Is FPS the only thing that video cards can be mesured with?

[Nestle]

I am building a new system and I am now looking for a video card (among other things). I read reviews of video cards and in all reviews what makes one video card better than the other is how many FPS they can achieve in games. Is this the only mesurement?
How about image quality? Do all these $100-$400 video cards have the exact same image quality?

The games I usually play do not require high FPS (civilization 3, AOE etc). I might play a game like Fifa 2002 or Max Payne every now and then, but for me those games play quite decent even on my current 2 year old GeForce MX.

I need a video card that will produce good image quality in apps like photoshop, be fast enough so it will run Flash animations and future games at a decent speed, with a DVI, at a good price (I am not looking for a professional card). Also 64 or even 128MB might be good (say when you have many big images open at the same time in photoshop).

I need a card that will give me what i need, without having to pay for additional FPS that i will never need. (but as i said it must produce enough FPS to play in a decent way games 2 years from now ... like my 2 years old MX can play todays games in an acceptable (for me) way)

Which video is the video card I am looking for?

 

[Willoughbyva]

Hi,
If you want great 2d quality and good 3d then you might want to get an ATI card. Matrox is great for 2d, but isn't very good at 3d from what I have heard. Nvidia is supposedly the king of 3d, but ATI's Radeon 8500 is great for the price. I had a gf2mx and upgraded to an ATI All In Wonder 7500 and I love it. The 2d is so much clearer than the gf2mx (a leadtek card). ATI is supposed to release a newer card in the next few months (I think), so you might want to wait a little bit, but I'm not sure when they are going to release it. I would ay that ATI would fit the bill for what you want, but i like ATI products. Is there a computer shop/store in your area that you can actually look at the cards themselves doing the type of tasks you wold be doing with them? I probably haven't been much help, but it is just my opinion and I hope that you get some useful information.

Good Luck

Will

 

[Willoughbyva]

Hi,
If you want great 2d quality and good 3d then you might want to get an ATI card. Matrox is great for 2d, but isn't very good at 3d from what I have heard. Nvidia is supposedly the king of 3d, but ATI's Radeon 8500 is great for the price. I had a gf2mx and upgraded to an ATI All In Wonder 7500 and I love it. The 2d is so much clearer than the gf2mx (a leadtek card). ATI is supposed to release a newer card in the next few months (I think), so you might want to wait a little bit, but I'm not sure when they are going to release it. I would ay that ATI would fit the bill for what you want, but i like ATI products. Is there a computer shop/store in your area that you can actually look at the cards themselves doing the type of tasks you wold be doing with them? I probably haven't been much help, but it is just my opinion and I hope that you get some useful information.

Good Luck

Will

 

[Rand]

FPS is far from the only comparative factor. Driver support, 2D visual quality, 3D visual quality, DVD playback implementation, TV-Out quality/features, MultiMonitor implementation, application specific optimization, 2D feature set, 3D feature set.
Even 3D performance characteristics can vary dramatically depending upon what type of application your testing, in some aspects of 3D performance a GF2 MX200 can hammer a multi thousand dollar WildCat III, while in other aspects of 3D performance a mid-range WildCat II can make a GF4 Ti4600 look sickening.

FPS in games is easy to measure, and gaming is a popular past time. But that's FAR from the only determining factor and for some people 3D performance is meaningless.

 

[Nestle]

Yes, but in most cases reviews only show FPS.

Is it true that the ATI cards are better in image 2D quality?

I am now thinking to buy either the 7500 128Mb SDR (about $100 shipped) or the 8500 LE 128Mb DDR (about $155 shipped).
Will the 8500 LE worth the extra money for the applications I need, or the 7500 would be as good for those kinds of apps?

 

[AA0]

unfortunately most reviewers aren't good enough to measure more than fps, so the comparisions are few and far between.

A good brand of nvidia cards will have good 2d quality as well, but stay away from a GF2. In terms of DVD, tv out, and other features in the chip, ATI is still ahead. The GF4 is catching up, but is still severely lacking.

 

[tenoc]

The R8500 is the better investment of the two since you say you want decent gameplay
for the next couple of years. The SDR on the 7500 you found is a serious negative factor.
The 8500 also has features like vertex shading which could become a requirement in games.

A retail (made by ATI) R8500 64MB should be about the same cost as the LE, is clocked faster,
runs faster and has dual monitor support as well. My personal choice>

Oh, yeah. ATI's 2D quality is better.

 

[BFG10K]

Is FPS the only thing that video cards can be mesured with

No, features, driver quality and rendering accuracy can all be measure with concrete results.

Of course there are many different other measurements (eg image quality) but they're entirely subjective.

 

[Sensor]

Entirely subjective. I always buy ATI cards based on their features -- best DVD, great TV-out, accepted FPS -- but driver support as been too weak. I hate it when I've got my $200 R8500 card and my roommate with a GF2 can play more games than me due to driver problems.

I assume it's because nVidia tries to "KISS", resulting in better drivers with less features. Since I primarily use my computer for games, I typically am happier with nVidia's offerings.

I hear R8500's drivers are better now, but after dealing with Radeon drivers for years and R8500's weak drivers for 4 months, it'll be awhile before I go back.

I hope Matrox puts out some crazy-ass tiling video card that puts them all to shame.

--Ed

 

[spanky]

i've had a 64mb radeon vivo & and 64mb radeon 8500. the only game i ever played has really been Counter-Strike (though i have fiddled with max payne, need for speed 5, & commanche 4), and i never had any driver problems. all my games have been pretty good quality and maintained good fps (except smoke... i can still see smoke molesting my fps). i haven't really ever had problems with drivers before. i had a voodoo5 & asus v6800 as well, and didn't have driver problems with them either. in my experience... driver support between ati, nvidia, & 3dfx have been pretty good. i think ati is the way to go.