• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No... i dont think so....
How come the Geforce cards were SO much more popular and rated better. The 8500 doesn't do crap. Yeah it ties it and gives up a fair competition but with the new drivers its almost completely the same.
Anyone saying the choice is a "hands down" one is offering a biased opinion
Click to expand...
Darn Straight...( i agree)
Its right now just about personal preferance.
-Kevin
 
for image quality, i'd go with ati anyday. i have a 9100 from sapphire and it aint bad... for 8.1 generation games it does fine...
 
The 8500 allows dual monitors plus decent TV out. Plus almost free AF makes a huge difference.

-Steve
 
Anyone saying the choice is a "hands down" one is offering a biased opinion.
Click to expand...
Everyone should look at this statement cause its true
You guys are choiosing ATI over a completely different generation of cards. A little biased methinks. Take a look at benchmarks dont just go with personal preferance.
An 8500 is not as good as a 4200 even with new drivers. the 900PRO isn't even with the 4200 and its int he ame genration!! Check your facts and dont right down opinions
 
Originally posted by: Xplaya91
An 8500 is not as good as a 4200 even with new drivers. the 900PRO isn't even with the 4200 and its int he ame genration!! Check your facts and dont right down opinions
Click to expand...

uhh correct me if i'm wrong... 9000pro = 8.1 gen
Ti4200 = 8.1 gen ????
 
I agree with Brian48, but I think the Radeon 8500 is faster than the GeForce3 Ti200, even if its clock is 230/230. Of course, if you can overclock hardly the Ti200, the NVIDIA card is a better choice.
 
The funny thing about reviews when the 8500 was out that it was rare to find benches running just AF. That?s the untold story about the 8500 --- how well it runs with AF. Most sites at during the time of the 8500/4200 just didn?t bench running either AA or AF. And a few that did used both together.

With 8AF the 8500 is much faster than even a 4600 ?

http://techreport.com/reviews/2002q3/radeon-9700pro/index.x?pg=15

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/2002/09-15_b.php

The 8500?s 4AA works very nicely but simply destroys performance. With 4AA the 4600 is much faster.
 
You misunderstood me. The 8500 is in the same directy X generation but as far as features and performance it is one generation below. the 9000 Pro is supposed to be the equivelent to the 4x00 series.
-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Xplaya91
You misunderstood me. The 8500 is in the same directy X generation but as far as features and performance it is one generation below. the 9000 Pro is supposed to be the equivelent to the 4x00 series.

-Kevin
Click to expand...

Except the 9000Pro is *slower* than the R8500/R9100. The 9000/9200 was/is ATI's new 'value' card -- designed to go up against the GF4MX and (more recently) FX5200. The 9600NP is more along the lines of a 4200, and the 9500Pro/9600Pro/9600XT is around the level of a 4600 (close without AA/AF, noticeably better with AA/AF). The 9100/8500 is somewhere between the 9000Pro and the 9600NP.

tomshardware VGA charts

You can see the 8500 is a tad slower than a 4200 in most tests, and a bit faster in a few (CoD, AquaMark). I can't imagine it being slower than a GF3, since isn't the GF4Ti4200 considerably faster than a GF3Ti200?
 
Originally posted by: Xplaya91
Anyone saying the choice is a "hands down" one is offering a biased opinion.
Click to expand...

Everyone should look at this statement cause its true

You guys are choiosing ATI over a completely different generation of cards. A little biased methinks. Take a look at benchmarks dont just go with personal preferance.

An 8500 is not as good as a 4200 even with new drivers. the 900PRO isn't even with the 4200 and its int he ame genration!! Check your facts and dont right down opinions
Click to expand...

Ummm...8500 = DX8.1, 4200 = DX8.0 so the generational issue is a bit more confusing as i'll try to explain. But you are right about the 4200 as it is generally faster than the 8500, but the original poster was asking about the geforce 3 ti200 so lets ignore this altogether.

The 8500 falls weird in terms of generational competition. It came out to compete with the Geforce 3, but Geforce 4 came out to beat it, then ATI released 9700 + series and Nvidia came out with NV30/35 so technically speaking 8500 was always compared between Geforce 3 and Geforce 4 series (no just performance wise, but timing wise when it was released). Since it falls between the 2 geforce series, it is at least as good as geforce 3 but is slower by 15-25% to geforce 4 series since those came out 6-8 months later IIRC.

