• 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.

Geforce2 32MB GTS or Radeon 64MB DDR?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Doomguy, there is more to it than that such as the high quality picture, VIVO, tuning, and DVD of the Radeon.
 
DOOMGUY, the whole Geforce tree has been out since last year. Nvidia has had over 9 months to make T n L Better than what it should be. The Radeon has just been released less than 45 days ago and you won't even give them 6 months to mature their drivers like Nvidia does with every driver release?



<< Like the GeForce 2 GTS's T&amp;L solution, the Charisma engine can perform transforming, lighting, and clipping calculations directly on chip, making it equivalent to the GeForce 2 GTS's second generation T&amp;L engine.

In addition to these T&amp;L enhancements, the Charisma engine features T&amp;L capabilities for both vertex skinning and keyframe interpolation, giving it an edge over the GeForce 2 GTS's T&amp;L engine. >>


http://ttp://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1281&amp;p=3

hmmm...



<< ATI's Radeon benefits greatly from its efficient memory management, allowing it to offer faster performance at their 4 sample FSAA setting than NVIDIA's GeForce2 GTS running in its 4 sample mode in 32-bit color. This is an example of yet another situation where theoretical fill rate becomes meaningless as the reality of memory bandwidth limitations sets in. >>



http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1288&amp;p=14
 
maybe because 3dmark2000 is optimized for the geforce and NOT for the radeon? Because when 3dmark2000 was launched the only available t&amp;l capable card was the gf
 
Geforce 2 GTS all the way. You can get a great deal from bummer if you want one. Here is why Geforce 2 is better than Radeon:

1)Drivers - Nvidia has unified drivers. I remember when the Rage 128 drivers had problems with Quake II, it took them forever to provide updated drivers to fix this because their drivers take longer to update because of the way they provide drivers. Nvidia's drivers are unified so when they provide a fix, it applies to all of their video cards minues the Riva 128. Why is that important you ask? Well, DX8.0 is very close and how many people want to bet that the Radeon will have problems with it (as will the Geforce 2 I bet). Driver updates are important to me.

2)Speed - Geforce 2 GTS is faster in both 16 bit and 32 bit

3)Windows 2000 drivers suck for the Radeon (very slow compared to the Geforce 2)

4)Radeon doesn't support texture compression within DX8 meaning more clogged up space in the frame buffer

5)Why did ATI choose 183MHZ as their top speed? If you overclock a 166MHz 32MB version to 183MHz, it is a significant gain in performance however if you overclock it from 183MHz to 200MHz, it hardly improves performance at all. It runs out of gas. Take a Geforce 2 and overclock it, it keeps on improving by a significant amount, especially at higher resolutions.

6)HyperZ is disabled in Direct3D games. It causes many problems in D3D games.

 
Heeeeeeeeeeehehehe you should get a V5 😉 You know I'm just jokin Hardware, cause you're likely to murder me for saying that 😉 😉 remember just kidding...

Seriously......I'd say it's pretty close in 32-bit performance(I pick vis quality over speed anyday, which is why I have a V5(FSAA), I wouldn't even consider 16-bit viable.), and the Radeon has alot more features, so I'd go with the Radeon. If there had been a 64 meg Radeon at the store the day I got the V5, I actually probably would've gotten that.
 
Which comments?

1)Fact. Everyone knows that.

2)Fact. Everyone knows that. Benchmarks from Anands, Sharky or tomshardware will prove this.

3)Look at the Windows 2000 article by firing squad. They claim the Geforce 2 GTS is the best card for Win2K.

4)I forgot where I read this.

5)This was concluded from my own benchmarks.

6)Look at the registry. I don't have access to an ATI Radeon right now but its in there somewhere to turn off HyperZ in D3D.
 
I was on the phone all day today with ATI because the Radeon 64 that i bought was defective. Wile talking to the many people at ATI (i was told to hold and and then a new person would pick up), one guy told me that ATI was working hard on a new set of drivers.

Take that for what its worth.

