Geforce4 vs. ATI Radeon 8500LE video quality

[BSMan]

I'm in the market for a new video card. I have it narrowed down to a Geforce4 ti4200 or ATI Radeon 8500le or 9000 Pro. I would like some opinions from you guys comparing 2D & 3D video quality. I understand that G4 will produce higher benchmarks, but ATI is supposedly better in video clarity and quality. I play some 3D games, but I'm more concerned with just plain 2D clarity. Is there anyone out there that has compared both and give an unbiased opinion?? My Geforce 2 GTS has never satisfied me on 2D clarity after replacing my Matrox board. Has the G4 been improved on since?? Thanks for any help!!

 

[rogue1979]

I don't have a GF4, but everybody is saying the 2D is as good as a Radeon 8500. I did have both the radeon 8500LE and several 9000's, and I thought the 9000 series had a slight edge on the 8500 for 2D image quality.

 

[Grecian2000]

I have no experience of the 8500le or GF4 boards, but I recently upgraded my Matrox G400MAX to the Sapphire Radeon 9000 Pro. At 1600x1200 @ 85Hz on my Iiyama Vision Master Pro450 I was suprised and impressed by the quality of the Radeon. I would say the text is slightly less sharp, and the colors less vivid than the G400 but the difference is very slight, almost unnoticable.

My 3dMark2001SE score increased from just over 2000 to just under 7000.

 

[SValline]

I have both (eVGA GF4 Ti4200 and Radeon 8500 (250/250) ).


The Radeon looks better in 2D and most games. The Ti4200 is faster. There isn't a huge difference in visual quality, but you can definately tell the difference. Colors appear to be sharper and more vibrant. Objects in 3D games appear to be sharper and less "fuzzy" overall on the Radeon. If I had to rate the visual quality, I would say the Ti4200 is 90% as good as the Radeon in 2D and 3D, and performs better.

I really like both cards, but I keep the Ti4200 in my main rig.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Yeah the GF4 cards have improved immensely since the GF2 days, and although opinion is split it is clear that GF4TI4200 cards regardless of manu are VERY comparable to Rad8500 which are VERY good for IQ. Rad9000 are reportedly slightly better still, but you lose a fair amount of gaming speed so the 8500LE is a much better choice. It is give and take, I'd go for the 4200 esp on a mid to fast CPU but even the Rad8500LE is capable of playing all current games in good res with some eye candy no prob at all. If you are more concerned with IQ than squeezing every single FPS out then the 8500 is the top dog when you consider prices (in the US and Canada anyway), the diff should be most noticable on a large monitor when working / reading text at 1600x1200x32 @ 75Hz+, if you are likely to be doing more of that than gaming certainly go Radeon! I suppose I'm trying to say BOTH 8500 and 4200 are excellent but I'd let 9000PRO fall by the wayside. Either way you're a winner.

PS. 4200 hardly vary by manu (altho the bad eggs are EVGA, AOpen and std Gainward) but do be more careful when it comes to Radeon's manu and also oem/bulk vs retail. Things like IQ can vary a little and dual display is often omitted but the most common difference is definitely down to the clock speed, no prb really, just simply check if you go that route!

 

[alm4rr]

dunno bout gf4, but you can usually overclock the 8500le to almost 8500 specs with no problem

 

[BSMan]

Hey everybody, thanks for the comments. AnAndAustin I guess I'm more concerned with visual quality especially 2D than anything. My wife plays some games-Summoner, Baldurs Gate, etc, mostly RPG, but 90% of the time it's e-mail, surfing, etc. I have a 21" NEC E1100 Multisync monitor and P4 1.6A CPU with 256MB PC2100 RAM. Should have enough power to do most anything I need. I had the ATI 8500LE 128MB card in mind until I saw the pricing on the G4 ti4200. THey are almost identical in price, but the ti4200 obviously has better benchmarks. My biggest question was 2D quality on the G4 because I've known that's one thing ATI has always had. They have seemed to get their act together on drivers now also. The only question I have now would be the difference between "built by or powered by ATI". Does anyone have any comparisons of video quality between a retail and OEM card?? Any OEM brands I should stay away from?? Is the video all computed in the video cards CPU because both cards have the same one?? The only difference is what happens to the signal once it leaves the CPU and how it is refined and filtered. The OEM cards could use cheaper parts for that. Any other comments guys?? Looks like I'm leaning heavily toward the 8500le.

