is geforce better than radeon?

ahhk

Distinguished
Jul 26, 2002
25
0
18,530
i am thinking of getting a new graphics which is reasonably cheap 100-140, and that will still be good in the future. should i get geforce ti4200, ti4400(whats the price, too expensive?), or r8500.
Also one question about 8500, of le is slower howcome everyone gets it instead of a regular 8500.
thank
 

Ghostdog

Distinguished
May 28, 2002
702
0
18,980
I think people get the Lite version because it´s farely safe to overclock it to a "regular" version and it´s cheaper.

"good in the future"
If you play FPS- or action-games, I would wait just a bit, and save up, for the radeon 9700, if you can afford it.
Otherwise get one of the better GF4 cards.
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
Hm... for 100-140, you'll not be able to get a Ti4400 or Ti4600. Or a R9700 for that matter. Really, all you'll be able to get is either a R8500/LE 128MB or a Ti4200 64MB.

Now it depends on how long you want to keep this card.

For more than a year to 2 years, I suggest either the R8500LE 128MB or the R8500 128MB. If you're gonna have it out of your comp within a year, get the Ti4200.

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
 

cakecake

Distinguished
Apr 29, 2002
741
0
18,980
The Radeon 8500 LE can be overclocked very reliably to retail speeds, that's why. And the retail version simply comes with Counterstrike, the HL Uplink Demo, and other stuff you can download for free (except for counterstrike standalone version of course).

Here's where to buy it:
<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?description=14-102-226" target="_new">http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?description=14-102-226</A>

1° of separation between my monopoly and yours. That's business with .NET
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
Actually, the R8500LE can be overclocked RELIABLY depending on what BIOS you have. http://www.rage3d.com/articles/8500bios/
and you might think "well why dont u change the bios for a better one" but the problem is that:
1) the bioses are hard to find for download
2) changing your bios to a new version is risky business. you never know what can happen, i have heard that sometimes it might slow your card for some reason
i got bios version 7006 FEB, :( i cant overclock much

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
Well, the prices I put there are Retail BBA boards. With those, o/cing shouldn't be much of a problem at all.

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
For more than a year to 2 years, I suggest either the R8500LE 128MB or the R8500 128MB. If you're gonna have it out of your comp within a year, get the Ti4200.

The 64meg ti4200 beats the 8500 handily in all tests, why reccomend the slower card?

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
Cause in future games, the extra 64MB will really help. With larger textures and all.

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
Not enough to offset the performance advantage the gfti4200 has!

Especially when you toss overclocking into the mix.

the extra 64 megs of ram is not enough(even on ram limited games) to compensate the 8500 for its slower performance.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
Well, I guess only time will tell, but I'd think a game with larger textures than 64MB will need the extra RAM more than the extra speed...

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
ahhh and also because "The cash left in your pocket, THE best benchmark". The radeons might not offer THE best performance out there, but they perform very well and in a lot of tests, they are right under ti4200's nose. Chuck is also right, future games will benefit more from more memory than from speeds. and talking about overclocking? the radeon can be a pretty competitive overclocker if you have the right bios...but the best thing our friend ahhk can do is wait a few days for the R9700 to come out, and check the prices on the cards again.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
ahhh and also because "The cash left in your pocket, THE best benchmark". The radeons might not offer THE best performance out there, but they perform very well and in a lot of tests, they are right under ti4200's nose. Chuck is also right, future games will benefit more from more memory than from speeds. and talking about overclocking? the radeon can be a pretty competitive overclocker if you have the right bios...but the best thing our friend ahhk can do is wait a few days for the R9700 to come out, and check the prices on the cards again.

Im sorry, but 20 bucks more for better performance and much better overclocking, and more stable drivers(im sorry but its true) is not enough of a reason to get the cheaper and inferior radeon8500LE.

and talking about overclocking? the radeon can be a pretty competitive overclocker if you have the right bios...but the best thing our friend ahhk can do is

The radoeon8500le comes no where near the average ti4200 on overclocking, most 4200s get an 80mhz core oc and from 60-120mhz on the ram(or more).