Also 9000Pro is the same generation chip as the 8500 as it supports 8.1 only and 4x1 vs. 4x2 for ATI 8500 making it even slower. So this period for ATI can be recalled as the time when their numerical representation didn't make any sense that is why everyone complained because 9000, 9000Pro = 9200, 8500le = 9100, were all slower than the 8500 videocard confusing the uninformed consumer. But trust me the 9000/9100/9200 series have nothing to do with the current 9500/9600/9700/9800 architecture since they are 1 full generation behind. So if Geforce 3 competed primarily with Radeon 8500 series and the current generation (9700+) competes with Nvidia's latest (5900 series), the odd man out was always the geforce 4 generation which was an extension of the geforce 3 essentially but better in terms of efficiency, yet it didnt present itself as anything ground breaking so even though it is a full generation overall it was a minor step up.

 
Umm WRONG about one part... The Geforce 4 and 3 series were both DX 8.1... here is the way the series was supposed to go

ATI Radeon 8500= Geforce 3 series and Geforce 4 series

ATI Radeon 9000 series = Geforce 4 series

ATI Radeon 9700 and 9800 series= Geforce FX 5800, 5900 5950 (and all variations)

Once again read that quote. There is no definite winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nvidia squeeks ahead and ATI squeaks ahead. They are a bit equal with Nvidia leading in a few more tests than ATI.

-Kevin
 
Although arguing won´t help, I just can´t stand this last post.

1. The Radeon 8500 is a DX 8.1 card. It is the ONLY dx8.1 card of that timeframe (It was the card to counter the Geforce 3 (not even Ti series). It matched the Ti500 in performance (which was newer).

I own a 8500. I tested it against my friends Ti 500. The setups were:

P4 2.53Ghz
1Gb DDR 333 dual channel
Intel 875
8500

vs

P4 2,53Ghz
1Gb DDR dual channel 333
sis 655
GF 3 Ti 500

Although the intel chipset was a bit faster, I doubt it was the reason for my rig winning ALL benches we did:

UT 2003
Codecreatures
Aquamark
3dmark 2001
3d mark 2003
c&c Generals

The 8500 is however, slower then a 4200 in Neverwinter Nights, which runs excellent on NV hardware.
The Ti 4200 however, is a crad that is almost 1 year younger then the 8500....

The Ati 8500 is with its new drivers (I went from 3.2 to 4.3 and got a 15% boost in most games)
"hands down" the better card in a contest against the Ti200.

I apologize for this near flame, but most statements were so far of the mark I just had to do this.
I hope the initial poster can make a better decision now.

 
Good God... you aren't reading what i wrote.
1. All geforce 3's were Ti's there was no mx or just plain geforce 3

2. I never said the 8500 was supposed to compete with the Geforce 4's but it did OK!!!

PLEASE READ THIS
Anyone saying the choice is a "hands down" one is offering a biased opinion.
Click to expand...

This is probably the best phrase in this thread!!! The 8500 nor the Geforce 3 is a clear winner!!!!!! No offense but your posts seem to be biased towards ATI. Everyone here should know that having an 875 chipset is WAY better than a Sis 655. Now if it was an FX it would be close.

3. I never said the Geforce 4 wasn't newer than the Geforce 4. Again anyone here knows that it is younger.

4. We weren't comparing a Ti200 we were comparing a Ti500 and both are still very very close!!!

5. Also you cannot post benchmarks like that. You have to give the details which drivers the M/B... for all we know that Nvidia card could be running the 29.42 drivers and the ATI 3.8 or something. You need to paste screen shots so we can see that there was no bias.

6. Too clear up a bit of the earlier mess 🙂 the 8500 was not intended to compete with the Geforce 4 but it DID.

Check your information and good solid reviews next time plz...

-Kevin
 
1. All geforce 3's were Ti's there was no mx or just plain geforce 3
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong. The original GeForce3 had no "ti" nomenclature (I still have one). In terms of clock speed, it falls right between a ti200 and ti500 which was released later at round about the same time the 64mb R8500 made it's debut.
 
3D IQ is supposed to be better on the R8500, (original version!). Also, you need to determine whether you run your desktop at 1600 x 1200. If so, ATI wins by default, especially back when the G2/3 were in production.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
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.
Click to expand...


Today:

Gainward Golden Sample GF3 Ti200 128MB @ 220/476 (44.03)
ATI Radeon 8500 128MB Retail @ 310/303 (Omega 4.4 Catalyst)

System: Applebred 1.4GHz@2068MHz/ 195MHz fsb KT400

3DMark 2001SE:

GF3 Ti200 128MB - 8900
Radeon 8500 LE 128MB - 10200

Unreal Tournament 1280 x 1024/all details on high/ no AA or AF /OpenGL /Botmatch 16-bots Pit of Agony:

GF3 Ti200 128MB- Average FPS 95
Radeon 8500 LE 128MB- Average FPS 120

Unreal 2003 Benchmark:

GF3 Ti200 128MB- 69/35
Radeon 8500 LE 128MB- 95/50

If you turn on 16x AF on it just gets much worse for the GF3 Ti200. Without AF any of my Ti4200 128MB are still well ahead, though the 8500 128MB gets much closer with AF in most situations.


edit: had the UT2003 reversed, corrected now.
 
