Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Geforce3 Ti200 vs Radeon 8500

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 21, 2001 8:01:33 PM

I'm in the market for a new video card and I've decided to get either the Leadtek Winfast Geforce3 Ti200 or the Radeon 8500 because I can get either one for virtually the same price. The question is, which one should I get?

I don't claim to know anything about everything, I just tell you what I know.
-PSB
a b U Graphics card
October 21, 2001 8:18:21 PM

The Radeon 8500 is much more powerfull than the Ti200, in fact it already beets the Ti500 in 3D-Mark 2001. The drivers are not yet perfected but revisions should be comming shortly, and should proivide it with additional performance improvements.

Back to you Tom...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 21, 2001 8:59:07 PM

I don't know which benchmarks you are using, but the Geforce3 Ti200 beats the 8500 in everything at high detail and is 30$ cheaper wholesale or 100$ cheaper retail. Puting faith on ATI ever developing nice drivers is a risk. I don't think game developers are gonna gear their code toward a card which has "new features" that don't work.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 21, 2001 9:22:47 PM

Oh, and I'm not concerned if their newer vesion of FSAA (Faulty Slured Abased Artwork) never works, since I can get blurry images any time I want simly by taking off my glasses!

Back to you Tom...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 21, 2001 9:40:50 PM

I've been reading at the Anandtech site, and sure, synthetic numbers are great, and the 8500 does beat the Ti-500 at that, but if you take a look at the real-world benchmarks...well they tell a different story.

I think it all comes down to price and what you plan on doing with the card. Personally I would still choose the nVidia product, but the Radeon is starting to sway me with their DVD playback...I guess I'll flip a coin next year when I build my new system.
a b U Graphics card
October 21, 2001 10:47:48 PM

The 8500 is, in it's current driver state, capable of supplying higher framerates than your monitor's refresh rate, even in new games! So these games don't even need to be optomised for it in order to provide smooth graphics. By the time anything is released that CAN use this power, those games will obviously be optomized for it.

Back to you Tom...
October 21, 2001 11:19:12 PM

I completely agree with Crashman, who cares if the Radeon 8500 is a few frames slower than the GeForce3 Ti500 in today's games when your monitor doesn't even refresh that fast. In future games, the Radeon 8500 will probably be faster (at least that's what 3DMark2001 is hinting).

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 21, 2001 11:53:45 PM

oooohh..touchy arent we?
now now then..we still like you..

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
a b U Graphics card
October 22, 2001 12:07:56 AM

Gee, thanks!

Back to you Tom...
October 22, 2001 12:31:41 AM

ATi seems to have optimized their drivers specifically for 3dmark2001 and the Q3 Engine. One is a synthetic benchmark that should only be used as a general guide for tweaks (making sure your bios adjustments, card settings are helping rather than hindering), and the other is an old game engine that already runs fine on hardware that's 2 years old. Is there anyone that ISN'T sick of playing Quake3 yet? Excluding LAN parties of course..

REAL game benchmarks tell an entirely different story than 3dmark. If ATI could optimize their drivers to give performance in all games comparable to what 3dMark2k1 says they should have, then they really would have a product that would knock the socks off the Ge3 line. Instead we see these tremendous 3dmark bencharks and then abnormally low real game benchmarks, which points to nothing other than severe driver issues. ATi fans have often pointed fingers at Nvidia's products, calling them 'paper demons' or whatnot... it's kinda funny that the Radeon 8500 is vastly superior to the Geforce3 on paper, but can't even beat the slowest Ge3 the majority of the time.

You say it doesn't matter that the Radeon 8500 is slower than the Geforce3 Ti 500 because your monitor doesn't refresh that fast? By that logic, people should opt for the Ti200 because it's only a few frames slower (or faster, depending on who you ask), than the 8500 and cheaper to boot.

Anyway, some people LIKE to play in as high a resolution as they can. The Radeon 8500 is NOT going to let you play in 1600x1200 with framerates faster than your monitor's refresh rate unless you're playing something as old as Quake2 or Half Life. And as for you Crashman, I bet once ATi has their bungled Smoothvision working you'll be singing a different tune :p 

I don't know what you have against anti-aliasing, but Smoothvision is one feature that I think would be a big selling point of the 8500. Take away Truform and Smoothvision and the Radeon has, IMO, no features worth mentioning. I already have firewire(never use it anyway), I don't watch DVDs on my computer, and regular 3d/2d image quality is identical between the Ge3 and 8500. Maybe when ATi figures out how to make decent drivers for their products I'll start singing their praises, but until then I think it's fairly obvious that Nvidia is the best choice for a video card.

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 22, 2001 2:23:22 AM

SerArthurDayne, that was not the original poster's questions.
The original poster only asked if he should get the TI-200 or the R8500, since he can get them for the SAME price.

For the same price, the R8500 offers dualhead capabilities and slightly higher performance.
Seems to be a no-brainer for me.

Now, for FPS (frames per second, not first person shooter, although it's almost equivalent) geeks who need every FPS possible, the TI-500 is the way to go. No doubt. Undisputed.

There, all settled, and even the original question is answered!
October 22, 2001 2:39:02 AM

Well Well how about getting a Card with Dual Head (vga + dvi), Tv out, and Top Notch DVD decoding. Well also a whooping 400mhz ramdac making my Res at 1600x1200 100hz crisp and doesnt hurt my eye's. Well ATi new drivers will have Smooth Vision Enabled ATi owns Nvidia in Fsaa stated anandtech.

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
October 22, 2001 2:53:18 AM

If anyone compares the GF3 orginal benchmarks with the old drivers to the Radeon 8500 it would be very obvious that the Radeon 8500 was superior. Now that Nvidia did a very good job in updating the drivers in the last 6 months which matches the young Radeon 8500 (beating some, failling on others). ATI will improve the performance of the Radeon 8500 in the short term here and the TI500 will fall on shear speed comparisons. In 2d, video/DVD, hydravision and being DX8.1 the Radeon 8500 clearly surpasses Nvidia's best. Just the facts. If I was Nvidia I would be working 24/7 on their next chip card thinking about introducing a lower cost higher performing product because they will be #2 very shortly in virtually any benchmark imposed. ATI is waking up and the roar is getting very loud, Nvidia is taking cover but won't be able to hide.
October 22, 2001 2:54:04 AM

lol, I just like ATI because their main Thornhill headquarters are only around 10minutes away from where I live, so their tech support is second to none, where I live.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 22, 2001 4:48:29 AM

Memphis, I was not replying to the original poster...

Now that I've cleared your little misconception up, lets talk about dual head cards :p 

I have no use for a dual head card. It's a nice novelty to have, but it's not a feature I need or would use more than twice a year. Those who need dual head cards usually aren't hardcore gamers anyway and might be better off with a relatively inexpensive dual head Matrox with superior 2d image quality even to ATi.

If you're talking extra features, ATi is definately trying to win buys on this point. Some people have uses for these additional features and will find the Radeon an excellent buy for their needs... but for the average computer user or hardcore gamer, Nvidia fits every budget range and performance need better than ATi, IMHO. Not to mention that their drivers always work like they're supposed to...

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
October 22, 2001 4:56:43 AM

Alright RCF... like I said before, I have absolutely no need for dual head cards and know only a few people who do (most of which are using either Matrox or Ge2 MX cards). Yes, I do a lot of work in multimedia and design programs like Photoshop, and I still have no need for a dual head card. You can get tv out on certain geforce3's depending on brand, and as far as DVD decoding I don't really care - I don't watch DVDs on my 'little' 19" monitor, I watch them on a TV. From what I've seen of image comparisons, the Ge3 and Radeon 8500 are indistinguishable in 2d/3d at any resolution... the only time you can tell the difference is when playing DVDs, where the Radeon has noticeably better image detail.

And I *already* ceded the point about SmoothVision - in case you hadn't picked up from earlier posts of mine, I had been prepared to pick up a Radeon 8500 soon after it was available because of three things - SmoothVision, Truform, and supposed performance advantage over the top end Ge3's. However, the first reviews immediately let it be known that Smoothvision isn't even working right now and the performance of the 8500 is erratic and sometimes nonfunctional. Needless to say I was pissed, and it just further proved to me that ATi does not deliver what they promise and they still can't get their drivers right.