Most radeon 8500le's barely limp to retail speeds, and even at retail speeds the 8500 loses to the stock 4200.

the final word of course is price, and a 20-30 difference is well worth what you get imo.

PS: future games will not benifit more from memory than from speed, only a few games out now(2 iirc) do signifigantly better on 128 megs as opposed to 64(jedi knight 2 is one) Dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, mohaa, americas army, all of these games show little to no benifit from 128 megs.

I would rather have 64 megs of ddr600 versys 128 megs ddr500-550 ANYDAY.
and thats what were talking about here.


:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
 

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
Im sorry, but 20 bucks more for better performance and much better overclocking, and more stable drivers(im sorry but its true) is not enough of a reason to get the cheaper and inferior radeon8500LE.
Man, Matisaro, you're the only one here who think the Ti4200 is so vastly "superior" to the R8500. You can get an $87 R8500LE clocked at 250/275 and overclock it to 325/325. For you DDR people, that's a 75MHz overclock for the core, and a 100MHz overclock for the memory. The TI4200's drivers are no better than the R8500. Stop spreading fud. You've been basing your opinions on antiquated benchmarks and gossip.

The radoeon8500le comes no where near the average ti4200 on overclocking, most 4200s get an 80mhz core oc and from 60-120mhz on the ram(or more).
Well, you don't know what you're talking about. That was the past, this is now! Many R8500LEs (like the one that comes at new egg), comes with a newer BIOS and 3.3ns RAM and overclocks much better than before.

I would rather have 64 megs of ddr600 versys 128 megs ddr500-550 ANYDAY.
and thats what were talking about here.
And you won't be able to play Doom3 at high detail, even though a GF4 class card should. IIRC, Doom3 and probably many many future games, will use well over 64MB textures.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
Man, Matisaro, you're the only one here who think the Ti4200 is so vastly "superior" to the R8500. You can get an $87 R8500LE clocked at 250/275 and overclock it to 325/325. For you DDR people, that's a 75MHz overclock for the core, and a 100MHz overclock for the memory. The TI4200's drivers are no better than the R8500. Stop spreading fud. You've been basing your opinions on antiquated benchmarks and gossip.
Im far from the only one, in fact your the only one who spouts pro ati rederick every time you post on this subject amd_man, the fact is the ti4200 IS faster than the 8500 at stock.(and especially!!!! overclocked)

as for your LAUGHABLE claim the average le will hit 325/325 thats utter bullshit, thats a rare oc at best, whereas the 300-330/550-600 overclocks for the ti4200 are COMMON.


as for your LIE the radeon drivers are as good as nvidias drivers, thats utter balognia, you are the head honcho with claims of having ati fix any bugs they find within weeks quickly, NEWSFLASH BUDDY, nvidias drivers DONT HAVE ANY BUGS TO START WITH!(at least no where as many as ati's cause I am full aware that ALL drivers have bugs). Kind of shoots your "as good" argument right in the damn foot when you yourself have posted many times on atis quick bug fixxing, now dosent it.

I think you have been confusing this forum with rage3d, we dont cater to biased results here!

I dare you to show us a review where it states radeon LE'S average 325 325 overclocks,

FURTHERMORE with the 4200 you dont have to wade through lele 250/250, 250/275 275/275 confusion, you know which card your getting and how good it will do.

Well, you don't know what you're talking about. That was the past, this is now! Many R8500LEs (like the one that comes at new egg), comes with a newer BIOS and 3.3ns RAM and overclocks much better than before.
I dont know what I am talking about? are you flaming me in defence of your beloved ati amd_man?

the 64 meg ti4200 comes with 3.3ns ram, and gains more from a core oc than the radeon(so with equal ram and faster core the 4200 widens its lead over the 8500).

as for your better oc claims, lets see some proof man, I have proven time and again the ocs for ti4200's and have witnessed you and other atiheads claim that the 8500 now can beat the 4200, the 4400 etc, its bullshit and if anyones spreading fud its you claiming the 8500 is better than the 4200!

