ATI Radeon 32MB DDR or Geforce MX 32MB?

[agaraffa]

Mustang,

Just one more quick question. What Geforce 2 GTS can I get for $150? Most of them that I've seen have been around $250. Big name brand anyway (ASUS etc.)

agaraffa

 

[StickHead]

Umm... You can get a MX for well under $150. So why spend more money to get a slower card. 32-Bit color is a joke, I think most people run it for braging rights. Their is no quality differance! But your framerates will fall off a cliff. OK, so the Radeon is faster in 32-bit color, so what, the 32mb DDR Radeon doesn't have enough memory bandwidth to run it decent fps, you would need a 64mb card for that. Not to mention that a MX will overclock a hell of a lot better than a Radeon then the MX will really whoop the Radeon's ass.

 

[bozack]

from personal experience there is a world of difference between 32bit and 16bit color, at least on my 19in monitor.

Personally I have a 32 ddr and I couldnt be happier

had the same choice between the MX and radeon, very happy I went with radeon-

and I saw that with a coupon you can get a radeon 32 ddr for as low as 130 shipped from buy.com

good luck whatever you choose

 

[Taz4158]

GuardianAli:
Id stick with the MX.
The 32megs DDR version is only clocked at 166 in core and memory and thus is still bottlenecked.
You can overclock it but with 6ns on the memory it wont reach past 175 max and even then need to get a heatsink and fan combo to go tad higher which in it self will cost more.

Boy are you wrong. It baffles me how you can make pronouncements about a product you clearly have no knowledge of. Radeon's clocked at 166 will EASILY hit 183 or higher. The .18 Radeon is one of the coolest running cards, as opposed to the nVidia, and NEVER require a heatsink or fan addon. Where exactly do you get this misinformation from?

 

[ss284]

Ok, who here has actually owned both cards?
ive had the herc and the 32 meg DDR radeon
I have, and also a GTS for comparison.

first thing, 3D mark is the sh#ttiest benchmark available. its only for eye candy!

ok, while the Mx with the det3's is actually faster in 16 bit color in all cases, once you get into 32 bit, the radeon makes a slaughtering. its faster, and looks a whole lot better. 2D and 3D rocks, and dvd playback is uncontested.
Plus, ATI is a name brand with good support. I doubt you will get that quality support from a small oem.
and yes, it is easy to see a difference in 32 bit and 16 bit color unless you are blind. plus my radeon overclocked to 190-190 fine, and could take a 100 fsb

Bottom line, the radeon kicks the MX's sorry ass. the Mx is bassically a geforce 1.
but since i play CS, I sold both and kept my GTS. I really need that consistent 72fps =)


regards,

Steve

 

[StickHead]

WOW! 166 to 183, that's a whopping 17Mhz!!!! Besides, it's that memory that is the bottleneck. And the MX right now is about the coolest core, as it only draws 4 watts of power(not sure about Radeon). And their are many MXs that ship WITHOUT heatsinks because they just don't get hot. Besides, just because it is not hot, doesn't mean you can overclock it more.

And it BAFFLES ME on how you can make pronouncements about a product you clearly have no knowledge of. First off, you don't want a DDR MX, it only has a 64-bit memory bus. Look at my sig. I run my memory at 205, umm, I must be lieing though because you, the allmighty video card GOD knows everything. I don't know much about Radeons, but I know a hell of a lot more about a Radeon than you do about an MX.

 

[Taz4158]

Uh sure Stickhead. I have owned a Geforce SDR, A Geforce DDR, an MX and a 64 meg GTS. So I do have experience with all of them which is more than I can say for you. If you're happy with a toy running at 16 bit sobeit. Enjoy!

 

[H.A.R.M]

ss284:

YES, I have both cards, read my earlier post about the 3DMARKS. YES, a lonely MX card with SDR is faster than a Radeon DDR (I know, I had both cards). I blame part of this on ATI and there driver development team (anyone from ATI reading this post, hint, hint). I agree in theory that the Radeon should route the MX but it don't and it get worse with a GTS.

To the rest:
I feel very QUALIFIED to add a comment to this issue (after spending over four years building hi-res montiors used in the medial industry and have been involved with computers since the day of MFM/RLL hard drives). 32Bit color slows down the speed of you workstation in normal OS use and GAME playing (which is a fact as stated in the various benchmark results). At this point I say that the 16 bit vs 32 bit issue becomes more a question of personal taste of more than facts (I was left with the impression that you needed a special monitor to see 32-bit color from one post, ah, phosphor don't care how many bits you use, monitors are analog devices which means a pretty much limitless combinations of color). I have used the Radeon in both 16bit and 32bit and can't tell a difference (my eyes aren't that bad yet). I think that the ATI owners are pushing this quality thing a bit far to make up for a performance lag. Someone did mention DVD playback and this is an area that ATI shines in, I wish I only had a DVD player now! Over all I think the Radeon is a good deal for $150 if you don't want the fastest frame rates. And as someone else has already said you are buying a brand name card which is true.

 

[Compellor]

H.A.R.M.,

So, you think it's the drivers that are reason for the slower frame rates on the Radeon?

 

[DominoBoy]

Radeon wipes the floor with MX in 32bit color. Everybody knows that. The MX can't even give playable FPS in 32bit over 800 x 600. And 32bit color looks much beter than 16 bit color. I have a GeForce2 and even though the image quality is not as good as the Radeon, it still looks much better in 32bit than in 16bit.

I'm ashamed to say it about my fellow GeForce owners, but they use the "32bit doesn't look better than 16bit" statement as an excuse. Everybody knows that 32bit looks much better, and they are just making excuses. It makes me ashamed to own an Nvidia card when these guys flat out lie about stuff like this. Nobody wants to play in 16bit anymore.

