GTS or Radeon or V5 Need opinions fast!!!!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

WetWilly

Golden Member
Oct 13, 1999
1,126
0
0
Robo,

To be fair, you should give credit to the Geforces for their implementation of AA under 2D as well. Only thing is they need to do is add an option in the Detonators so you can turn it off and get a nice, crisp 2D image.

Oh wait, that isn't AA? Never mind.
 

RobsTV

Platinum Member
Feb 11, 2000
2,520
0
0
RoboTECH,
Please, if you are going to quote me, at least do the whole thing.

Should have said:

<< Also, what's all this crap about 3dfx in UT? The GeForce2 GTS card looks much better and runs faster than the old V3 3k did, and that was before adding the second UT cd of compressed textures. >>

This was based on the fact that many think the V3 looks BETTER than GeForce2 in UT, which it clearly does not.

My statement is not 180 degrees opposite the rest of the planet. I too was just like you are now. While owning the V3, I had to put up with all the owners of TNT, TNT2, TNT Ultra, GeForce, GeForce 256, etc. For 18 months I kept defending the card I owned, while everyone and there brother said how bad it was compared to nvidia. In newgroups, V3 buyers were very bitter at 3dfx for incompatabilies with other hardware and software. I was always trying to correct and help people. In fact, I argued with Alf from 3dfx on many occasions, with his insistance that the V3 would not work in FIC 503+ motherboards, due to faulty motherboard regulators, while in reality, there was NO such regulator problem, but instead simply a case of not using the correct driver that was required at the time. This was one of the reasons I left 3dfx. Customer service never took responsibilty, and always used &quot;the other guy&quot; as the cause of all problems. I also was a frequent poster to Voodoo3.net when they had there forum going. Not to complain, but to help others and defend my 3dfx card. But now I must thank all of those that made me think, and finally go back and give nvidia another shot. You can only beat a dead horse for so long.

When Brian Burke left 3dfx for nVidia, that should have told you something.
It would be similiar to Jesse Jsckson leaving Gore and the democrats for Bush.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0


<< I remember the day when you couldn't say one thing against the almighty geforce and now people try to make it look second class and this is nvidias ball game here folks >>



Well then you bought into the PR... look at this thread, how many people in this thread said they moved from a GF2 to a V5? Lets hear some GF2 owners that said they moved from a V5 to GF2.

The sad thing is, is that the GF2 isn't the superior card right now. Benchmark to benchmark (which i put ZERO faith in), they're pretty much equal to the Radeon... and for features, the Radeon puts it to shame... so yes, they ARE second class. But people like you who only listen to the so called 'authorities' believe otherwise.

You seem to be all caught up in Ben's explanation of the inferiority of the V5 FSAA, yet you've never seen it. You latch onto his explanations, and build reasons why it's a crappy card ontop of that. But Ben's explanation applies to FUTURE cards. Your original question was 'If someone could actually have a decent arguement why the V5 is the best choice I'd like to hear it...' Well, you've been giving THE explanation why everybody who's seen the V5 and GF2 in action chose the V5, but you seem to be all caught up in the stats and figures instead of what the card can really do visually.



<< I have trouble paying more or the same and getting 50fps less in Q3A. >>

- ...by the way, V5 is priced about the same as a GF2MX now.

How can you possibly be arguing against anythign if you have no experience of it? How can you say FSAA is not worth it if you've never seen it in action? Seems like a lot of people ditched their GF2 and Radeons for the V5, and they come from direct experiences. As for the usefulness in games, i've listed how useful it is... the only genre it seems to be useless in is FPS. Every other game seems to benefit from FSAA, yet all you've said in your posts are that the only usefulness is possibly flight sims.



<< Thats great that everyone is satisfied with their V5's. But Ben really put it down on everyone here... I don't think anyone can come back on such a knowledgable post. Basically after someone posts something like that everyone goes back to their layman terms saying how they &quot;prefer&quot; one card to another >>



You may need an 'expert' to tell you what you prefer, but i don't. I can see it with my own eyes that the V5 is better than the GF2. You can continue having the experts tell you what is good or not, nobody is gonna stop you. But you've heard testimonials after testimonials of how superior the V5 is to the GF2 from people that have owned both, and if you won't accept first hand accounts, then why bother asking the question in the first place?
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
WetWilly:

&quot;Robo,

To be fair, you should give credit to the Geforces for their implementation of AA under 2D as well. Only thing is they need to do is add an option in the Detonators so you can turn it off and get a nice, crisp 2D image.