You are the only person on this board who believes that the 8500 is actually better than the 4200(price nonwithstanding) why dont you take a hint?



And you won't be able to play Doom3 at high detail, even though a GF4 class card should. IIRC, Doom3 and probably many many future games, will use well over 64MB textures.
More fud, anything the 8500 can do at high detail(read not with 64 tap aniso like ati heads like to benchmark with which is unplayable anyway just as if I benched the gf with full aa and claimed it was superior) the ti4200 can do faster, its a fact, check the benchmarks, see the 8500 lose(retail 275/275 loses to a ti4200 now you want us to believe a le is better too? talk about fanboyism).

The 8500 is a good card, the 9700 rocks, but the 8500 CAN NOT beat the ti4200, THE ONLY VALID ARGUMENT IN THE 8500'S FAVOR IS IF THE ADDITIONAL 20-30 BUCKS WAS WORTH MORE TO YOU THAN THE ADDED PERFORMANCE.

arguing from a pure performance standpoint is BULLSHIT, and it is obviously fanboy fud.


PS: doom3 will run fine on a 64 meg gf4 overclocked, ill put money on it.


PPS: you flamed me first, and I respect you, I had thought you respected me, apparently I was wrong.


:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
 

nexus_alpha

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2001
270
0
18,780
My first recommendation is the ti 4200 then close behind the radeon le it depends on your motherboard and funds. I u can wait a month +/- a 1/2. The trident xp4 or radeon 9500 maybe much much sweeter deals. See if u could try the cards out from a friend or two before purchasing. The radeons are fantastic for plaing quake 3 based games like Jedi knight 2 often outperfroming the ti 4200 by leaps and bounds it alos does well in serious sam 2.
 

LED

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2002
511
0
18,980
PS: doom3 will run fine on a 64 meg gf4 overclocked, ill put money on it.
It will run fine on GeForce3 Cards also, that's Dooms target GPU generation. Run "better" is probably more important nowadays. And w/ a common 80mb textures, it will benefit you to have 128mbs of memory. I can see GF4 64mb winning in lower res, but maybe not possible in a more quality setting, where the textures are more detailed, and larger in size. Let's keep in mind that this gfx engine is gonna be around for a long time, 4 years or so....so anything, even the 9700, will have a tough time running it on max. But even w/ that said, the geforce3's can run it, the 8500's can run it.......Just wont look as pretty. Personally I can play my games at around 50fps.....I prefer 75-80, but I will take 50 if it improves visual quality, which is more important imo.

This sig runs too hot.
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
ahhk, the radeon 9700 will be around 400bucks, not sayin you should buy it, but its release would most probably reduce the costs of other cards...

matisaro: none of us are being fanboys here, we are just tryin to help someone choose a card. as a matter of fact, i used to own an nvidia card b4 i bought my 8500 (which i got an awesome deal on it) and so far its been good to me. as far for the drivers go, they are not buggy as hell because certainly i havent had a problem yet, and i do all sorts of gaming(from fps to rpgs) and use all sorts of programs(from 3dstudiomax to photoshop), and i also benchmark a lot. i have to admit that nvidia's drivers are much stable, but thats only because many (or should i say most) of developers work closely with nvidia and use their products to make software. so i think ATI is doing a good job keeping up with the competition by releasing excellent graphics card with competent drivers. read more posts signatures and you will see many people owning 8500 and thats for a reason, its not coincidence. And none of us here are hardware ignorant so we know what we choose. and its not like the 8500 is being overwhelmingly shitted on by the ti4200 as you may sound like saying (because you sound very passionate about ppl choosing the ti4200 over the 8500), the ti4200 has just a slight advantage over the 8500 in most tests. 3dMARK, which is a very true and reliable benchmarking system, also shows that the ti4200 has just a slight advantage over the 8500. i dont really like benchmarking with games because game developers often are biased and optimize their product to one video card. and since most of them are optimised for nvidia chips, its an unfair way of benchmarking. so i think 3dmark is the best.
and matisaro, nobody is giving false information or fud, we are just providing with our own experiences. i think ahhk is asking for our opinions and our experiences. heck, if he just wanted the cold facts, he would just compare ti4200 and 8500 white papers and choose from there.

