• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GeForce 3 Ti500 vs. Radeon 8500

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
rbV5 wrote:

"Well that's true...unless you actually go to the ATI site and look."

And, where exactly is that "link" at? I don't see it on the 8500's product page, nor in the "Radeon 8500 FAQ". In fact, they don't even make mention of OEM parts. Who would find that? Let's be realistic here. ATI is doing a disservice to their customers.
 


<< And, where exactly is that "link" at? >>



Well I just went to their home page and typed "Retail vs OEM" in the little search box there and that as the first link that popped up.

I realize that most people aren't savy enough to use the search function either here or there. I also realize that most people couldn't see the difference between a 8500 clocked @250 and one clocked @275 without a benchmark. I also realize that most people here would simply overclock there OEM to Retail levels.

In fact I've been duped by ATI as well. I bought a 64 VIVO Retail from Newegg only to discover my Retail VIVO wasn't clocked at 183mhz as their web site claimed, it came with the 5ns Ram and was clocked at 198 mhz..damn ATI<shakes fist>


Look if you want to blast ATI, how about their crappy web site (can't find anything there) Their slowly evolving drivers (although more good than bad these days IMHO) their famous crappy customer service, or "where's my new MMC/DVD" on and on...you know "real stuff"
 
rbV5 wrote:

"...Look if you want to blast ATI..."

I'm not here to 'blast' ATI. In fact, overall, I'm pretty happy with the ATI cards I own. The VIVO functionality is great, 2D quality is superb, and DVD playback is top-notch. I'm also quite fond of the TV-Out quality of their products. But I'm rather tired of seeing the ATI fans blindly ignoring the obvious faults with certain products in certain areas.

It's one thing to say that 'most' people will just overclock their core/mem to retail levels, and quite another when they cannot. I've heard several people say that they can't do it, at least not without adding RAMsinks and better core cooling. I was able to hit 275/275 with both of my 8500's without such efforts, but the RAM does run hot. And I don't know how many people I see asking why their 3DMark score isn't 'up to par' with other 8500 users using the same configuration (mb, cpu, etc) -- only to findout they're using an OEM clocked 250/250 and (often) they don't realize it. Is it noticeable in anything besides benchmarks? Probably not, at least to the average Joe. But here at AT, it most certainly is. 😀
 
It really doesn't matter which one you get. You'll be able to play every game at max res pushing crazy amounts of polys. So what's the difference really?
 


<< But I'm rather tired of seeing the ATI fans blindly ignoring the obvious faults with certain products in certain areas. >>



Well call it what you want, You stated the difference in RAMDACS between OEM and Retail, I stated there was no difference and provided links, you apparently blindly ignore that fact.

The debate of Retail vs OEM did not start with ATI, and in fact is industry wide. You want to save money going OEM fine, but don't whine to me about the differences, thats up to you to research.




<< I see asking why their 3DMark score isn't 'up to par' with other 8500 users >>



Personally, IMHO, 3D mark is good for comparing changes to your own rig, but has little usefulness when comparing your rig to others....but what do you tell your friends with GF3 Ti 500's when they ask why their 3DMark score isn't 'up to par' with Radeon 8500 scores?
 
Ti500

raw power..

I've had 3 GeForces and a TNT2 Ultra after being frustrated with ATI back in the days and because of this i will never go back to ATI... they have way more problems than NVidia.. just because of the driver thing should make people scratch ATI off their list entirely... if your card has crappy drivers and won't run some games or runs them poorly then what the hell good are the stupid features anyways?? NVidia rocks.. flat out.. my GeForce2 GTS still runs games beautifully! and at a price of $169 Cdn for a regular GTS (not-V) it's a friggin steal!



 
Did we forget the orginal question? Which card is better: Geforce 3 Ti500 or Radeon 8500? Not weather OEM is better than Retail, and vice versa.

:|
 


<< Did we forget the orginal question? Which card is better: Geforce 3 Ti500 or Radeon 8500? >>



I think its been answered...they're both damn nice cards.
 
<<< If you're stupid enough to purchase the OEM version without noticing the change in specifications, then you aren't the sort of user who would notice the change in specifications! But since none exist, even a power user won't! ATI sells specific cards, and if retailers get the specs mixed up, take them to court already. >>>


Uhh..... Your a real dork. FYI Pabster along with *MANY* others bought those OEM versions and then *AFTER* the order was processed and they were shipped did these customer come to find out that the Radeon 8500 was clocked lower. Explain to me how they were stupid??? You cant. So do me a favor and STFU.
 
8500, even with all the badmouthing going around about it, it's still neck and neck with the Ti500. If it's this close with the supposedly horrid drivers, if ATI ever does get it right, the card will embarass the Ti500.
 
I'd definitely still pick the Ti500 but performance is only one of the reasons why. The other reasons are great driver support and high 3D image quality.
 