I am not sure if i will get this board exchanged from ATI or get my money back, but i do believe this will be my first, last and only ATI card.

I can't believe that they came out with this card with the drivers flawed. I was on the phone today and no matter what game i told them i had, they said the Radeon had a problem with it! I am talking, UT, Q3, Falcon 4.0, Indiana Jones And the in fernal machine, Price of Persia 3D, Need for speed 3 and 4, King pin, Descent 3, you name ATI Tech Support said the Radeon had a problem with it. They even told me the Radeon had a problem with there own DVD software.

I'm thinking of just getting a GeForce2 and a Hollywood DVD Decoder.

Techno.
 
Whoopsy that's not NSync's single anymore....gotta change the old profile 😉 sorry a little off-topic
 
Pidge, When you have some sort of links to your comments I will respond back with power quotes and links that will most likely escort you out the thread in an orderly fashion.
 
&quot;escort you out the thread in an orderly fashion. &quot;

Haha. I don't like hanging around here that much anyways. I like hanging around AGN better. Its just been slow there today. 😀

I am sorry but I am at work and so I do not have time to look for links right now. One thing I want to comment, when I had many problems with their Rage 128 card, I emailed them twice and it took 2 months to get a reply for one of them. I am still waiting for the other one. I tried calling them as well but I was on hold for a very long time and back then, they did not have a 1 800 number so it was costing me a lot of money. So I just hanged up. I don't know if they have a 1 800 number now.
 
I guess you could say I have a lot of vented anger with ATI. I still like 3dfx and never have discouraged anyone from buying 3dfx. Matrox has always been a business class video card and I haven't really had any bad experiences with their card. I just have had to many problems with ATI to even consider forking over hard earned cash for another headache.
 
Ok point taken, but just because Pidge has had problems with ATi doesn't mean Joe Schmo will the same problems too. So instead of saying that ATi sucks just say your business with ATi products in the past wasn't a good one.
 
O.K. The Radeon doesn't suck. The Windows 2000 drivers for the Radeon suck and ATI's customer support suck as well. But the Radeon doesn't suck. The Geforce 2 is just better but the Radeon doesn't suck 😀
 
I like features but I believe too the ATi driver support sucks.
It seems the GeFoce2 has only medicore 2d and 3d quality but speed and drivers give the edge.
 
ATi = Features
nVidia = Speed
Matrox = Image Clarity
3dfx = Image quality (FSAA)

Take ATI's tile rendering, 3dfx's FSAA, nvidias speed and driver support, and a Matrox RAMDAC and dualhead and video input and you have the ultimate card.
 
No it doesn't, but it has HyperZ, which provides some of the same benefits that tile rendering gives.
 
get the ATI. Nvidia's drivers are faster since they cut all those corners in them to make the textures crappy, load the buffers earlier so that the benchmarks finish faster, band the sky, etc, just for more frame rate. Matrox had an article about this i remember. Plus you'll have better 2d quality with the ati
 
Pidge-I will not comment on your other points (though you wrong for the most part), but ATI Radeon supports texture compression, in both OpenGl and D3D.

If you don't believe me-download Software Development Kit (SDK) from ATI website. TC is clearly supported. They even have whitepaper on it.


If you want more proof, just load up Q3 and check the extensions. Or better yet, try to play Q3 with and without compression. It doesn't look nearly as bad as on GeForce based cards will compression on-but the difference between TC and no TC is still there.

Leon

 
1.) NVidia has never cut corners in image quality. Please show me a link proving they did. Their S3TC is perfectly compliant to the standard. Even S3's own cards have the problem.
2.) NVidia has true trilinear filtering unlike 3dfx
3.) NVidia has much more mature drivers and game compatibility than the radeon.
4.) The NVidia s3tc issue is only with games that dont use s3tc and only opengl games. Their DXTC is just as good as anyone else's.
 
Old Fart, I think hell would freeze over, before Hardware would buy a 3dfx product. (hence, my 😉 in the post)

He's got some sort of inner hatred towards them, as if they burned down his village or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top