Oh wait, that isn't AA? Never mind.
&quot;

HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

OMFG, that was pretty good. I was like &quot;dude, you can't do AA in 2d dammit!&quot;

:D :D :D :D :D :D

RobsTV :

I'm real sorry you had such a rough time dude. I honestly had no issues with my V3. :confused: Sorry man.

&quot;Well then you bought into the PR... look at this thread, how many people in this thread said they moved from a GF2 to a V5? Lets hear some GF2 owners that said they moved from a V5 to GF2.&quot;

<Raises hand>

then I moved my a$$ right back. 64MB GTS go bye-bye, 5500 commmme to Butthead....

&quot;Seems like a lot of people ditched their GF2 and Radeons for the V5, and they come from direct experiences&quot;

werd, werd...preach on brutha panic, preach on...

&quot;the only genre it seems to be useless in is FPS&quot;

<COUGH> MDK2 <COUGH>

incredible. 1024x768 w/2xFSAA is AWESOME in MDK2. It looks better than 1600x1024, IMHO. The extra color precision of the FSAA makes the 22-bit post filter look even better. Very vibrant colors. :) purrrrrrrteee...

:)

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,699
6,257
126
Robo: I'm sure it's not cpu (Duron650@750). When I tried to run it at 1600x1200x32 I received some funky D3D error, but 3dmark didn't crash. 1600x1200x16 ran fine, so I'm thinking that either my monitor(Mits Diamond Plus 91) or perhaps it's inf(not sure if it's the right one) file is to blame. Oh well, I still managed a crippling score. :)

 

rampage2001

Member
Sep 12, 2000
40
0
0
Actually I know a guy who goes to my lan tournaments that traded his v5 for a gts ultra. He prefers 1600x1200 over 1024x768 FSAA. I never examined the card like you do but I paid much attention when he ran the Ultra. I prefer high res if the game allows it, I do like FSAA for my slower paced games, IMO thats what FSAA is good for, smoothing out old games that you have plenty of excess speed in anyway. I couldnt see using FSAA in Q3A, I cant even tell the difference because everything moves so fast. I use FSAA when I fire up my old fave Die By The Sword, it only runs in 640x480 and the MX can do 4x AA in this game with FPS to spare. It does fine FSAA in any other game besides the fast paced shooters.
I can see why you are lashing out to defend your purchase but its not necessary. I'm going to switch over to a V5 if nvidia doesnt produce some kind of HSR in their drivers. I never saw the V5 in FSAA (and frankly I could care less about minor FSAA quality issues.. just AA the damn screen and let me play), but the new voodoo drivers are enticing.
If nvidia produces HSR I'm ditching the Radeon for a GTS.
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
Actually I know a guy who goes to my lan tournaments that traded his v5 for a gts ultra.

hey, that's not a bad trade, if it was straight up. <g>


as far as defending the purchase, I can see hwere it seems that way, but basically it's a case of defending something that, I feel, has been unjustly &quot;bullied&quot;

I see review after shortsighted review that reveals, quite apparently, that not too many reviewers are bothering to really learn about the card and its benefits. They're just after a few benchmarks and that's it. That, to me, is plain ridiculous.
Unfortunately, there are so many people that are ready to mindlessly parrot what they read on a website without really knowing what they are talking about.

that is my true &quot;beef&quot;. If you're going to bust on something, get to know it beforehand.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0


<< I can see why you are lashing out to defend your purchase but its not necessary >>



Actually i'm not... the V5 was practically free for me (in fact i came out ahead), it's the GF2 and Radeon that i paid an arm and leg for. Infact, i wasn't even going to keep the V5, it was supposed to be passed along to a friend, but he was slow in getting the money, and i had it sitting beside my computer for well over 2 weeks before i got curious and plugged it in... and wow, i was instantly amazed (this was the time when i had the Radeon 64DDR and CL GF2)... ever since that little curiousity, i've replaced the GF2 and kept the V5 (i came out ahead by $110 actually by replacing the GF2). So there's no cognitive dissonance here... i'm just irritated by your dismissal of FSAA, when the vast majority of people that i've heard that have seen it in action prefer it over the GF2 any day.




<< Actually I know a guy who goes to my lan tournaments that traded his v5 for a gts ultra. He prefers 1600x1200 over 1024x768 FSAA >>



Well, you're talking about totally different comparisons here. The V5 is a $130 card, whereas the GF2 Ultra is a $400 card. But i don't understand that... if he plays in 1600x1200, i'm assuming he has a 21&quot; monitor or larger, because even on a 19&quot;, 1600x1200 is too difficult to play (everything is too damn small). Now, if he's playing at 1600x1200, i'm assuming that's what his 2D is at too, so how does he deal with 2D at 1600x1200? it's completely unbearable.



<< I do like FSAA for my slower paced games, IMO thats what FSAA is good for, smoothing out old games that you have plenty of excess speed in anyway >>



What's the difference between smoothing out old games and new games? Aside from games that heavily depend on a high fps (such as FPS), all other games benefit from FSAA.
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
&quot;. Infact, i wasn't even going to keep the V5, it was supposed to be passed along to a friend, but he was slow in getting the money, and i had it sitting beside my computer for well over 2 weeks before i got curious and plugged it in... and wow, i was instantly amazed &quot;

hahaha!!! That's so funny! Almost exactly the same thing happened to me.

I sold my 32MB GTS and ordered a 64MB GTS from a dude (DecoY, anyone remember him from the Hot deals forum?). I had the $$$ on me, and a need for a card for about a week, so I walked down to Electronics Boutique (10-day, no-questions-asked return policy), and was gong to pick up a Herc 64MB GTS. I saw the 5500 and kinda laughed. I had totally dismissed it after reading all the bad reviews, but I said &quot;WTF, let's see just how bad this thing is.&quot;

I actually picked it up so I could have some knowledgea bout it so I could flame the &quot;3dfx zombies&quot;, heh...if you can believe that.

Well, I used it and was just dumbfounded. Ic ouldn't figure out why so many reviewers gave it bad reviews. Tehn it occured that I was PLAYING games before I was benchmarking them.

God forbid you actually PLAY your favorite games on a 3d gaming card!
 

rampage2001

Member
Sep 12, 2000
40
0
0
Hahaha.. I hear ya robo. But I wouldnt be posting on Anandtech or frequently checking hardware sites like toms ect if I was not obsessed with the hardware my computer uses. I'm a computer freak man I benchmark as much as I play. I probley benchmark more than I play and tweak things constantly more than play. I am looking at video cards and waiting for the next gen ones like a vulture.. theres no shame in my kind we like who we are. :)

I cant seem to get anyone to agree with me on this point, I use FSAA in my slow paced games such as Die by the Sword. My MX does 4x FSAA just fine in games like that. I dont find the faster FSAA found in the v5 to be worth the extra dollar. I think we are better off using something that gets better FPS in the fast games, and still has FSAA for the slow paced games that FSAA is useful for.

Yes you can get a v5 for $140 but the majority of people are NOT checking anandtechs hot deals section for a cheap voodoo card.
I am not against or for any video card company, actually I am more against ati than any of them. I'd rather root for an American based company. I canceled my order for the radeon (not because of this bias) and will look into a v5. I do enjoy FSAA and anticipate the difference it will make compared to my geforces fsaa. If I am able to find a V5 for $140 without a large go around I will buy it.. it will only be used to try out for a while until the DX8 cards are released though.

I'm actually more curious about what it will make my old favorites such as kings quest look like. Yeah, Ive been playing games for a long time.. oops i mean benchmarking :)
 

audreymi

Member
Nov 5, 2000
66
0
0
Sorry about this
repost, but with the Robxxx boys are at it
again with their GTS that and 5500 this, I thought it
important that a third horse called the Radeon is very much in the
race. Read On:

Card: Radeon 32MB DDR
Pros: Outstanding image quality! FAST!
Cons: Included DVD software may be tricky
install.


Right off, let me say that the Radeon has the best image quality I
have seen from any 2D or 3D video card. I'm a power user and get a
chance to look at a lot of hardware - Nvidia, 3dfx, S3, ATI, etc. - but
ATI really blows away the competition this time around with the
Radeon.

I was so impressed by this graphics card that I am writing a very
long review, so relax and send the kiddies to bed!

My initial inclination was to go for an Nvidia Geforce GTS card
because of their mature drivers and high frame rates with 3D games.
The latest Detonator release drivers have been rated extremely fast
but also seem to have been released prematurely as the systems I
saw them on had a variety of video stability problems. Looking over a
number of forum posts to get other user opinions made me realize
the extent of the problems that had cropped up. I personally found
the imaging of the card to be really washed out, too. Match it with a
dull Compaq monitor and it was basically like using a monochrome
card. ;-)

I also briefly considered the 3dfx 5500 card for Glide compatibility
with some older games like Unreal, but found it was over my $200
budget. Beyond the Glide factor (Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Deus
Ex run best under 3dfx's proprietary Glide API) the only real
advantage offered by a Voodoo card was above average
antialiasing (smooths out the image, but at the cost of a severe drop
in frame rates.)If I played flight simulator or driving games a lot I
might have considered it a bit more appealing with the better AA, but
I like FPS (First Person Shooter) games a lot more and AA hits
frame rate too much there. The 3D imaging was fine and 2D imaging
was really good, so it is still a viable choice if you can get it for $100
less than the current price.

I started seriously considering the Radeon when I looked at
Microsoft's upcoming DirectX 8.0 release and noticed that ATI was
putting together a 100% compliant DirectX 8.0 feature set with their
new Radeon.

This is important folks because there are only two major standards
that 3d video cards have to tackle these days - OGL and DirectX.

OGL is older and to maintain ongoing compatibility in the professional
market doesn't change much from year to year. DirectX, however, is
highly evolutionary and implements new features regularly, so you
have to be aware of future compatibility with your video drivers and
video hardware.

There are no DirectX8 games right now, but the first ones should be
released in the Christmas season or early next year. I like to keep
my hardware purchases for at least 1 - 2 years and the Radeon's
complete compliance will mean some future proofing. BTW, no other
current card has this level of compliance.

That said, I haven't been a fan of ATI video products before - they
weren't very competitive on rendering speed, they lacked stability
and did little in the way of driver updates. Plus they were targeting
mass consumers anyway and I always liked to go a little more
toward performance at a reasonable price.

I paid $200 for the 32MB version of the card at Multiwave which was
right in line with my budget. I understand that some retailers now
have a $50 rebate going for a net price of around $150 - this is an
excellent deal!

I chose the 32MB DDR version for a couple of reasons:

1. It is substantially cheaper than the 64MB version
2. It uses DDR (Double Data Rate) memory to avoid a common
bottleneck (Hint: avoid any SDR (Single Data Rate) memory versions
unless you are really broke)
3. 32MB is plenty for current games and the vast majority of games
coming out next year. Also, the special texture compression features
of the Radeon makes it much more future proof than other 32MB
cards.

On the negative side, the clock and memory speed of the 32MB card
is somewhat less than the 64MB version. If you have to have the
ultimate right now, have a 21&quot; monitor, and need to run very high
resolution 3D gaming - go right ahead and spend the money for the
183Mhz rated 64MB DDR version. Otherwise, I doubt you will notice
any difference.

I was installing the card in a one year old 550Mhz Athlon based PC
with a 250 watt power supply. Those of you with Athlon systems
know that they draw a lot of power and everything you add had better
be power efficient or you will start having &quot;unexplainable&quot; system
problems. The Radeon draws very little power and runs very cool -
Cool!

Actual installation of the card was very smooth. I made sure to use
Control Panel to revert to straight VGA, uninstalled all of the 3dx
drivers, shut down the PC, pulled the Voodoo card I had in there and
then inserted the Radeon. Rebooted to the VGA desktop and ran the
Radeon install disk. At this point I was pleasantly astonished at the
quality of the 2D image!

Let's face it, most of us spend a lot more time looking at the Windows
desktop and 2d applications than we do playing games. The 2d
image of the Radeon is outstanding!

I then started playing a number of 3D accelerated games I had
viewed with other cards and they were each a lot better looking, too!
ATI really came through on image quality with the Radeon!