That would be ifne and dandy but look what Geforce Drivers your using!!!!! 44.03!!! They're ancient. Use the beta 60.72's or the 56.06's. Then report the benches. The 40 drivers were much much slower than the 50. Bench with those and then say who wins.
-Kevin
 

I´d like to clear something: I wrote that I used an 875 chipset. While this is correct, I had the a Sis 655 before that. I benched both systems. The mobo´s were both from Gigabyte, one was the SQ800 and one
the Sinx1394 (SQ800 Ultra 2). They are equal. Even in this test, the ATI was a clear winner. We had similar harddrives and used the ATI driver 3.0 and the nv driver that was out at that time.

Just for the record, this quote:

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.

sounds very biased to me too. And as others have pointed out, you had several facts wrong (like the GF3 being DX 8.1).

To sum it up:

The 8500 is faster then a Ti200. An honest reviewer will tell you a 8500 falls betwenn a Ti500 and a GF4 Ti 4200. Image quality is better on ATI and 2D is better if no Leadtech or similar good GF is used. Of course this sounds biased, but it is a honest remark to help the original poster decide. Why would I go to so much trouble putting an NVidia card down that is not current anymore? I just does not make any sense. I just wanted to offer my experiences and get some facts straight.

No need to get upset about this. It is just that the R200 core was, like the GF3, a cornerstone card. It offered the most current features at a good performance. The drivers took a few months to get up to speed, but that was also true for the GF3, which, when it came out, did not even beat the GF2Ultra.

I had a side by side comparison of ATI an NVidia products for a long time and must say that the driver quality is equal. The panels are very different and while the nvidia drivers always find ways to boost performance, the ATI onbes offer a better overview and more control over IQ vs speed to the end user.

I hope this helped.

 
Originally posted by: Xplaya91
That would be ifne and dandy but look what Geforce Drivers your using!!!!! 44.03!!! They're ancient. Use the beta 60.72's or the 56.06's. Then report the benches. The 40 drivers were much much slower than the 50. Bench with those and then say who wins.

-Kevin
Click to expand...

Jeez, it's common knowledge that the GF3 and GF4 series benchmarks the fastest with older Detonators, the 44.03 in my opinion. The latest drivers are optimized for the FX and DX9, actually slowing down the GF3/GF4 in almost all cases, accept maybe a handful of the newest games, which aren't included in my benchmarks.

 
The Geforce 3's were to DX 8.1... Ya know that little thing called 3dmark 01 its using DX8.1 api's and the Geforce 3's are able to perform them all. Therefore it is a 8.1.

Secondly the older drivers are not faster than the newer drivers under any circumstances. I am running a Geforce 2 Ti while waiting for my 5900XT and it runs way better with all the newer drivers.

I never said the Ti 200 wasn't faster... its not meant to be the Ti500 is supposed to be a LITTLE bit fast and the Geforce 4 is a different genration.

-Kevin
 
Gamingfreak:

Please try to read up on Direct X specs. Direct X 8.1 compatibility is ensured through the different kind of Shader Models a graphics card supports. The GF3 series only support Shader 1.1 to 1.3 ATI 8500 supports Shader model 1.4 and is therefore a Direct X 8.1 card. Even though NVidia tried to get MS to clarify DX 8.1 compatability later, it does not change the fact that a 1.1 Shader card needs to to 3 passes for lighnting
whereas a 1.4 card needs only 1.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1504&p=3

MS later CHANGED the specs and "allowed" NVidia to boast 8.1 compatability. This was after every review site on the net established that ATI was the only 8.1 card. while this means NVidia can call itself 8.1 compatible now, it does not help with the 1.4 exclusive shader tests in 3d mark 2001, were NVidia reverts to 1.1 and is slower then ATI´s 1.4

The system with the GF card we used to benchmark also showed that some older drivers were faster then newer ones. This is something that can be seen on some ATI drivers as well. You will find a lot of ppl that will disagree with you concerning the broad generalisation that newer drivers are faster on the GF3.

I stated I used the current driver AT THE TIME OF THE BENCHMARKS. So it is irrelevant what newer drivers provide since one needs to look at new ATI drivers also when comparing cards. And the last Catalyst releases (esp 4.2 and 4.3) boostet the R200 chips performance.

I hope we can end this argument now, as it is getting ridiculous.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top