Geforce2 Ultra or Radeon 64MB VIVO?

[Jumpem]

Now that people have been using these cards for a bit, which do you prefer? There is the obvious $175 price difference, but that's not of too much concern to me. The Ultra is faster, yet the Radeon has been said to have better image quality. Is the image quality difference very noticable? What about overall speed differenes?

I will be putting the card in a 1Ghz+ Thunderbird system that will be running Windows ME(maybe 98SE). Thanks guys!

 

[Viperoni]

There woul be a pretty noticeable speed difference, but really, once you get over 75fps (like @ 1024x768/32bit), I think visual quality is more important....and IMO, the Radeon really shines there.
Comparing to my tnt-2 ultra, the 64mb Radeon's I've had look beautiful in Q3, even CS is nicer, and it is quite fast.
At 1024x768/32bit colours Forced, in CS, I pull an easy 100fps just walking around, and of course it slows down during smoke grenades/fog/etc, but really, it's nice

 

[Noriaki]

As long as you aren't using Win2000Pro I'd take the Radeon 64MB Vivo.

I had one and it was great...I was past the 70fps in Quake3 1024x768x32 Max quality with my 550 classic Athlon.

I have serious complaints about the Win2000 drivers, but you said specifically it will ME or 98SE so I'd be leaning Radeon if I were in the market for a new card right now.

 

[Jumpem]

I forgot to add one more thing. Are there still those strange shimmering problems on Sony monitors? I was going to get an Ultra, but you guys might be swaying me.

 

[Rent]

I was looking for the thread, but to my knowledge the Shimmering effect is fixed. Just make sure you have the latest drivers.

Of course my vote is for the Radeon, look at my name! I love the image quality, I didn't realize everything looked so awesome til a week or so after I bought it, then I was like "Whoa that looks better than my Annihilator Pro"

 

[Robor]

Jumpem: The Radeon is awesome. Great looking 2D and 3D as well as ATI's hardware DVD support. No, it's not anywhere near as fast as a Geforce2 Ultra but they are 2 totally different cards. The Ultra is faster but it costs a bunch more and doesn't have the features of the Radeon.

I own a 64MB Radeon (retail) and have a Sony CPD-G400. I can assure you that the wavy/shaky/shimmery text is fixed in both Win9x/ME/2000. All you do is install the latest drivers, do a simple registry edit, and reboot. Here's a LINK to a great ATI & Radeon site. They have a forum there with some very helpful people. If you do get a Radeon and have any questions on the registry trick give me a PM and I'll be glad to help!

Rob

 

[Jumpem]

Thanks Viperoni, Noriaki, Radeon, and Robor! I think I'll get the Radeon then when I put my new system together towards the end of the month. I shouldn't be too picky, anything will be better than this TNT-1 card!

 

[cmaMath13]

I am all about speed still, so I would get the GeForce Ultra.

 

[Mule]

Even though I'm a Radeon fan I say get the GeForce 2 Ultra. It will give your computer a longer lifespan as the Ultra will last you through several video card generations without having to upgrade. If you get a radeon, future games might not run as smooth as you would want. And you can't just switch to 16bit to get faster performance because the radeon's 16 and 32 bit performance is almost the same. The Geforce cards have much greater 16bit performance so if you new game won't cut it at 32bit then you can switch to 16bit and get a little more performance.

But for todays games the Radeon will certainly be more then enough. And if you have a NICE monitor and perfer the superior image quality or DVD hardware then go for the Radeon. I spend alot of time on the computer(not playing games) and for that reason I got a radeon.

In this scenario I would recommend the GeForce because I don't upgrade very often(my last vid card was a banshee) and it should last you for a while, but if money is no problem then get the Radeon because in the furture you can always upgrade to the Radeon 2

 

[Taz4158]

Another vote for Radeon of course!!!!!!

 

[GTaudiophile]

I have a Radeon 32DDR and a Sony CPD-E400 monitor. I use the official 3056 drivers and run my desktop at 1024x768@32 with no shimmering. The Radeon is a great card, easily better than my old TNT2-Ultra, but ATI really needs to get their butts in gear and start rolling out drivers.

 

[BigLance]

Guys !

The Radeon is NOT ALOT slower, in 16bit yes, but in 32bit now, its very close to the Ultra in the higher res 32bit games... Not much difference at all, plus it has awesome visual quality and VIVO !! I would say Radeon, put the extra money towares memory or whatever you want....

Check out Anand's review of the Radeon, it got overall video card too !

 

[Imported]

End of the month? Isn't the NV20 coming out soon or something?

 

[HoopDogg]

ULTRA
ULTRA
ULTRA

=)
just cause I know nothing about the radeon!!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

image quality is really nice and all, but when your playin a game and get fukin killed because of slow ass framerates or lag, the ultra will make a difference. You will be able to run almost all current games at 1280X1024 with max details. At that res, jaggies are almost unnoticeable, and the image quality is amazing. With the radeon, you won't be going above 1024X768 max details in most games. So i think it would be best to go with the ultra if you have the money and want a card that will last you sometime. However, both cards are really great and both cards are plenty fast for todays games, so i say try em both out.

 

[Sunner]

BigLance, the Ultra is indeed ALOT faster than the Radeon.
Q3 1600x1200x32, Radeon 37, GF2 Ultra 58, I'd call that a pretty significant difference, its from Anands Gladiac Ultra review.

If money was no issue, I'd get the Ultra, just look around, sure there should be an Ultra out there with good 2D quality, considdering there are GTS's and Pro's with good 2D, and considdering the price of an Ultra, better filters should be a nonissue on Ultras.

 

[Syborg1211]

Yea sure, the Radeon and Ultra speed difference dont mean jack AT 1032x768. Now, at higher resolutions which we are going to everntually move up to, the Radeon and Ultra speed differences show greatly how the Ultra excels. I say get the Ultra for higher resolution gaming. Although, I am right now waiting for the NV20 which shall be one awesome card.

 

[lsd]

Screw both and get a Elsa Geforce2 pro, it rapes the radeon and costs about the same. You can overclock it for near ultra speeds

 

[BigLance]

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1298&p=11

Look at Benchmarks up to 1280x1024 beacuse in 1600x1200 in Unreal there is no 32bit.
This is what I was referring too, in UT (maybe only game) The Radeon is faster in 32bit.... Other games, well thats a differnt story.
I guess if price and Visual quality don't matter get the GF2 Ultra... if you want it to look real nice and don't want your wallet flattened get the Radeon. Either way like everyone else has said- Damn good cards !

 

[fir3wir3]

bah

radeons!!!!!

shhh viper

 

[Smbu]

If you are buying right now you should definately get an Ultra. Those Visiontek Ultra cards even have the extra VIVO and DVI connectors on them all for about $400. If you aren't getting it right this moment you should probably wait for the NV20, which, should be coming out in like 1-2 months, I think.

 

[AMB]

I would go with the Ultra, the 2D is much better than the early days of the GeForce

 

[Degenerate]

Go with the Ultra, i think it's much faster than the radeon. Check the reviews anand gave. It is, it can get 60 fps in Q3 @1600x1200.


I think some people are still upset that nVidia "took over" 3Dfx, thats why they don't support nVidia. But I could be wrong.

 

[Jumpem]

I'll be building around the end of the month, whenever the new 133FSB AMD chips are available. The Radeon is almost $200 less than the Ultra, at around $240. I'm thinking about just getting the Radeon for my new system, since it's cheaper. Then I could just give it to my dad in the Spring to get an NV20.