Good work nVidia! Apparently Tom's Hardware used the new reference drivers from nVidia. Surprisingly, they were able to squeeze out another ~5% out of the GF3 and GF4 cards. Well, ATI's next official drivers (the 6058, which is currently unofficially release) also squeezes out 5% and in some cases 10% out of the R8500 more over the 6043 drivers. In any case, nVidia and ATI seem to now be playing the driver game. Hmm, I wonder... Is it just me or has nVidia released this driver to take the lead in the sub-$200 section with Ti4200? In any case, I'm not complaining. Round Google: Winner: nVidia. 
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
I was just wodnering where the Ati 7200 fits into this group of cards, I thought it was equivalent to one of the cards that are up there but I am not sure, I lost track when Ati renamed their line of cards.
Damn, I just read the article, and it looks like honestly ati got owned, by the ti500, LET ALONE, the gf4.
The benchmarks where the radeon8500 won, (with the exception of 3dmark2001) they won BARELY, but in the benchmarks where the 8500 lost, they lost big time.(the first one comes to mind).
The gf4 just smokes the radeon.
This cements my feeling that the gf3 ti500 is a better overall performer than the 8500, and that the gf4 is just sweeeeet.
The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark
The benchmarks where the radeon8500 won, (with the exception of 3dmark2001) they won BARELY, but in the benchmarks where the 8500 lost, they lost big time.(the first one comes to mind).
The gf4 just smokes the radeon.
This cements my feeling that the gf3 ti500 is a better overall performer than the 8500, and that the gf4 is just sweeeeet.
The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark Hmm, it depends on the two drivers you compare, but I say they're neck and neck. The Ti500 is slightly faster with the new drivers but we haven't seen the OpenGL games where the R8500 truly shines with the 6043 drivers. Most of the improvements in the 6043 were focused on OpenGL performance not DirectX. The 6058 improves DirectX slightly. ATI is always two official driver revisions behind leaks.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
You really cant compare leaked drivers to official ones IMO, but regardless, the open gl games the radeon won BARELY.(did anyone else think it was weird the origional gf3 beat the gf3 ti500 in jediknight 2? There is NO reason why that should happen, ever)
The direct x games the radeon got owned, and direct x is a large part of modern games, so you have a radeon which can keep up in ogl and gets punked in d3d, dosent make me want to go and buy it personally.
The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark As you can see, ATI lost to the Ti500 in Aquanox and Max Payne but won in Q3, Jedi Knight II and 3dMark2001. I'd hardly say that the Ti500 owns the R8500. Besides, Jedi Knight II and Q3 were the only OpenGl games they tested. That's an incomplete comparison if you ask me.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Maybe incomplete, but lets analyze those figures shall we.
the radeon lost to the gf3 ti 500 in aquanox by ~10%
The radeon lost to the gf3 ti 500 in max payne by ~10-20%
The radeon beat the gf3 ti 500 in quake 3 by ~3-4%
The radeon beat the gf3 ti 500 in jedi knight by <1%
The radeon beat the gf3 ti 500 in 3dmark2001(pointless) by ~5%
as you can see, when the 8500 wins, it is by far less than when it loses, which shows me the ti500 is a stronger overall player, you can debate all you want, but as far as this review is concerned the writing is on the wall man.
The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark Any reason why they didn't include the Radeon 8500 128MB card in the benchmarks? (Not the LE edition) From what I've heard it has a higher clock speed and should perform a little better than both the 8500 64MB and the 8500LE 128MB. Just curious.
What good is a videocard which in its best environment can just match the gf3 but gets its ass handed to it in d3d?
Even if the 8500 came out ~5% ahead of the gf3 in ogl, it would still lose overall due to the 10-20% loss in d3d, both systems are used extensivly, its not like there are no d3d games and you can just ignore d3d as if it didnt exist.
The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark Harisahmed
Distinguished
- Feb 21, 2002
- 203
- 0
- 18,680
I'm guessing that JKII makes better use of the 128MB of memory available in some of the cards (it was a GF3 Ti200 with 128MB). It looks like all of the 128MB cards get a boost in JKII.
i agree...even the slower gf3 ti200 128mb beat the ti500 and the slower R8500LE 128mb beat the bread and butter R8500...
all i know is that ATI is still playing the catch-up game w/ nVidia but it looks like the gap is getting smaller...except that ATI is by no means any where near the gf4 levels yet (maybe close to the ti4200)...
<b><font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s drivers are like a broken faucet, they both keep on leaking...</b>
prepsmdker
Distinguished
- Nov 30, 2001
- 23
- 0
- 18,510
"because were comparing 64megs of memory to 64 megs of memory for starters."
doesn't make sense since they even compared the 32meg Geforce 2 MX with the 64 meg version.
