Geforce 2 Ultra or ATI Radeon 64 VIVO

[blues008]

Keep in mind I have a nice Sony Trinitron tube. I dont want any flickering!!!

Suggestions?

Thanks!
blues

 

[Sugadaddy]

What resolution do you run your desktop at??? My GTS has good 2D up to 1152x864, then it gets kind of blurry. If you're running above that res. you might be better off with a Radeon, which is also cheaper. If it were me, I'd go with the Ultra since I care more about 3D performance than 2D sharpness...

 

[XGamer]

I would go for the ultra to.

 

[arod324]

IMHO, you should never buy the "higher" end of the market (of course the Geforce3 is at the highest end, but the ultra is up there with it). I have always bought towards the "bottom", not to mean it is bad, but I think that you should go with the Radeon DDR VIVO because it is cheaper. The Ultra will cost nearly twice as much, and will not give (IMHO) enough performance increase to justify that cost increase. Currently I have a Radeon DDR LE (which only cost me $88 shipped from www.newegg.com, now $77 shipped). This card performs beautifully in Win98 (however, win2k would be another issue). The Ultra will score something around 3800-4000 in 3dmark2k1 depending on the system, while my $88 Radeon will score about 3000. I know it is just a benchmark and may not really symbolize real life, but is it really worth paying almost $300 more for the ultra (in my case....... in your case it would only be a $160-180 difference between the Radeon VIVO and the Geforce2 Ultra.

 

[Hawk]

If you plan on running 1280 or higher on your "nice Sony Trinitron tube", I wouldn't get a Geforce anything unless you are going to do the mod that fixes the 2d. Today my friend came into my room, saw my roommate's nvidia 2d at 1280 and said "wow, that's really blurry" and didn't complain about my Radeon's 2d at 1600. =) But if you plan on running like 1024, then the Ultra wouldn't be TOO bad...though arod is right, the VIVO is ~$160, and the Ultra is ~$300.

 

[PeAK]

If this helps, the Radeon is currently edging the Ultra in 3DMark 2001 scores due to the newer features like bump mapping and vertex skinning. Beyond just pure framerate there are other things that some of the more balanced and recent reviews point out.

 

[SpeedTrap]

id go the radeon for 2d and great gaming at high res. i run at 1600x1200x32 and its clear or gaming then the geforce but the text gets blurry at 1280x1024 on up

 

[cmaMath13]

Both are great cards. For better FPS, get the Ultra. For better visual quality go with ATI.

You can't go wrong with either card. You may want to wait til GeForce3 hit the shelf for lower prices.

 

[BFG10K]

Gee, what a surprise, PeAK is harping his usual pro-ATi propanganda.

The GF2 Ultra will deliver much better framerates than the Radeon but you do run the risk of bad 2D image quality, even more so on the Ultra because of the rolling line problem that some of them have. On the other hand ATi's drivers do have a lot of issues and I mantain that nVidia's driver support is better.

Try a few GF2 Ultras out and if you don't find one with good 2D image quality, return them and get the Radeon. I believe Elsa is probably the best when it comes to following nVidia's reference design as closely as possible.

 

[Hawk]

<< Gee, what a surprise, PeAK is harping his usual pro-ATi propanganda. >>



So what isn't true about what he said?


But 3dmark2001 doesn't really matter anyway.

 

[Beowulf]

I have 2 GF2 GTS cards.One Elsa and the other is a Hercules card both offer go 2d to me and I have had Voodoo 5 before.It really depends on the person and res you run the card at.

 

[BFG10K]

So what isn't true about what he said?

It's more what he didn't say rather than what he did say.