tech forums are about other ppls experiences with hardware, not a place where white papers are written by forum members.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by grassapa on 08/18/02 03:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

eden

Champion
Don't take it so personally. You of all people should know when argumenting with Matty, he always puts the agressive hat on when he counters. You shouldn't take his aggressiveness as being hatred or insults. I did find his countering to be very aggressive indeed, however I guess maybe he was in a bad mood, or whatever. Still, I do think his side is more agreeable here. I mean 128MB can only do so much if the performance hinders. If your Ti4200 OCed against a R8500LE OCed is about 30% better in performance, you cannot in any circumstances, and I do take this on a limb, make it outperform in games like Doom III, even with 80MB textures.

While I agree on the drivers thing, I do have firm beliefs that the R9700 will not have the R200's intro performance and bugs, and will be at NVidia quality levels.

As for Doom III in its entirety, I'd much rather buy a new generation card made for it, like the R300 which in THG's article Carmack spits it out boldly, the R9700 was powering it, and IIRC during E3's time, that card must have been in early stages of performance. So by now it can play Doom III very well. I would be glad to get a card that plays this game at 1024*768 full detail maxed out, able to play it smoothly with no hickups and frame skip.
Remember, Doom III uses low poly, high render images, so those demons who look so detailed, are highly bump mapped and use some render technique that fakes the number of polys, making us think there are more. (kind of CGI quality, but at much less polys, and the only time the trick will not work is when you approach closely, zoom in, or rotate when zoomed)

--
Is the opportunity to earn money by working, free?
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
The radeons are fantastic for plaing quake 3 based games like Jedi knight 2 often outperfroming the ti 4200 by leaps and bounds it alos does well in serious sam 2.

The radeon does not outperfom the 4200 by leaps and bounds in anything but heavy(unplayable) anisotropic situations.

In jedi knight(which is one of the 2 128 benifited games)the 128 meg ti4200 beats the 128 meg 8500 easily, and the 64 meg ti4200 beats it by a small margin.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
matisaro: none of us are being fanboys here, we are just tryin to help someone choose a card. as a matter of fact, i used to own an nvidia card b4 i bought my 8500 (which i got an awesome deal on it) and so far its been good to me. as far for the drivers go, they are not buggy as hell because certainly i havent had a problem yet, and i do all sorts of gaming(from fps to rpgs) and use all sorts of programs(from 3dstudiomax to photoshop),
Amd man flamed me for my post, he was being fanboyish but he is a good guy so its ok, as for your experience with the 8500, im sorry but you are in the minority, ati is releasing drivers to fix game specific bugs CONSTANTLY, its a fact.

And none of us here are hardware ignorant so we know what we choose. and its not like the 8500 is being overwhelmingly shitted on by the ti4200 as you may sound like saying (because you sound very passionate about ppl choosing the ti4200 over the 8500),
Im sorry but 10% faster at stock, and much more after overclocking for 20-30 bucks more is shitting on imo.