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 22, 2001 6:08:59 AM

This is for crashman... You call me a liar and then you post synthetic benchmarks?? hahaha... Do me a favor and look up "synthetic" in a dictionary. Man... that's hilarious. All in good fun I guess :) 
a b U Graphics card
October 22, 2001 7:37:40 AM

Your a freeking lunatic! Look up to my post where I called you a liar. Then read yours above it. Then read mine above that! I was talking about 2001 in the first place! And you rebutted what I said about the 8500 in 2001! And now you claim no knowlege when the evidence is still posted for everyone to see? Get out of here-NO SERIOUSLY, GET OUT OF HERE!

Back to you Tom...
October 22, 2001 10:08:03 AM

you two get a room or something..
...love is in the air...

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
October 22, 2001 11:41:39 PM

i second that LoveGuRu

I don't claim to know anything about everything, I just tell you what I know.
-PSB
October 23, 2001 4:50:38 AM

just incase anyone was curious. i decided to get the radeon 8500, even though it may have some driver issues and all. oh, and serarthurdayne, i would appreciate it if you never answer any of my questions in this forum again (i like my questions answered, not turned into an essay that never really answers any question).

I don't claim to know anything about everything, I just tell you what I know.
-PSB
October 23, 2001 10:59:43 AM

have fun with your new card, just remember when your mom comes into the room Alt+Tab ;) 


<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
October 23, 2001 3:16:55 PM

*LAFF*

pr497, I did not answer your question or reply to you in any way.

I would appreciate it if you would take a few moments to learn how to use this forum, so let me explain something about it to you.

You can specifically reply to a certain person by clicking on the "reply" button on their post. Therefore all you needed to do to avoid excess reading was to understand the way this forum operates - if you don't have time to read all the posts, just read the posts that are specifically addressed to you, not meant for other people.

There, was that so hard? As to your Radeon 8500, good for you. Hopefully you'll be happy with it, and I think we all hope that ATi comes through with some impressive drivers to fire up the competition between them and Nvidia.

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
October 24, 2001 5:37:39 AM

greeeat...another long post to read....

I don't claim to know anything about everything, I just tell people what I know.
-PSB
October 24, 2001 1:43:43 PM

Pr, even if he was answering your question you shouldnt disrespect those who would try and help you.


I too was planning on getting a radeon 8500, however the driver issues, lack of finished features and this clock speed oem thing I just read about have made me decide to wait for now, I can use my gf3@230/530 on my wifes computer for the time being and am perfectly happy with the results.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 24, 2001 2:33:03 PM

This is a quick note from a very hardcore gamer. I hope it clears up some issues about framerate.

I have a GeForce 3 Ti 500 (Radeon is nifty too...don't pull me into some argument). The reason for all this horsepower is not to get the best possible maximum framerate. It is to get the best possible MINIMUM framerate.

My eye can't distinguish between 80 and 100 fps and even if it could my monitor's refresh rate wouldn't allow it. I CAN however, distinguish between 40 and 60 fps...It's about the difference between spinning and railgunning someone in the eye versus the shot whizzing past their head.

The very best way to benchmark Quake III for instance is to simply turn on the fps display (/cg_drawfps 1) and then go play. You can timedemo all day long but until you get in the middle of some bloody furball on the internet and take a peek at that fps display you won't really know if your PC is cutting it.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 25, 2001 2:18:06 AM

Smilin, you are a man of my own heart! (Like I'm gonna use this thing to watch movies...)

The minimum framerate IS key to why we need rendering FAR in advance of what our monitors can refresh too. It is sooooo much more than a smooth picture (heck, you can get that with a TNT2 Ultra most of the time).

What you need is your CPU freed up for the processing that is necessary to keep up to date with all that is going on. You need the "excess" rendering speed to allow your computer to work on running the game instead of waiting for the graphics to unload to the screen for the next render.

PS: To so many of the posters I see in here, I would offer the same advise I give to my engineering buddies.....

"Sometimes you have to lift your head off the page and take a peek at the real world. Theory is great, valuable and necessary, but if you want to know how it REALLY works, put down your pencil and USE it!"

(sometimes I think some of those goobers think a resistor really is a zig-zagged thingy and electrons will go the wrong way if you don't get the wire color right... LOL)



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Insidious on 10/24/01 10:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
!