The card is plenty fast - each game ran smoothly and had a very
consistent and high frame rate (a lot of cards go fast then slow down,
go fast then slow down.)

You can easily manipulate a lot of the performance/feature
parameters through the Control Panel's Monitor settings. You can
also use the ATI preconfigured Performance and Quality settings for
a quick comparison of image quality versus frame rates. I chose the
Quality settings after a few experiments and my comments are based
on these parameters. FYI, I also maintained a 32 bit color depth -
this card has no speed advantage in 16 bit over 32 bit depth, so
keep the color quality.

Balancing the good with the bad... I also wanted to install the ATI
Multimedia Center CD to play DVDs, CDs, etc. The installation of this
free software went smoothly except that when all was done I couldn't
get past the startup screens on the DVDs I tried playing. Since I
don't give up that easily I went the extra mile and finally got to a
working configuration - to save you some problems I'll recommend
the following:

1. If you have another DVD software player installed you may have
to uninstall it to get the ATI player to work. Most DVD players cannot
co-exist with each other, so pick your favorite and stick with it. The
ATI player is a Cinemaster version which takes full advantage of the
ATI hardware and thus is a very good choice to keep. (If you have a
very fast computer (700Mhz+) you may also consider buying the
latest version of WinDVD. The other players on the market right now
use only a portion of the Radeon hardware feature set and thus will
tax your PC to the point where you will not be able to multitask at all.)

2. Make sure you have UDMA enabled for your DVD drive.

3. The ATI player also may have conflicts with packet writing
CDROM burner software. In my case it was cequadrant. I had to
uninstall it to make the ATI DVD player work. I recommend you use
software like Nero for much happier co-existence and anyway it is a
better program.

4. You can get enhanced DVD peformance by installing a copy of
DVDGenie. Not necessary but then we ARE looking for performance,
aren't we?

I did not see a lot of image quality difference between the DVD
players, but the ATI player did run more smoothly once I finally got it
running.

I have read that some VIA AGP chipsets are having problems with
the Radeon, but if your firmware/BIOS is up-to-date you shouldn't
have any problems. Check with your motherboard manufacturer or
the support section on the ATI website to be sure.

While overall image quality was the best I have seen, I did observe
some texture tearing in games under some settings and I did have
some tiling problems using texture compression settings in moving
from one graphics program to another. This is definitely not typical
use so you most likely won't encounter it, and future driver releases
will probably address minor discrepencies of this type anyway. Keep
your drivers up-to-date by downloading updates from ATI's web
site!

If you would like the latest info from bleeding edge users of the
Radeon, check out http://www.rage3d.com

In summary, I highly recommend the ATI Radeon 32MB DDR for its
great image quality, FAST speed, loads of future proofing features,
and stable early drivers. This is the best card for the money right
now!

Don't forget to get the latest drivers and check out the product
support info at the ATI website to insure a smooth running product
with peak performance. But then again, you should be doing this with
everything you buy, shouldn't you?

Purchase Price: $200

Recommend to other potential buyers? Yes
Recommended as a gift for: Hardcore Gamers

----------> Review quoted from http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-4617-DEA2C95-39EA86D6-prod1 <----------------
 

rampage2001

Member
Sep 12, 2000
40
0
0
Oh please, if your not going to do a &quot;review&quot; based off of your OWN judgements and just paste one your wasting your time and ours. If we wanted to see what some dork reviewer thought we'd check it out ourselves.. I think forums were meant for our input about the cards. Have any experience running chat room bots or mass emailing?


&quot;Look mommy! Its audrey bot!!!&quot; :)
 

WetWilly

Golden Member
Oct 13, 1999
1,126
0
0
OK, I'll bite.

Right off, let me say that the Radeon has the best image quality I
have seen from any 2D or 3D video card. I'm a power user and get a
chance to look at a lot of hardware - Nvidia, 3dfx, S3, ATI, etc. - but
ATI really blows away the competition this time around with the
Radeon.

Admittedly the Radeon had good image quality. But the best? Well curiously, I don't see Matrox in that list above. And what about the Trinitron problem?

