Choice

pidge

Banned
Oct 10, 1999
1,519
0
0
That is such a dumb article. It kind of reminds me of arguements I hear of why Mac's are better than PC's. They don't tackle the real strengths or weakness of the cards. Just sounds like someone from Best Buy or Fry's telling me which card to buy. I am not criticizing the choice, just the article. To me, there is no perfect card or no number one card. Each has their own strengths and weakness. Since this article didn't touch on them, it is a useless article.
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0
I think it does fairly well pointing out the strengths and weaknesses. It's obviously not meant as a vid card knowledge primer.
 

Finality

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,665
0
0
I'm not sure if I'd call Radeon the best card. It certainly had the best feature set/high marks for image quality. But wheres the driver support?

I hear Win2000 users are still having trouble.
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< I hear Win2000 users are still having trouble. >>


I take it then you don't OWN the card since you're reporting what you HEAR? And I assume you hear this from your vast amount of correspondants who report directly to you?
 

pidge

Banned
Oct 10, 1999
1,519
0
0
I read it again and I still stand by my opinion that it was a very basic article and not worthy of any strong consideration.



<< I take it then you don't OWN the card since you're reporting what you HEAR? And I assume you hear this from your vast amount of correspondants who report directly to you? >>



LOL.
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< I read it again and I still stand by my opinion that it was a very basic article and not worthy of any strong consideration. >>


Not going to change the world but a fairly valid opinion methinks......
 

Compellor

Senior member
Oct 1, 2000
889
0
0
From the article:


<< the Radeon 256 has a clear lead over its competition as the average users ultimate card >>



Does this mean that's it just an &quot;average&quot; card?

The article sucks and is biased. The GeForce 2 GTS is clearly the winner: more options, faster, and more competitively priced.
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< The article sucks and is biased. >>


As usual an intelligent response from you. I see &quot;Hooked On Phonics&quot; isn't paying any dividends for you yet.
 

Finality

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,665
0
0


<< I take it then you don't OWN the card since you're reporting what you HEAR? And I assume you hear this from your vast amount of correspondants who report directly to you? >>



No but I've seen the whining from Radeon owners on this bbs, on AGNs and on NTcompatible enough to realize that it is a problem.

FYI I'm thinking of getting a Radeon for my sister. Its not a bad card at all. ATI just needs to improve there driver situation. There biggest weaknes since well since the started making 3D accelerators.
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< No but I've seen the whining from Radeon owners on this bbs, on AGNs and on NTcompatible enough to realize that it is a problem. >>


Of course you only hear from the few with problems, same as nVidia. There are thousands who have no problems that have no need to post.
 

PeAK

Member
Sep 25, 2000
183
0
0

The review site basically states that &quot;balance&quot; is the key in terms of price, performance and features. Once game performance is respectable under some of the most demanding games (>60 fps at 1024x768/32 bits), then, price and features count....not to mention 2D and 3D image quality. The DELLS and COMPAQs make the bulk of their purchases from ATI and Nvidia (TNT2) right now based upon price and adequate 3D (16 bit) at 800x600 resolution, functional DVD, and good 2D. Radeon is poised to make some major inroads as the technology filters downward into more cost effective offerings under $100, such as the 32MB SDR, offering almost the same performance at 1024x768. Again, the operative word is balance and real world functionality.

The article basically states that the Ultra offering of higher frame rate numbers at higher resolutions of 1280 and 1600 do not make up for the worst overall image quality when better quality 2D and 3D can be had and readily seen.

The Radeon provides the right &quot;respectable&quot; hinge point for most people:
  • >60 fps at 1024x768
  • ~50 fps at 1280x1024
  • ~35 fps at 1600x1200...still quite playeable
Not mentioned is the that the minimum frame numbers are very close to the average framerates listed above. This makes for more stable framerates overall and less framerate variation. A very powerful card with higher average framerates can actually be crippled in complex scenes to 20 fps for brief moments. This has been described as stuttering. Quite possibly, this may be caused by having drivers optimized for high frame rates using queued frames.

Based upon above notions, the NV20 probably will make a minor dent on available AGP slots in most peoples machines and those that will be offered in the next generation of machines offered by the Dells and Gateways. These will be occupied by MX and Radeon like chips.

 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
I dont think there's such a thing as &quot;The best card&quot; since people needs are too different.