Does anybody remember 2 years ago when Voodoo3 and TNT2 were out, and Nvidia guys went on and on about how great 32bit color was, and that 3dfx didn't have it. Now some of them claim that 32bit color isn't important and doesn't make a difference anymore. HAHAHA!!!!

I'm embarrassed to say I own an Nvidia card when these Nvidia Zealots make such stupid ass claims. To the guy who started the thread, GET THE RADEON. It's a no brainer for anybody honest enough to admit it. It's a better card than the MX.

 

[StickHead]

Well TAZ, I'm glad to see you knocked my rating down to a 6.x factor. At least I'm man enough to have people rate me, I see you don't because you and everybody else knows your a DUMBASS.

And if you have all of these video cards, you must not have a life, or other hobbies, or...well I won't get into the lack breeding part because that is a very disturbing thought(not like it will ever happen anyway).

 

[Compellor]

StickHead: LOL!!!

 

[Hawk]

Stickhead: bragging rights would be &quot;Hey, I run at 140 fps in Quake 3 <mumble>with everything turned off and at 16 bit color</mumble>&quot; Have you not seen 32-bit color in UT and 16 bit? The smoke and everything just looks better.

Radeon's 2d is just better, there's no arguing there. And lastly, who cares how much you can overclock the 32 MB when it's still faster without overclocking? Oh, and the Radeon consumes WAY less power than any of the Geforces.

 

[Taz4158]

Well TAZ, I'm glad to see you knocked my rating down to a 6.x factor. At least I'm man enough to have people rate me, I see you don't because you and everybody else knows your a DUMBASS.



Thank you for the mature and perceptive response to my post.I will take your intelligent and insightfull remarks under advisement and perhaps I can become less of a &quot;dumbass&quot;.

 

[Taz4158]

Once again this is one of MANY sites showing the Radeon's superiority. And the Radeon should be compared to the GTS not the budget MX.
TESTS
Quoting from the article:
ATI RADEON DDR cleans house on the benchmarks. While it only matches the performance of the GeForce2 MX cards in Quake III Arena Normal, where the CPU limits speed, it blows everyone else out of the water in MAX quality mode of Quake as well as Evolva. The extra bandwidth of DDR memory really pays off for ATI.

Value


Priced at $150 after a $50 rebate, it is hard to beat this kind of value, especially for a DDR part. Weighing in at close to $100 less than the cheapest GeForce2 GTS card, you get quite a bit of bang for your buck considering much of the RADEON's feature set hasn't even been taken advantage of yet. This means that, months from now you may be getting even more value out of this board as more games come out that take advantage of its advanced features. Although this board is slightly more expensive than the other cards in this round up, we feel the added features and performance could be very well worth the extra twenty or thirty dollars you spend.

Conclusion


If you're in the market for the best 3D performance on the value market, crisp 2D, and excellent video acceleration, than the RADEON is a sure bet. In order to get the $50 rebate, make sure you purchase the RADEON board from a store like Fry's or CompUSA, as it doesn't appear to be valid for online orders

 

[lsd]

<< Priced at $150 after a $50 rebate, it is hard to beat this kind of value, especially for a DDR part. Weighing in at close to $100 less than the cheapest GeForce2 GTS card >>


I bought my Gladiac close to6 months ago for $250.
You can get a cheap gts for $152 with no rebate

 

[Taz4158]

Yeah the pricing is off but the performance numbers stand.

 

[Zxcvbnm]

I will settle with the Radeon...

 

[lsd]

You can't compare a radeon 32meg ddr to a gts.... especially a elsa gladiac..

 

[Taz4158]

You're right. It's not fair to the Elsa.

 

[ss284]

IF you do any sort of photoediting, or photoshop work, you will cherish the radeon's 32 bit. The GTS/MX can barely run at 1600-1200, and thats with it looking like crap ( I have a nice 21 inch trinitron)


STeve

Ps with tweaks, the radeon is still faster in almost all 32 bit sitiuations, where it counts.

 

[audreymi]

If you wish to save money and can play games mostly in 1024x768,
even the Radeon SDR version will give you
better performance
than the MX in 32 bit mode. Here is what the review said:

32-bit is a different story entirely, and the RADEON takes full advantage
of HyperZ. For the most part, both the RADEON and GeForce2 MX
remain equally matched. As the resolution increases, so does the
difference between the two cards and the RADEON pulls away. Despite
the gap at 1600x1200, it should be noted that 1280x1024 is lowest
resolution that could feasibly be considered playable.


You get the same great 2D and 3D quality but at a much better
price.

 

[Moving Target]

Ok, I just ran 3DMarks2000 looping Heli and Advent in High going back and forth between 1024x768 16bit and 32bit and could see very littel diff in pic quality. The fps where obviously slower in 32bit though. This is my work computer (P3550, 128MB PC100, TnT2 Ultra and a Samsung SyncMaster 900p 19&quot. I will try the same thing at home later (P3800, GTS 32DDR, 128MB PC100 and Veiwsonic 17&quot

IMO the MX is a better deal, because I don't think the diff in 16 to 32bit color is worth the frame rates you loose. Witch make the MX a better DEAL because it is cheaper and faster (much faster when O/C) than the Radeon in 16bit.

Thats my opionion, whitch is what this thread was asking for! Not the Ford vs Chev crap it has turned into!

 

[dfloyd]

Faster, Faster, Faster, Woo Hoo!!!!! Dont you just had ID Software. Because of them FPS is all that matters. Or at least all that is percieved to matter. Personally if I can get playalbe frame rates, with nicer image quality I would take that any day over just a card thats faster.

 

[Moving Target]

^ I see by your vid card why you would say that.