I also briefly considered the 3dfx 5500 card for Glide compatibility
with some older games like Unreal, but found it was over my $200
budget

Not today it isn't. I just paid $145 for mine delivered, and even at retail it's $199.99

Beyond the Glide factor (Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Deus
Ex run best under 3dfx's proprietary Glide API) the only real
advantage offered by a Voodoo card was above average
antialiasing (smooths out the image, but at the cost of a severe drop
in frame rates.)If I played flight simulator or driving games a lot I
might have considered it a bit more appealing with the better AA, but
I like FPS (First Person Shooter) games a lot more and AA hits
frame rate too much there.

HSR is coming, and it looks like it won't be long.

The 3D imaging was fine and 2D imaging
was really good, so it is still a viable choice if you can get it for $100
less than the current price.

So it's a viable choice.

I started seriously considering the Radeon when I looked at
Microsoft's upcoming DirectX 8.0 release and noticed that ATI was
putting together a 100% compliant DirectX 8.0 feature set with their
new Radeon
...
There are no DirectX8 games right now

'Nuff said

FYI, I also maintained a 32 bit color depth -
this card has no speed advantage in 16 bit over 32 bit depth, so
keep the color quality.

Some stuff doesn't support 32-bit, and ATI's 16-bit doesn't just not have a speed advantage, it's kinda ugly. I'll take 3dfx's 16/22-bit display.

I have read that some VIA AGP chipsets are having problems with
the Radeon

AGP incompatibilities aren't an issue with 3dfx. Period. And if they are, I got three letters for you - PCI

While overall image quality was the best I have seen, I did observe
some texture tearing in games under some settings and I did have
some tiling problems using texture compression settings in moving
from one graphics program to another. This is definitely not typical
use so you most likely won't encounter it, and future driver releases
will probably address minor discrepencies of this type anyway. Keep
your drivers up-to-date by downloading updates from ATI's web
site!

ATI. Drivers. Says it all.
 

HappyGamer2

Banned
Jun 12, 2000
1,441
0
0
I have a radeon 32 MB DDR and a voodoo5, The voodoo5 has better 2d, not even close,
The voodoo5 has better 3d quality overall (16 bit or 32 bit),( Fssa or NON fsaa), I read all the hype went out and bought the ATI. The ATI's 32 bit 3d graphics quality was a disappointment, but the 16 bit's quality was better than I expected. I also notice less graphics issues in 16 bit than 32 bit, the opposite of what I expected.

The ati has more graphics issues than the voodoo5 for the games i play at least.

Speed? the speed is so close it doesn't matter betweeen the two, actually the voodoo5 seems slighty faster and smoother in most games. sure the ati is slighty faster in Q3, but the voodoo5 has a nicer picture.

The Radeon is a nice card but I feel it's a step below the voodoo5.

 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0


<< The voodoo5 has better 2d, not even close, >>



The V5 has better 2D than ATI?! I highly doubt that, i have both right now, and ATi is definitely better than the V5 in 2D... at least in 1600x1200, which is the only resolution i use.

And yes, i would say ATI is almost on par with Matrox in 2D. I had a G400 32DH for almost a year, and when i switched over to ATI, i honestly couldn't tell a difference (i switched to the GF2 first, and was nauseated from looking at the 2D)



<< The ati has more graphics issues than the voodoo5 for the games i play at least >>



Yeah, i would agree, but when they do work good, the performance is awesome. I'm not talking fps, as i'm not a fps guy, but the sharpness and brightness of the colors, is much more vibrant on the Radeon than V5.


Personally, the two cards are a toss up with me. Sometimes the V5 is superior, and i use it for those games, and sometimes the Radeon is, and i use it for that. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and i think they're the best available right now (despite all the GF2 hype). I'm definitely keep these until the next generation are out (can anybody say Rampage and Radeon2 :p)
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
, but the sharpness and brightness of the colors, is much more vibrant on the Radeon than V5.

you've made all the adjustments necessary?

The 5500 comes with some STUPID default settings.

Also, their gamma needs to be much lower than other cards. por ejempla, in Q3, I'd use 1.4 as my gamma for the GTSs, but I'd use 1.1 for the 5500.

I dunno why 3dfx picked so many stupid settings as defaults. Go figure. <shakes head>

As far as which card looks better on which monitor in 2d, with a Trinitron monitor, the 5500 is quite easily the best of the &quot;big 3&quot;. I haven't seen the Radeon on a non-trinitron, so I cannot comment on that.
 