>I'd definitely still pick the Ti500 but performance is only one of the reasons why. The other reasons are great driver support and high 3D image quality.
>

if your concern really would be *performance* and *image quality*..why did you pick a ti500 then ? 🙂

Not that i'd give a d*mn..but for example why do you think the radeon 8500 at madonion.com is nr.1 at the hitlist....followed by the ti500 on position 2 ? Because it's "slower" ???????

(And this even with those still very immature drivers)



(I love those useless neverending threads 😉



 


<< 8500, even with all the badmouthing going around about it, it's still neck and neck with the Ti500. If it's this close with the supposedly horrid drivers, if ATI ever does get it right, the card will embarass the Ti500. >>



i fully agree here.

But i see it also like that the ati is faster in some benchmarks...the ti is faster in other benchmarks, IMHO...there is no clear winner when i look at it from a simple point of view.
I think however the ati is the winner when it comes to performance with (at the same time) many enabled features like AA and anisotropic filtering - except many websites would just lie 🙂
The ati loses less frames than the gf3 with anisotropic on. That's a fact.

However...real life performance for Game X may differ again....

I just think its astonishing to see reviews (eg rivastation, toms)...and even if its *CLEAR* that in the majority (!) of benches the ati is a BIT faster, its extremely DIFFICULT for these people to admit that the ATI actually BEATS the GF3.....you can only hear statements like 'serious competitor' or...."close to the gf3 ti500" even if it is *definitively* faster about one or two frames - and you can SEE it with your own eyes on the same webpage that the radeon has two frames more....and you can read "the radeon loses 4 fps while the geforce loses 80 fps"......but all you here is: "It comes close to the gf3" 😉

I mean use COMMON sense, people....










 
Well, I've finally seen the Radeon 8500 in action (I went over to my friends house and played CS/HL, UT, MP, etc.😀 for a few days. ed: not actually more than 48 hours though 😉) and all I can say is that the 8500 is an impressive card, to say the least.

I then decided to test out my friends Ti500 for a few days and see how it played the same games I had played just a couple days before (played a little CS/HL, UT, MP, etc.).

In the time I played games with the 8500 and Ti500 I can say that both cards offer almost great performance. The only instance where I would say I was disappointed with either card would be playing UT with the 8500. It wasn't terrible really, but I still noticed an annoying difference in ?smoothness? quality and in speed compared to the Ti500 (and my own GeF3 btw). This might be a driver issue, but who knows.

On the image quality side, the 8500 certainly was sharper than the Ti500 in a few instances, but it really didn't matter since I was playing in pretty low resolutions to begin with and since the only differences in image quality were only noticeable when I looked very closely; there was no "seeable" differences otherwise.

The 2D between the retail 8500 my friend has and the Ti500 I swapped in my system wasn't noticeable one bit. My friend's computer was using a .25dpi 17-inch monitor and retail Radeon 8500 while I was using a .24dpi 17-inch monitor and Leadtek Ti500. Any differences were minimal at best at a 1024x768 resolution.

So in conclusion, if you really don?t care about money, get the Ti500.
 
"The 2D between the retail 8500 my friend has and the Ti500 I swapped in my system wasn't noticeable one bit. My friend's computer was using a .25dpi 17-inch monitor and retail Radeon 8500 while I was using a .24dpi 17-inch monitor and Leadtek Ti500. Any differences were minimal at best at a 1024x768 resolution."

I would agree there isn't much of a difference between Nvidia and others at 1024. However, there is a world of difference at 1600x1200 and up. Continuing on this point, why would you spend $300+ on either of these cards if you can only run 1024? You can get by with a far cheaper card if that is the highest res you can run.
 
Continuing on this point, why would you spend $300+ on either of these cards if you can only run 1024?

I'm not sure what you mean. I think 1024 is just fine for games as well as for browsing the internet and business type applications. 1600 is way too small for me. 😉
 
"I think 1024 is just fine for games as well as for browsing the internet and business type applications."

Yes, it is fine, but any card available today can run that res, there's no reason to shell out for a Ti500 or an 8500. If you have a 17" monitor capable of only 1024, there's no reason to opt for a top of the line card. Save the money and spend it on something that will yield better performance.
 
If you have a 17" monitor capable of only 1024...

It's capable of 1600x1200 actually.

If you have a 17" monitor capable of only 1024, there's no reason to opt for a top of the line card. Save the money and spend it on something that will yield better performance.

I've had a VT GeF3 for 2 months now and I plan on keeping it for a while. I'm not going to be upgrading for quite some time, which is why I made the $300 investment to begin with (actually it was more like $270).

One question, why do would you use 1600x1200 anyway (your opinion)?
 
"It's capable of 1600x1200 actually."

Yes, but you would never want to run that. My eyes are pretty good, and anything above 1152 was a strain for my eyes on a 17".

"One question, why do would you use 1600x1200 anyway (your opinion)?"

