• 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.

is the ati 8500 64mb card better than the Geforce3 Ti200

D

dealseaker

Diamond Member
just wondering i think the 8500 is the le version and the Gainward GF3Ti200 is a Golden Sample any help would be very helpful, thanks in advance
 
If you are overclocking, then I believe the Golden Sample will be a little faster. Though some people claim the 8500 cards can beat ti4200's. I had a Gainward GF3 Ti200, and it was a good card.
 
Originally posted by: Viper96720
Benches 8500 and Ti-500
Click to expand...

"According to ATI these drivers will be made available as beta drivers on the date of publication (11/14/2001). " - AnandTech

Another Review

Still Geforce 3 wins and ATI wins in others, but the 2 cards are just way too slow for smooth gaming especially with any current game out right now. I would know as I own an 8500 and if it wasn't for my 3.2ghz p4 at 1024x768 it would have "died." In fact I cant even play smoothly at 1024x768 with Athlon 1600+ and an 8500 so it is really a slow card. Personally, I would look at getting something a bit faster
 
Yeah the old ati drivers for 8500 completely sucked, especially the pre release ones. I still remember the first 8500 review(she's got potential), the 8500 even lost to the geforce2ti in many tests.
 
It is a close call. At first I was going to recommend the 8500 but it isn't a retail, and the GF3 Ti 200 is a Gainward which is a big plus in my book. Either way I think you can't really go wrong.
 
The Geforce 3 is probably a better choice. ATI's architecture back then stunk so a geforce 3 will likely be a better investment. I would know doubt go with the Geforce.
-Kevin
 
geforce is better hands down.First of all the le version was the worst of all.Then,the latest games consider radeon 8500non-pro to be euivalent to geforce 2ti.Then nvidia is more stable with better drivers,stay with geforce
 
ive had both of those exact cards, the geforce is NOT hands down; and i never had a single driver issue with the radeon

the 8500le was better than the gf3 ti200 but not by a huge margin. that was with or without aa/af, and oced/not oced. good cards both of them, but the 4200 i have is better than either

the 8500le i had oced to retail speeds no problem, the gainward gf3 ti200 oced to ti500 speeds no problem.
 
Originally posted by: i82lazyboy
The 8500LE will have usable AF too (without a huge performance hit).
Click to expand...

so? who's going to buy a card this old for it what little AA and AF abilites it might have.
Click to expand...

2X high performance filtering at 640X480......smacksmacksmack......big slightly blurred jaggies....smacksmacksmacksmack.......



LOL

 
Originally posted by: i82lazyboy
The 8500LE will have usable AF too (without a huge performance hit).
Click to expand...

so? who's going to buy a card this old for it what little AA and AF abilites it might have.
Click to expand...
Not AA. AA will kill performance on a 8500 ?AF.

AF virtually has no more performance hit on a 8500 (% wise) than a 9500pro. It will be usable on a lot of games. THG VGA charts ?8500 ..

BF 1942 -- 90fps ? ?8AF will be usable
COD --- 68fps ? ? 8AF is usable.

 
Originally posted by: Blastman
Originally posted by: i82lazyboy
The 8500LE will have usable AF too (without a huge performance hit).
Click to expand...

so? who's going to buy a card this old for it what little AA and AF abilites it might have.
Click to expand...
Not AA. AA will kill performance on a 8500 ?AF.

AF virtually has no more performance hit on a 8500 (% wise) than a 9500pro. It will be usable on a lot of games. THG VGA charts ?8500 ..

BF 1942 -- 90fps ? ?8AF will be usable
COD --- 68fps ? ? 8AF is usable.
Click to expand...


Exactly. AF is useable on 8500le/9100 on lot of older games. On most games it has no problem running at 1024x768 with AF on.
 
Personally, I don't think the performance hit with FSAA is worth it with either cards. The fact that the Radeon cards can do it a little better is irrelevant. I recommend that it be left disabled for both.

Anyway, I've owned (and still do) various iterations of the R8500 and GF3. I would take the R8500LE over the GF3ti200 ONLY if it was the original one that runs at 250/250 and NOT the later ones that run at substantially lower clock speeds (ie. 230/230, 230/200, etc..). These should really be called "R8500LELE". With the latest drivers, the original R8500LE is comparable to the mid-range (original) GeForce3, but below the GF3ti500. The full R8500 or 128mb R8500LE would be comparable to the ti500, where as the full 128mb R8500 would fall somewhere between the ti500 and ti4200.
 
I had the ti200 and 8500LE and fouind them about equal except the ti200 was an MSI with serious cooling and was a stellar overclocker that made it slightly faster ultimately. However, neither would run Delta Force:BHD @10x7 med. details no AA/AF on a 2.4B@3ghz system smoothly enough to easily cap guys from the chopper and such so I upgraded to a ti4200, overclocked it to approx. 4600 speeds and everything was fine. My point is that I don't think I would buy less than a 42oo if I was after a card right now.
 
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I had the ti200 and 8500LE and fouind them about equal except the ti200 was an MSI with serious cooling and was a stellar overclocker that made it slightly faster ultimately. However, neither would run Delta Force:BHD @10x7 med. details no AA/AF on a 2.4B@3ghz system smoothly enough to easily cap guys from the chopper and such so I upgraded to a ti4200, overclocked it to approx. 4600 speeds and everything was fine. My point is that I don't think I would buy less than a 42oo if I was after a card right now.
Click to expand...

Thats weird....my 3.2ghz runs that game very smoothly at 1024x768.....hmm.....it used to crash with Catalyst 3.7s though I remember.

But I would tend to agree with you 100% on purchasing at least a 4200 for some gaming even though 4200 only has 15-25% speed increase over 8500 which is still pathetic. Personally I wouldn't buy anything less than a Radeon 9700, or you will find your card slow as hell in 6 months again. 4200 cant play far cry, halo, without AA/AF smoothly already even at 1024x768 with high details so it's too slow already. Besides in 2-3 months the prices will fall even further and that 9700/9800Pro/5900xt will be within $150 easily and considering that 4200 costs around $90 I would really hesitate purchasing it. On the other hand a 9800Pro will definately serve another 2 years. So cost wise 9800Pro is not a better alternative but value wise 4200 is a horrible investment since the price/performance ratio is much worse.
 
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

I had the ti200 and 8500LE and fouind them about equal except the ti200 was an MSI with serious cooling and was a stellar overclocker that made it slightly faster ultimately. However, neither would run Delta Force:BHD @10x7 med. details no AA/AF on a 2.4B@3ghz system smoothly enough to easily cap guys from the chopper and such so I upgraded to a ti4200, overclocked it to approx. 4600 speeds and everything was fine. My point is that I don't think I would buy less than a 42oo if I was after a card right now.
Click to expand...



Thats weird....my 3.2ghz runs that game very smoothly at 1024x768.....hmm.....it used to crash with Catalyst 3.7s though I remember.



But I would tend to agree with you 100% on purchasing at least a 4200 for some gaming even though 4200 only has 15-25% speed increase over 8500 which is still pathetic. Personally I wouldn't buy anything less than a Radeon 9700, or you will find your card slow as hell in 6 months again. 4200 cant play far cry, halo, without AA/AF smoothly already even at 1024x768 with high details so it's too slow already. Besides in 2-3 months the prices will fall even further and that 9700/9800Pro/5900xt will be within $150 easily and considering that 4200 costs around $90 I would really hesitate purchasing it. On the other hand a 9800Pro will definately serve another 2 years. So cost wise 9800Pro is not a better alternative but value wise 4200 is a horrible investment since the price/performance ratio is much worse.
Click to expand...
yes, this was many months back so they were seriously older Cats. It was also in older P4PE single channel board and 2.4B non-HT CPU. I had the 8500le clocked almost to regular 8500 speeds too.

That's a good point about how new games cause a 4200 to struggle with any sort of eye candy on, I just thought that since used 4200's go for $60-$70 regularly and he was asking about cards that he could get for even less in all likelyhood that it was the best card in his price range. It would be best if he could go at least 5900xt or 9600xt level minimum though that's for certain.

 
Anyone saying the choice is a "hands down" one is offering a biased opinion. Clearly the performance difference between the two are fairly negligable, even when you overclock either card to their max they still are about the same. Personally I'd go with whichever card is cheaper, even if it does only save you $5.
 
The 8500 absolutely slaps the Ti200 silly, especially if you enable AF.

With newer drivers the 8500 is usually on par with the Ti4200 in GPU limited settings and in some benchmarks it matches the Ti4600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top