Grond1

Junior Member
Oct 18, 2000
10
0
0
I think Ben gave very good adivce on which card to get now. None! The next generation of cards will blow away anything thats available today and should be out in 1-2 months. The only reason to get one now is because you aren't going to spend more than $150-$200. I'd like to spend under $200 myself bit I can't justify considering how much superior the next generation of cards will be. That would be like getting a 1Gz cpu for $200 knowing a 4Gz cpu would be out for $400 next month. Well not exactly but you get the idea.
 

WetWilly

Golden Member
Oct 13, 1999
1,126
0
0
I think Ben gave very good adivce on which card to get now. None! The next generation of cards will blow away anything thats available today and should be out in 1-2 months.
I think you need to re-read Robo's post about his typical conversation with Ben. I agree with your general principle, but this isn't accurate. The next generation will be announced in the next 1-2 months, not available. Availability is 2-4 months if you're lucky - and don't forget that &quot;availability&quot; means you're paying list price for at least the first month or so because of limited availability. Look at the Geforce2 Ultra. Out for a couple of months. List price ~$499, and it's rare to find it for less than $400. And let's not forget drivers. You're looking at a new chip and a new API. nVidia's pattern is to ship with functional drivers and a couple of months later release the Detonators that give the performance you'd expect. So where are we at now? The middle of next year. Which is when (if we're lucky) we actually see games that actually take advantage of DX8.

In other words, I'd rather pay $150 now for a stable DX7-capable card + $250 next July for a DX8 hardware-compliant card with stable drivers after the price comes down than pay $500 for a DX8 card with spanking new drivers (and all the &quot;entertainment&quot; those bring) in January or February.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,003
126
audreymi:

Instead of posting that review why don't you just link to it?

RoboTECH:

Also, their gamma needs to be much lower than other cards. por ejempla, in Q3, I'd use 1.4 as my gamma for the GTSs, but I'd use 1.1 for the 5500.

1.1? Geez. I use 1.65 in Quake 3 on my V3. I can't stand dark graphics.

As for the 3dfx vs ATi issue, it's my belief that 3dfx's drivers are more stable and are more likely to get updated on a regular basis. I've fallen back to not trusting ATi with their driver updates.
 

HappyGamer2

Banned
Jun 12, 2000
1,441
0
0
I spenty planty of time tweaking both cards (voodoo5/Radeon). tools settings, regisrty changes, BIOS settings, driver changes/hacks , game settings etc.....

The bottom line on my PC is the voodoo5 has the better overall graphics quality (2d and 3d).

One thing i notice is that the ATI is VERY stable gaming wise, lockups and crashes are VERY rare, sure i have some issues in games but it's stable, to Me this is a sigh that the card is setup and running correctly. But there is the Quicktime problem, with the ATI installed if i try to use quicktime picture viewer it's instant lockup/reboot time, Note I'm not the only one with this problem.
 

CandyKid

Senior member
Apr 16, 2000
266
0
0
thanks a lot guys this thread told me what i wanted to hear... I was between AIW radeon and voodoo5 but you guys showed me that the voodoo5 is an awesome card and is inexpensive. I can afford to get a tv tuner card with it and then be able to upgrade vid cards in the future with out a dependency on my main graphics card having the tuner. I'll prolly wait till they get tv tuners with tivo in it or some novelty :p. Thanks again
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
bfg: &quot;1.1? Geez. I use 1.65 in Quake 3 on my V3. I can't stand dark graphics.&quot;

@ 1.1, the V5 gives very nice saturation. It's not dark at all. Remember, your graphical settings are MUCH MUCH different than mine

do you use lightmap or vertex? that's good for about 0.5 in gamma right there.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0


<< But there is the Quicktime problem, with the ATI installed if i try to use quicktime picture viewer it's instant lockup/reboot time, >>



Hm, i don't have this problem... i was just running Quicktime today, and i've never heard of this problem yet... have you tried bringing this up in the www.rage3d.com forums? They might be able to help.
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
HOLY SHIZNIT!

that's so weird

I used to have a HELLA wicked hard time getting Quicktime to run reliably on my ATi Rage Pro

yikes, I had a total hate affair with QuickTime, always thought it was QuickTime that was buggy, heh......