If you use a 19"+ monitor. I currently use a 19" and 1600 is my standard desktop res. I could not run that res using a NVidia card because the picture was so blurry it gave me an almost instant headache. It was like my vision went bad or I was looking at it through water. I'm accustomed to using Matrox and 3dfx cards so that probably made me much more sensitive to the switch. The 8500 is a definite stepdown from the Voodoo5 I was using, but it doesn't blur the picture like Nvidia's cards did. 1600 looks very good in games, that's why I use it. Also in games like Empire Earth, higher res allows you to see more of the board which is an obvious advantage.
 
I have both and switch back and forth for the past month. I keep putting the Ti500 back in, the 8500 is either going in another machine or will be ebay'd. The decision would be much harder IF ATi had something similar to digital vibrance!

Cheers!
 
Lol, I'm just a poor college student.

Lol 19 inch monitors are cheaper than geforce 3. You get more advangtage of having a 19inch monitor than a video card. I would get a better monitor than a vidcard any day.
 
flexy wrote:

"Not that i'd give a d*mn..but for example why do you think the radeon 8500 at madonion.com is nr.1 at the hitlist....followed by the ti500 on position 2 ? Because it's "slower" ???????"

That's because 3DMark2K1 places more emphasis on the 'special features' like pixel shaders, which the 8500 excels at. And that gives it an advantage, however, only in a synthetic bench like 3DMark. In real-world performance, we find the 8500 trailing at every stop.

Benchmarks mean nothing. It's real world performance that counts.
 


<< The 2D between the retail 8500 my friend has and the Ti500 I swapped in my system wasn't noticeable one bit. My friend's computer was using a .25dpi 17-inch monitor and retail Radeon 8500 while I was using a .24dpi 17-inch monitor and Leadtek Ti500. Any differences were minimal at best at a 1024x768 resolution.

So in conclusion, if you really don?t care about money, get the Ti500. >>



Agodsped,

i'd not blindly recommend a ti 500 for SOME reasons:

() the ti 500 is much too expensive and doesnt offer ANYTHING (imho!) which makes it worth to spend that much more money. If you're lucky you can get a $99 BB deal on a
ti 200, overclock it with powerstrip....and virtually get the same card as if you'd get with a ti500 for over $300 (THREEHUNDRED) dollar. I wouldnt recommend the ti 500 because it lacks some features...NEITHER it is a good deal or a new card in comparison to the gf3 and/or gf3 ti 200.

() i personally SUPPORT the radeon for several reasons. That is...i think i see potential and great features which (in my opinion) certainly and 100% are worth to be supported. (Namely: Truvision !)
The more people buy this card and the more people utilize/develop for truvision....the sooner we can expect a REAL jump in general 3D games and apps quality.

I wont understand why people would spend MORE money on a (say) gf3 ti 500..which has NO new features since the old days of the GF3, its just a little faster, so whats the big deal ?

I'd say the radeon IS the better card because of its features (truform, directX8.1 hardware)...and you'd just wait to let game developers jump on that wagon and start to release real directX8.1/truform/pixelshader 4.1 games.....at least THEN some might realize it does make more sense to invest the money in a readeon than in a gf3, and be it for the sake that i (of course) ALWAYS support companies which come out with new and innovative features (where i can see a potential) and can only HOPE that consumers/developers see that the same way as i do.

I am a 3d enthusiast and it just excites me to see hardware out which has some very interesting new features..and the gf3 [right now] just can NOT deliver the same features as the radeon - and the more games/demos will be released (hopefully soon) taking advantage of this features the more you will see that i am right (little joke 😉 )

 


<< flexy wrote:

"Not that i'd give a d*mn..but for example why do you think the radeon 8500 at madonion.com is nr.1 at the hitlist....followed by the ti500 on position 2 ? Because it's "slower" ???????"

That's because 3DMark2K1 places more emphasis on the 'special features' like pixel shaders, which the 8500 excels at. And that gives it an advantage, however, only in a synthetic bench like 3DMark. In real-world performance, we find the 8500 trailing at every stop.

Benchmarks mean nothing. It's real world performance that counts. >>



Hehehe..now suddenly benchmarks mean nothing ? Strangely enough i had the impression that almost everybody uses 3dmark for an 'evaluation' of gfx cards, their speed and comparison - but as soon as one favoured card seems to be in a bad light or loses a couple of frames then 'benchmarks mean nothing'. 🙂

Anyway...i think we're the same opinion that the 'real life' value of benchmark results may be very questionable.

However...we could now get the current games everybody plays....and come to different results..eg. "in real life the ti 500 is better in almost every game".....but as the 3dmark benchmark shows it would only be a matter of time until we get games utilizing pixelshader 1.4 (how likely is that ???????) and then of course the radeon would be ahead...... in other words: What if (in a few months) there are a bunch of new DirectX8.1 games ?

Since the two cards ARE different in terms of some features the radeon has, it may be very likely to expect games which take advantage of these features.
But it shouldnt be a big deal to write games, each *optimized* for a certain card *either* nvidia or radeon.......no question.....it would be a matter of each and every single game and how it utilizes certain card specific features....


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top