GeForce 2 Ultra vs. ATI RADEON 64 mb

[MiB]

GeForce 2 Ultra vs. ATI RADEON 64 mb

witch is to prefere price and speed

 

[cmaMath13]

I just got a new system and I went with the ULTRA, but that was what I wanted: The fastest video card I could afford.

Both are great cards, but I would say the Ultra is the better performer (But $$$).

 

[Ajay]

Stupid multiple posts.

 

[Ajay]

Stupid multiple posts.

 

[Ajay]

Price: ATI Radeon, somewhere around $200 (go for the Retail version
it's clocked higher)
Ultra's can be had for about $400 now (AFAIK).

Speed: the Ultra, I would guess that the Ultra would be a good 50% faster
than the Radeon in most games (with a few exceptions like MDK2).

Other things you may want to consider: 2D and 3D quality are better with the Radeon. The Radeon also has more features (Vid in/out, hardware DVD acceleration). If you are a speed freak and can handle high prices, wait for the NV20 (out soon), plus it will be a fully DX8 compliant card.


Check out AnandTech's reviews of both, though performance is now a bit higher on the Radeon compared to the review (older review, newer drives are available now).

-AJ

 

[Taz4158]

The Radeon is fast enough for anything you throw at it and you get the better visuals. Lot cheaper too.

 

[lsd]

Get a ELSA GF2 PRO, can be overclocked to the speed of a Ultra and the same price as a 64meg Radeon.... Simply no comparison ..

 

[Hawk]

lsd, no comparison in speed, everything else CAN'T be compared, but then again, MiB did ask for speed and price, so I guess the GF2 Pro does win in this one...

 

[miniMUNCH]

LSD has a good suggestion for you actually..don't bother with the Ultra...

However, I've said this million times on this board...All three of Visiontek GF2 ultra lovin' friends have now switched over to retail Radeon 64's for the "superior", "way better than my ultra", "bitchin'"(that's their words, not mine) image quality and vibrant color in 2D and 3D.

It's true that only thing that can be objectively measured in video cards is fillrate (FPS), but the subjective elements of the card that make the gaming experience not the FPS.

Radeon's are tight, and V5's are also better than any GF2 IMO for gaming because of the image quality.

But if you stick with a getting a GF2, try for something made by ELSA or visiontek (all assembled by visiontek)...they seem to have the best image quality, in 2D especially.

 

[Stealth1024]

Radeon 64 DDR w/VIVO retail is fast and image quality is wonderful.

 

[pidge]

Geforce 2 Pro. I am much happier with that board than I was with my ATI AIW Radeon. Much better drivers and performs much faster (noticably), especially when using FSAA.

 

[Hardware]

If you want to use Win2k or expect good drivers stay away from ATi!

 

[SmackdownHotel]

I love my GF2 Pro.

 

[ikaika1]

Hey don't bash ATI for w2k or driver support. Their 9x drivers have always been great performers, and theyre really are doing a great job ironing out whatever incompatibilities there were. Sure we don't get leaked drivers every week or so, but its not like they made that first set and forgot all about their customers. Sure we'd all like to see some certified/unified drivers, but you can't complain since most driver sets will take care of anything you throw at them. Also w2k support has come a long way. Its up to within 10% of the 9x performance, and the gap will most likely narrow not widen with the coming upgrades. Overall Im happy with my Radeon ViVo in w2k

 

[Taz4158]

<< If you want to use Win2k or expect good drivers stay away from ATi! >>


If you plan on giving advice please at least do some research on what you're talking about.

 

[pidge]

Well he was right about expecting good drivers. ATI is still not close to making me happy with their drivers. NVIDIA still makes much better drivers. I emailed ATI last week for a question I was having with an ATI AIW Radeon and their latest drivers and I have yet to receive a response from them. Typical though. The Radeon is in my mom's system so it is not that big of a deal.

 

[SlickVic]

`