For a guy doing Photoshop work all day, a G450 DH is a given.
For a guy doing CAD/3DS MAX type stuff, a GTS is the given choice.
For a hard core quaker, a GF of whatever model affordable would be the best choice.
For the all around user, a Radeon would be the best.

I do think that article was a bit stupid though, it was hardly very in depth, it basically just said &quot;This card is the best, this is the second best, and this the third&quot;.
 

lsd

Golden Member
Sep 26, 2000
1,183
69
91


<< . Once game performance is respectable under some of the most demanding games (>60 fps at 1024x768/32 bits >>


So your saying those are respectable frame rates for todays games with a radeon? Now whats going to happen when NEW games come out? Are you wiling to play doom3 at 30fps? So what can you do to up your fps? switch to 16bit? well you're still going to get ~30fps and not to mention bad image quality.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Peak-

Interesting read about cheating in ZD benchmarks. They left out the part that the only company proven to be low enough to do something like this is ATi. Not that it matters anymore, I don't know of any places that use ZD's 3D bench except ZD publications(though I'm sure somewhere there are others). If you want to talk about the &quot;mainstream&quot; PC press, PC World recently reviewed several graphics boards including several nV based boards and also the current gen from ATi and 3dfx. An nVidia based board took top honors and last place for visual quality, both boards were based on the GF2 core. The Radeon finished mid pack, losing to several GF2 based cards, speaking strictly of image quality. I read the mainstream's reviews for amusement, but they did come to the conclusion that the Radeon was of lesser visual quality, for what its' worth.

Also, the minimum FPS line is FUD. There are tests that display this(Evolva, DMZG, UT), and in these ATi shows no real advantage and in many cases fall quite a bit behind the competition.

The article that is linked to at the top is also very dishonest. Listing MSRP for all those except ATi, and street price for ATi(Current street according to the latest AT price guide has the 32MB DDR Radeon at $118 with the GF2 at $111). The show the GF2 to be roughly 50% more expensive then the Radeon when in fact they are nigh identical in the matter of price. One of the strong points they listed about the Radeon DDR is its' excellent value(which it is), but so is the GF2 though not at the inflated prices they had listed;)

Why not have a fair playing field? I think that the 32MB DDR Radeon, as a singular product, is overall the better buy for the average user, but it has its' shortcomings as does every board.
 

Compellor

Senior member
Oct 1, 2000
889
0
0
Well said, Ben. I was more blunt about it. Now let's see if Taz4158 can even comprehend what you just said.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,332
7,792
136
When I was looking for a new vid card, I passed on the Radeon because many said that they had problems with W2k and boards with Via chipsets (I was using both!). So, I picked up and Elsa Gladiac instead - blah, a fast but visually uninspiring card (My Matrox G400 looked better, but it was too slow).

I decided to just risk it and get a Radeon 32MB DDR, and didn't return the GF2 right away in case it s*cked. Bottom line, the Gladiac is going back and the Radeon is staying. I've had no problems since switching to the 3073 driver and the visually quality (2D and 3D) is head and shoulders above the Gladiac (and the Gladiac gave me more driver headaches - Det 6.34).

I guess the bottom line is that YMMV with any card. If you want stunning visuals - get a Radeon, if you want stunning framerates, get a GF2. If you want trouble free operation - neither card is a sure bet :(

-AJ


 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< Well said, Ben. I was more blunt about it. >>


Another typical response from a person with a very limited vocabulary and comprehension. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course some like Ben as opposed to you have earned respect here. I simply posted a link to a favourable story about the Radeon. If you can understand the bigger words in it then you're entitled to your opinion but I do not appreciate you crapping on every Radeon thread with your gutteral, monosyllabic
and inane postings such as this one:



<< The article sucks and is biased. The GeForce 2 GTS is clearly the winner: more options, faster, and more competitively priced. >>


Now if you're 14 or sucks is the extent of your ability to pontificate on said subject matter then I apologize, if not then I have seen your behaviour over and over again on here and consider it pugilistic and rude and would appreciate you keeping your two cents, or one cent to yourself unless you have something a little more witty than it sucks to add to my thread. Get it?
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< I decided to just risk it and get a Radeon 32MB DDR, and didn't return the GF2 right away in case it s*cked. Bottom line, the Gladiac is going back and the Radeon is staying. I've had no problems since switching to the 3073 driver and the visually quality (2D and 3D) is head and shoulders above the Gladiac (and the Gladiac gave me more driver headaches - Det 6.34). >>