 

[AnAndAustin]

BSMan, 4200 has hugely improved IQ (Matrox PDF files regarding image quality (shows GF4 are right up there with ATI)) but as I say if every FPS isn't the most important thing then an 8500 is still a damn fine card and will surely have the slight edge esp in very high res.

As for the Radeons, built vs powered obv means the manu is either ATI or non-ATI, the non-ATI cards have been known to vary in IQ but from what I gather it isn't anything huge at all. The other 2 things that often vary by manu is dual display (many manu supply the ports but not the dual RAMDACs need for DD) and the actual clocks (and hence speed) of the card including the memory implimented and thus the attainable o/c too. Again in clock speeds we're talking VERY rarely anything worse than 10%, so see what the price diffs are. RETAIL vs OEM/BULK is a different issue to BUILT vs POWERED as the oem versions tend to simply be a slower clocked version of the full retail card, often again the memory tends to be slightly slower/cheaper so it will inhibit the o/c too. In all of this these matters the diffs are not huge, and so long as you aren't buying by name alone and are willing to ask/look around there is no problem.

I'd suggest the 8500LE-128MB for you but if you do want a bit more 3D the 4200 is the way to go and will still have very good IQ, at P4 1.6ghz (I take it you don't o/c?) th diffs between these cards will be small so once again the 8500 seems the marginally better choice ... just be sure to do your homework if you go Radeon so you don't get caught out!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BSMan
Hey everybody, thanks for the comments. AnAndAustin I guess I'm more concerned with visual quality especially 2D than anything. My wife plays some games-Summoner, Baldurs Gate, etc, mostly RPG, but 90% of the time it's e-mail, surfing, etc. I have a 21" NEC E1100 Multisync monitor

[/i]

I just picked up a ti4200 turbo, but for your needs, I'd go with the Rad 8500. If you are running mostly RPG games, you won't notice the improved 3D performance of the GF4. I did notice a remarkable difference in 2D quality from my VT GF3 ti200 to the GF4 ti4200, and the DVD playback is also much improved. There seemed to be a "grey film" over the screen when I watched DVDs on my GF3. The GF4 2D quality is about the same as my old V5 5500, which for the most part was on par with ATI 2D quality. I had an 8500 retail for about a week before gifting it away, and it definitely had better 2D than a GF3, but I can't really comment on it compared to the GF4 as that was about 10 months ago. Seems like some people have been able to compare them head to head, and any visual differences will certainly be magnified on that nice 21" CRT you got there. Anyone who works in an office knows that visual differences are magnified exponentially the longer you stare at a screen.

Chiz

 

[hclarkjr]

i just switched from a radeon 8500LE 64 MEG to a geforce 4 TI4200 128 MEG and must say that the geforce is the better video card. visual quality to me is about the same for 2D and the geforce with the 64 MEG extra of ram is smoother and for me the geforce uses less power than the radeon. i was having trouble with my via chipset and it. now all is well. as for 3D they are about the same as far as i am concerned. both are fine cards and depend on what system you have and how much $$$ you have to spend. also should mention that the geforce outscores the radeon by 1100 points in 3dmark2001 for me. i get around 6900 with the radeon and got a 8015 with the geforce

 

[bearxor]

I have a evga GF2GTS 32MB, and I recently had the privlege of installing a 9000 Pro 128.

WOW

I was blown away. The quality of the 9000 Pro in both 2D and 3D games was outstanding. If you have a GTS, you know the chip blurs stuff thats further away in 3d games, im sure the 9000 does it too, but i couldn't tell if it did or not, it was a HUGE difference.

Unfortunately, I'm slumming it again in the GF2 GTS. I took back my 9000 Pro. Regretting every minute of it.

The only thing that keeps me going is knowing that I have a 180 dollar gift card for best buy, and that the 9500 Pro comes out soon...