I think anyone who choses an 8500le(or retail) over a 4200 who isnt SEVERELY budget limited is making a stupid choice.

the ti4200 has just a slight advantage over the 8500 in most tests. 3dMARK, which is a very true and reliable benchmarking system, also shows that the ti4200 has just a slight advantage over the 8500.
3dmark is not a true and reliable benchmark, both companies heavily optimise for that benchmark, in 3dmark the 8500 is close behind the ti4200 but in all REAL games, the gap is signifigantly wider, I would think that would clue people in on the "validity" of 3dmark(note: 3dmark is still a good benchmark, but it is not real world true imo).

dont really like benchmarking with games because game developers often are biased and optimize their product to one video card. and since most of them are optimised for nvidia chips, its an unfair way of benchmarking. so i think 3dmark is the best.
What a completely innane view, instead of using the REAL games you will be playing to test the power of your card, you use an imaginary benchmark which is possibly skewed? Whose results disagree with real world results to a spectacular degree, its not like you use your card to play 3dmark2001 is it? If you play quake3 use quake 3, developer bias is irrelevant as you are PLAYING THEIR GAME!

Do you see how retarded that sounds, your card may get 9000 3dmark pts, but when your games are slower you only have yourself to blame, blaming the devlopers is also a shoddy tactic, claiming the 4200 winning in real world apps is some conspiracy by gamer makers to make the 8500 look bad is laughable, perhaps the 8500 just isnt as fast as the 4200!(which it isnt, but insinuating ati is getting an unfair shake by developers to justify their losing real world benchmarks is corny at best, fanboy fud at worst).

and matisaro, nobody is giving false information or fud, we are just providing with our own experiences. i think ahhk is asking for our opinions and our experiences. heck, if he just wanted the cold facts, he would just compare ti4200 and 8500 white papers and choose from there.
A: amd_man did spread fud(after he accused me of spreading it) claiming a 325/325 common overclock for the le is blatantly incorrect.
B: whitepapers tell you exactly squat about performance, when the radeon8500 was released it was beaten by a gf3 pure, (even though its specs would claim to own even a ti4200 iirc) the reason being bad drivers. This since has been fixxed, but it is still slower than its pure specs indicate, so telling someone to use specs to judge is imo flawwed.

tech forums are about other ppls experiences with hardware, not a place where white papers are written by forum members.
tech forums are a place where real data is tauted and anecdotes while mildly valuable are not more important than cold hard facts.

Im glad you never had a glitch with your radeon, many many many others have, even amd man admits that driver revisions fix bugs, nvidia driver revisions give better speed, not fix bugs, this alone shows that the nvidia driver set is more mature and stable.

Which is just one of the benifits of shelling out the extra 30 bucks for the ti4200.

The 8500 was a great card, whoooped the gf3 line pretty handily in price/performance, but its time has passed, ati fanbouys who try to argue its still relevant when compared to the ti4200 are just fighting a lost cause imo.





:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
Don't take it so personally. You of all people should know when argumenting with Matty, he always puts the agressive hat on when he counters. You shouldn't take his aggressiveness as being hatred or insults. I did find his countering to be very aggressive indeed, however I guess maybe he was in a bad mood, or whatever. Still, I do think his side is more agreeable here. I mean 128MB can only do so much if the performance hinders. If your Ti4200 OCed against a R8500LE OCed is about 30% better in performance, you cannot in any circumstances, and I do take this on a limb, make it outperform in games like Doom III, even with 80MB textures.

I wasnt agressive till amdman accused me of spreading fud.

and your 30% assessment is correct. Exactly what I am claiming.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
 

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
Geez, man, relax. You seem to be always on the offensive these days. Take a chill pill dude! :wink: Maybe I'm not looking at the same benchmarks, but I don't see the Ti4200 being leaps and bounds ahead of the R8500. If it was, this wouldn't be the most popular and heated argument in practically all hardware enthusiast sites.

The thing is, that everytime we see a benchmark comparing the two, it quickly becomes outdated in a couple of weeks because both ATI and nVidia constantly release drivers.

It's ok, let's just agree to disagree. :smile:

Anyway, I'm an XBOX convert ever since I found out that it will be able to play Doom3 at maximum detail. :wink:

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.