Glad it's worked out for you. Far too many people who've never even tried the card propogating the 2K driver myth.
 

pidge

Banned
Oct 10, 1999
1,519
0
0
I want to correct what Sunner said:

For a guy doing Photoshop/Web design work all day, a G450 DH/Geforce 2 MX
For a guy doing CAD/3DS MAX type stuff, a Quadro 2 is the given choice.
For a hard core quaker, a GF2 GTS/Pro/Ultra would be the best choice depending on the resolution.
For my mom and my sister who browse the web, look at pretty pictures and chat with people and need an inexpensive all around card, the Radeon is a good choice.

I am not sure if the article was biased but I do believe it lacked any real importmant information. Like I said, it sounds like someone at Best Buy or Fry's trying to sell me something in general and not realling focusing on what type of card I really need. But I probably feel that way because I do not believe there is a perfect card. If there was, then we wouldn't have so many variations of cards from NVIDIA, ATI etc.
 

Compellor

Senior member
Oct 1, 2000
889
0
0


<< Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course some like Ben as opposed to you have earned respect here >>



LOL! Even if I were to say something intellectual here about the article, I would get crapped on from you. But, does it really matter? Almost everyone here said that it was bad -- or at least pointed out the glaring flaws. If you think I came here looking for respect, than you need to get a life. This isn't etiquette school.



<< ...but I do not appreciate you crapping on every Radeon thread with your gutteral, monosyllabic and inane postings such as this one: >>



&quot;Every Radeon thread&quot;? Gee, when was the last one? Seems like many, MANY months ago... I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that I had to pretend I was someone else just to please you. That article &quot;sucked.&quot; I'm surprised you even posted it. Must be because the Radeon won, huh?

Oh, your use of big words only makes you look like a rich and spoiled kid. Was that supposed to impress me? Are you one of these people that live in a perfect world?



<< and consider it pugilistic and rude and would appreciate you keeping your two cents, or one cent to yourself unless you have something a little more witty than it sucks to add to my thread. Get it? >>



Get what? That ATi is better and that I, a so-called &quot;nVidiot,&quot; should keep my mouth shut and never speak a single word again because I'm not worthy of posting to one of your idiotic threads? Do I speak in a native tounge to you?

&quot;The article sucks and is biased.&quot; How so few words can get someone so upset is beyond me. It must be because I don't take life so seriously; I could simply care less.
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< &quot;The article sucks and is biased.&quot; How so few words can get someone so upset is beyond me. It must be because I don't take life so seriously; I could simply care less. >>


Pro nVidia articles aren't biased but this one is? Look for me to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person such as you is a waste of time. You've crapped on and tried to disparage anyone with a pro Radeon view and I must conclude you are simply a sad, pathetic little waste of earth's space and not worth any reasonable thinking person's time to respond to. You've tried it over and over again and this is the last I'll respond to a peon like you. BTW I would have posted a PM to you but apparently you're not enough of an adult to activate your profile or PMs.
 

BlvdKing

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2000
1,173
0
0
The ATI Radeon is a very troublesome card. It took me two days to configure it right and it still locks up. I went from Win2K (instant lockups with latest drivers) to WinME just to get the card to work in 3D. I still get crashes with this card. It's the damn DRIVERS stupid! Only 2D is supported under Linux still, and setting up XWindows evades me, even though there is support for 4.0.2. The 'unified' drivers will probably come out THIS SUMMER or later, if at all! Bottom line: this card is the pits; avoid it if you are using Linux or Win2K.
 

Compellor

Senior member
Oct 1, 2000
889
0
0


<< Look for me to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person such as you is a waste of time. You've crapped on and tried to disparage anyone with a pro Radeon view and I must conclude you are simply a sad, pathetic little waste of earth's space and not worth any reasonable thinking person's time to respond to. >>



You just proved my point. But, one last thing: where are you getting this false information? Where are all these negative ATi &quot;posts&quot; that I supposedly responded to? Am I on some special &quot;nVidiot blacklist&quot; of yours or something? At least I have the decency not to lie about others (something they taught you in college?). But in your pathetic, spoiled rich kid world, it's acceptable because you've &quot;earned respect,&quot; here. <laughs>