They could have included the 128 meg Radeon 8500, but my guess is that ATI never sent Tomshardware one, so they can't run a test on the card. As I've heard, if they don't get what they're testing for free... they don't test it.
doesn't make sense since they even compared the 32meg Geforce 2 MX with the 64 meg version.
They could have included the 128 meg Radeon 8500, but my guess is that ATI never sent Tomshardware one, so they can't run a test on the card. As I've heard, if they don't get what they're testing for free... they don't test it.
I'm already waiting for a newer review with the RV250 (it's either a GF4 Ti4400 to TI4600 or a GF4MX killer, I've heard both rumours), and the 6058 or newer drivers under the R8500.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
kinney
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2001
- 2,262
- 17
- 19,785
From the looks of things, I'm going to stick with my Geforce 3 for now. Even moving to a 4600 I dont see the point for me. 30+ fps lead in some games but I dont need 130fps over 100fps, and I play all my games in 1024x768x32 due to monitor rr restrictions.
In all I was very pleased with nvidias performance, Jedi Knight especially was good considering my original geforce3 came out on top of the ti500.
I think the facts show nvidia can get more out of less hardware than ati.
No one disputes that atis hardware isnt superior because it is.. but I concern myself with driver support when I buy products.
Athlon XP 1700+,KT266A,Geforce3, Audigy.. 'nuff said.
In all I was very pleased with nvidias performance, Jedi Knight especially was good considering my original geforce3 came out on top of the ti500.
I think the facts show nvidia can get more out of less hardware than ati.
No one disputes that atis hardware isnt superior because it is.. but I concern myself with driver support when I buy products.
Athlon XP 1700+,KT266A,Geforce3, Audigy.. 'nuff said.
i would like to congradulate tomshardware on putting out another wonderfully useless article. i mean those graphs were soo unexpected! especially by the end! wow another triangle of tapering scores! good thing it covered so many different resolutions and detail levels, ohh wait it didnt! nevermind the complete lack of practical use for this limited stupid information. god damn why not try something useful.
()
( )
(
)(
)
bront
Distinguished
- Oct 16, 2001
- 2,122
- 0
- 19,780
They have an interesting GF3 TI500 that seems to school the old GF3 by quite a bit in every test except Jedi Knight II (Where it actualy looses to the older GF3, and is very close to the TI200), and 3DMark2001 where it seems to be in line with the TI200 and GF3 in performance regards (Almost linier).
Why does that seem so inconsistant? Especialy with the Jedi Knight II test? Just seems strange to me.
Also, they only did 1024x768x32 in the tests. The 8500, and all Radeon cards for that matter, tend to do better in higher resolutions, as they don't loose as much performance. If you're getting 120+ FPS in 1024x768x32, why not bump it up? You get better graphics and still won't notice much of a difference. I'm not saying that the 8500 will top the GF4s by any means in 1600x1200, but they might be closer than you think, and do better than you would think.
The Windows Gods demand money to appease the BSOD! - Rev. Bill Gates
Why does that seem so inconsistant? Especialy with the Jedi Knight II test? Just seems strange to me.
Also, they only did 1024x768x32 in the tests. The 8500, and all Radeon cards for that matter, tend to do better in higher resolutions, as they don't loose as much performance. If you're getting 120+ FPS in 1024x768x32, why not bump it up? You get better graphics and still won't notice much of a difference. I'm not saying that the 8500 will top the GF4s by any means in 1600x1200, but they might be closer than you think, and do better than you would think.
The Windows Gods demand money to appease the BSOD! - Rev. Bill Gates
Jedi Knight II has all kinds of graphics problems. Notablly beautiful shadows that show up every-fricking-where incuding the sky. Real nice when your fighting a droid and its shadow is cast 500 ft up on the sky instead of 6 ft down on the walkway where its supposed to be. Notice how the top 4 or 5 cards were all dead even right under 100fps? can we say "bottleneck". I'd utterly discard the JK2 test... Another note is, all these tests were done in max detail settings. At max settings in 1600x1200 alot of these games wouldnt even run on some if not most of the tested cards. Lately i've been testing with Renegade and i can make my 1.7ghz TI 4600 system crawl on its knees if i go high enough. It IS interesting to see how the KryoII boards etc turned out to be such horribly bad options for gaming-)
One last point is, yea, i know the 8500 tends to show off more at higher resolutions but so does the TI500 and TI4000 series, especially the 4400/4600 models.
In reply to the gentleman (er, yea, right) who decried these tests as a waste of bandwidth. I AGREE!
"OOOOO Shiny things. I can make powerful equipment with shiny things!" - The imp Butler from BGII
One last point is, yea, i know the 8500 tends to show off more at higher resolutions but so does the TI500 and TI4000 series, especially the 4400/4600 models.
In reply to the gentleman (er, yea, right) who decried these tests as a waste of bandwidth. I AGREE!
"OOOOO Shiny things. I can make powerful equipment with shiny things!" - The imp Butler from BGII
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram