing in 16-bit, etc…etc….

Actually, moron, feels like I fits right now, as I've already wasted money and time to prove to myself
what I sort of already knew… So to that end I feel buffaloed by the Radeon gang…but at least now
I can jump in and say….hey I've got both cards and can give first hand experience on both.

But I'm not going to waste anymore of my precious resources arguing about this most stupid of threads.

"That's right, I'm the guy who can feel the difference between 50FPS & 100FPS in LandWarrior."

More about : geforce2 radeon results

July 17, 2001 7:57:41 PM


Sorry, just couldn't resist it. :wink:

<font color=red><i>Tomorrow I will live, the fool does say
today itself's too late; the wise lived yesterday
July 17, 2001 8:08:20 PM

Could you please tell us a couple of things, which Radeon card and which gforce card are you comparing and list the drivers for each. I am just a bit curious as I to own both the ati radeon ( 64 vivo) and a gforce2 pro ( gainward golden sample). In all fiarness have you spent as much time tweaking your Radeon as you have you gforce ( you mention you have it overclocked)?

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Related resources
July 17, 2001 8:08:37 PM

Thanks for the post. I for one haven't seen enough direct comparision between Ati and nVidia cards.

Whoever thinks up a good sig for me gets a prize :wink:
July 17, 2001 10:37:14 PM

Thats cool. Realize you bought a 166mhz/166mhz core/mem. Not exactly the speediest setup compared to a speedier Radeon. If you are truely objective then that would be great. How much did you pay for the Radeon 32DDR? Is it a LE? Which drivers are you using and what operating system? Can you post images on the web?
July 17, 2001 10:44:26 PM

Oh yes - isn't your post misleading by saying "the results are in" ?? You just got it and installed it in a slower machine, a machine which is different from the start. Well I hope to see some indebt analysis. Do both machines have the same monitor? What brand of monitor is it and what resolutions are you guys using?
July 18, 2001 2:38:20 AM

All things can be proven and disproven in the PC market. I happen to like the Radeon AIW, not because of its speed or the ablilty to kill all my opponents, but because I like that it runs stable, gives me all the options that I was looking for and was at the price I was willing to pay. I am happy that you like your card Bud, there are a lot of people who never have this feeling. I'm glad you found a product that meets your particular needs. I also know that with tweaking, any computer can be faster and use its resources more efficently. Noko is a pro at tweaking Radeons and his knowlede and expertice has helped many of us out when we did have problems. You are great at helping people with Geforce problems, and giving them the most for their money as well. So why do we just go back to supporting our favored product and let the others chooce to aggree, or diaggree?

If it works for you then don't fix it.
July 18, 2001 4:21:12 AM

I would just like to say that if you compared a GeForce 2 GTS 32 megs with the RADEON 32 megs, well... it's not fair because of the price! GeForce2 GTS 32 has a price that looks like much more a RADEON 64 megs DDR! That is the card you should have bought to test equally priced video card, no? We never talk enough of the price when comparing stuff. It's like tom's review between Athlon and P4. Maybe P4 is better in Quake 3, but at what price!!!!????
Anyway, just a note here...

:smile: <font color=red>Hail total victory of AMD versus Intel! :smile:
July 18, 2001 2:58:49 PM

Ya i have the AIW too and it's great! i even have it overclocked to 183/183 and is stable as a rock! As soon as the AIW radeon 2 is out i'm getting it and giving the AIW radeon to my dad.

But i don't see how you can compare cards considering you are running both on completely different machines. You may think the hard drive doesn't matter but the hard drive is the biggest bottleneck in your machine! absoultely the slowest thing in your system. So what you could do is this.. benchmark the geforce2 on your 1200 system.. uninstall the nvidia drivers and put in the radeon card and and install drivers and then test that.. thats the best way you can compare cards. you can't compare with two different computers. it doesn't work that way.
July 18, 2001 3:07:53 PM

That is the card you should have bought to test equally priced video card, no?

Price plays a big part, but it should be equal level cards. Test the best from each camp (or the worst, or somewhere in between), to see which brand is best. That's what I say.

but the hard drive is the biggest bottleneck in your machine!

I agree and disagree. Yes, it's very slow (that's why I have a RAID 0). But we're talking about game performance. A faster hard drive won't give you better frame rates. It'll load levels faster, but you won't see any increase in frame rates. The video card, CPU, and RAM help with that. If you have enough RAM on your video card so that you don't have to touch system memory (also depends on the game, of course), then system RAM doesn't matter, and it's just the CPU and VC that makes a difference.

Whoever thinks up a good sig for me gets a prize :wink:
July 18, 2001 4:18:45 PM

but what you have to consider is the ablity to swap files the faster harddrive is going to do this faster which assure all the parts of the machince have enougt data to keep going

this comes in to play becuase of the extra ram of the other machine

<font color=red>Gasoline + Fire</font color=red> Can be a lot of fun :smile: :smile: :smile:
a b U Graphics card
July 18, 2001 4:55:39 PM

Didn't he distinctly say that he underclocked the faster processor so that the two machines were level? The only differences being the RAM amount and the HDDs, perhaps. But the HDD won't affect the ingame frame rates much, though RAM may cause a little shuffling. It would have been more interesting if he had posted fps of the different games. But I was under the impression that TOM has already done those tests with the GTSs w/Dets vs. the Radeons and the GTS came out on top? I don't feel like taking the time to look for that article though. You do bring up a good point about the monitor though.
July 18, 2001 5:11:33 PM

but what you have to consider is the ablity to swap files the faster harddrive is going to do this faster which assure all the parts of the machince have enougt data to keep going

Right, that'll make a difference in normal useage (if you don't have enough RAM and you're using the swap file. Some people have enough so they don't have to touch it)

It won't make a difference on your frame rates, though. Well, if you have onboard video sharing the system RAM, and only 4 meg of system RAM, then it'll make a difference playing UT, but with most modern systems, the hard drive won't change frame rates.

Whoever thinks up a good sig for me gets a prize :wink:
July 18, 2001 5:11:46 PM

Oh my…here I come back to find my post still at the top…I'm not posting anything provocative anymore, hehe. The guru's here seem wise enough to know that already. Well if I answer one I have to answer all, so I'll reply to myself.

Both monitors are viewsonic .25 dot, 85hertz). The card drivers were the latest, I think…can't remember the number, didn't download from the site. I'm figuring the performance slump may have been due to improper driver installation in my primary machine….but the radeon is out of that box anyway so
It's neither here nor there anymore. The GTS really does hold better frame rate and I can see that so
I'll stay with it on my competition machine. Wifey's using the radeon for now, kid's got the gf2pro, I got the GTS…(I just like the asus card better for the drivers). And yeah the card was just about $15 more than
my GTS.

Yeah, I'm not knocking anyone's ability to trouble shoot. I wish I could trouble shoot peoples GF cards,
but really I see people have GF troubles that just stump me. I've had really good luck with Asus GF cards.
But I did have a bad Gfpro that I just couldn't make work very well - I took it back…most likely card or driver troubles, rather than the gpu itself…but who knows.

I didn't care about the HDs being different in the LAN testing because like FB said, it only matters when I'm loading levels.

"all things can be proven and disproven in the pc market"……man I hear that.

I often wonder why 2 people with identical cards can have completely opposite results with seemingly similar settings. I wonder about die temperatures sometimes too. Sometimes I think each piece of silicon simply has it's own characteristic, much the same way people are different.

"That's right, I'm the guy who can feel the difference between 50FPS & 100FPS in LandWarrior."
July 18, 2001 5:32:43 PM

I still persist to say that only product equally priced should be compared. In video card, it's not the absolute best card we're looking for, everybody know that NOW it's GeForce3, We're looking what ATI offers at about the same price of GeForce 2 GTS 32 megs. Not a RADEON 32 megs: it's about half the price!
If you think that we should check the best cards of each company to compare, why don't we take GeForce3 against RADEON 64 DDR? It would be silly as one is more that twice the price of the other! Then go for average: RADEON 32 meg against GeForce GTS. Again it's silly: another twice the price. That's why we should compare GeForce2 GTS 32 megs with RADEON 64megs.
That was exactly the dilemma I had when I bought my computer. I wanted to put a certain amount for my video card. That amount targetted the GTS or RADEON. I choosed one and that's it! I wanted to know which gived the best bang for my bucks between both.

:smile: <font color=red>Hail total victory of AMD versus Intel! :smile:
July 18, 2001 6:04:55 PM

i have to disagree with you there... Diablo 2 ok... i had a maxtor drive ATA33 and 192megs of ram. The hard drive was just going nuts and the game would constantly get slow and speed up and hang as the hard drive was going to catch up! At this time i had a TNT card. I get an IBM ATA100 30GB drive 75GXP ... the thrashing of the hard drive was gone. So i have to disagree with you there. Depends on the game rather or not it is constantly accessing the hard drive or not.

My sig is better then your's!
July 18, 2001 6:11:15 PM

Did you say gf2gts twice as much as radeon32ddr?? Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I find them at roughly the same price. Actaully less for the GF, depending on who made the board.

"That's right, I'm the guy who can feel the difference between 50FPS & 100FPS in LandWarrior."
July 18, 2001 6:39:18 PM

That's suprising: in Canada, I have a RADEON LE 32meg DDR for 125$CAN and a GeForce2 GTS 32 megs at 220$
the RADEON 64 megs DDR non-VIVO is 240$ (I admitt that it is a very little more expensive than GTS)
what are your prices in the US?

:smile: <font color=red>Hail total victory of AMD versus Intel! :smile:
a b U Graphics card
July 18, 2001 7:09:17 PM

As posted from a week or so ago:
ATI Radeon 64MB DDR $150
ATI Radeon 32MB DDR (Retail) $134
ATI Radeon 32MB DDR LE $68
ATI Radeon 32MB VE $73

NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra 64MB $215
NVIDIA GeForce2 PRO 64MB $142
NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS 32MB $112 OEM
NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS ViVo (ASUS V7700 Deluxe) $165

From the looks of this, I'd say GF2's aren't much more pricey. I think most would agree a GF2 Pro beats the current ATI products, and there's not much point of buying a GTS anymore since the Pro doesn't cost much more and performs markedly better. I think instability comes from all the drivers people try. When you use a leaked driver don't be surprised when you have more crashes for your .5 frames you might gain! The low end Radeons look like they should be compared to MX's... US Dollars of course.

I like TFC.
July 18, 2001 7:16:02 PM

Wow, that's way high. I just a a GF2pro for $132 about 4 weeks ago. And the AsusGTS was listed at about $145 if I remember...check

OH....I forgot Canadian dollars are a little more...
...oops...just saw the post above...nevermind

"That's right, I'm the guy who can feel the difference between 50FPS & 100FPS in LandWarrior."<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bud on 07/18/01 01:22 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 19, 2001 2:34:52 AM

I agree with you. Your prices are very suprising for me as a GeForce 2 PRO is 399$CAN which is much more expensive than your prices. For those prices, it's certain that you gain more from a PRO64 than a RADEON64!
I'm sorry, I thought my prices from Canada were proportionnal with those in the US! Maybe because nVIDIA is a foreing companie and ATI is a canadian companie, it changes thing. (ATI is canadian, isn't it?)

:smile: <font color=red>Hail total victory of AMD versus Intel! :smile:
July 19, 2001 2:42:18 AM

To make a short story, you get 1$US with 1,50$CAN and that's why I don't like travel too much south :wink:
You can multiply all my prices by 2/3 to get them in $US

:smile: <font color=red>Hail total victory of AMD versus Intel! :smile:
July 19, 2001 4:26:52 AM

Interesting discussion here, so a card is better because of higher numbers in certain tests? Does any other factors come into play vice raw FPS? What if the other card clearly beats it in other type of benchmarks? Then what? Each there own. The two Radeons I think are of great value are the Radeon LE's for around $70 and the Radeon 64 with the coveted SE core costing around $150. The 32meg ATI Radeon is probably the lowest bang for you buck in which a typical Radeon LE can perform about the same. Compairing a 166mhz Radeon to a Radeon pushing 230mhz plus is quite a big differnce in speed, yet you are talking about less then $20 between the two. Not to mention of having VideoIn which I find very useful, also the Video Out option on the Radeon 64 VIVO Retail. Best bet is to break down the strengths and weaknesses of both cards.

Good question, how does the Radeon 64 with the SE core compare to a GeForce pro 64? Would the speed difference even be significant?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 07/19/01 12:08 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 19, 2001 4:30:10 AM


Why didn't you buy a 64meg Radeon with a SE core for only a few bucks more for a significant greater performing card?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 07/19/01 00:30 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 19, 2001 10:25:51 PM

Well, I still beleive that a PRO64 is a better performer than SE... For sure, we can say that the image is better on RADEON and with VIVO, you can do more things than play games. And that's why I choosed the RADEON64: I don't play games that require lot of performance, so a better quality image and some cool stuff are welcome for me. Except that I will buy Tribes 2 with my new computer ;-) just to see how much he is cool!
However, for hardcore gamers, I would have recommended GeForce2 PRO more than RADEON SE!

:smile: <font color=red>Hail total victory of AMD versus Intel! :smile: