More than likely they are benchmarks from a previous review but still it seems as if the Radeon 64 is slower now! I thought that at 1280x1024+ that the radeon would beat a GF2 64 but even then it didn't in most benchmarks. In 1024x768 it seemed to get it's ass kicked! It seemed when I was checking out benches before getting this Radeon 64 that it was faster than that. Argh good thing it has good 2d and the VIVO features otherwise I wouldn't have it...
It seems the Radeon 64 got lower than I thought benches in the Kyro2 review
- Thread starter duragezic
- Start date
yeah I was really suprised at that... I am looking into a new video card now and was seriously going to go buy a radeon 64 maybe I should reconsider.
spent 3 days trying to get one to work in glide right don't get it unless you doy only 2d then its the only card to get.
The colors are great the image crisp but if you want 3d go with with a force.
The colors are great the image crisp but if you want 3d go with with a force.
Bah! I just got a brand new retail radeon64. Let me tell you, the Radeon is not a speed king, but it is a top notch (the best in my opinion) card nevertheless. The gf2 is made for speed. nothing else, just speeed. The radeon on the other hand is a nicely rounded card. Great value, great 2D, great multimedia, amazing image quality and very respectable 3d speed. Even the gf3 can't offer most of the features on my $185 radeon!
Ahhh, professional advice from others....
Granted, the GeForce is slightly faster, but the Radoen looks better. And honestly, can you see a 2 3 or 5 fps difference. No. Nobody can, at least not at the speed these cards run. From 25 to 30, ya, from 80 or 90 to 90 or 100...Please. Besides, the Radeon has TIVO. Does the GeForce? No.
Try this for advice.
Radeon looks better, has more features on the card, runs ever so slightly slower, but not noticably. There is the issue of driver support, but I beleive ATI is doing a better job then before. Also, the Radeon is kinda quirky with one or two games out there, but these are few and far between.
The GeForce has better driver support, does push more fps, and is very nearly assured of running every game out there. It costs way more, not justified IMO, and has less features on the card, and uses less technology and more brute force to get those fps. Also, not nearly as good of 2D
Hope that helps.
Granted, the GeForce is slightly faster, but the Radoen looks better. And honestly, can you see a 2 3 or 5 fps difference. No. Nobody can, at least not at the speed these cards run. From 25 to 30, ya, from 80 or 90 to 90 or 100...Please. Besides, the Radeon has TIVO. Does the GeForce? No.
Try this for advice.
Radeon looks better, has more features on the card, runs ever so slightly slower, but not noticably. There is the issue of driver support, but I beleive ATI is doing a better job then before. Also, the Radeon is kinda quirky with one or two games out there, but these are few and far between.
The GeForce has better driver support, does push more fps, and is very nearly assured of running every game out there. It costs way more, not justified IMO, and has less features on the card, and uses less technology and more brute force to get those fps. Also, not nearly as good of 2D
Hope that helps.
Yes, GeForce has got more raw power, but Radeon is getting it's drivers updated all the time and software developers are only beginning to optimize their games to fully take advantage of the Radeons new technology and DX8... Geforce 3 won't be seen in many systems for a while, I think (why, it isn't even available in Finland yet and heard it's got a price tag of about $500 in States).
In my opinion, if you're buying a graphics card right now Radeon is a pretty good low-cost choice right now, at least while waiting for real next generation GPU to become available for a reasonable price.
In my opinion, if you're buying a graphics card right now Radeon is a pretty good low-cost choice right now, at least while waiting for real next generation GPU to become available for a reasonable price.
Shockwave: Try 15-20 fps difference between a Radeon 64 VIVO and a GTS 64MB. The rest of the hardware the same.
I'm sorry but the difference between 70 fps and 85 fps IS noticable.
You are right though, Quality is MUCH better.
I'm sorry but the difference between 70 fps and 85 fps IS noticable.
You are right though, Quality is MUCH better.
"Besides, the Radeon has TIVO. Does the GeForce? No."
I think you meant VIVO, but most Geforce cards only have Video Out.
The AIW Radeon has a TIVO like feature, but the other Radeon's do not.
"Also, not nearly as good of 2D"
I really didn't notice a difference between the 2d of my GTS and my Radeon. When I switched from my 32mb Elsa Gladiac Geforce 2 GTS card to my current 32mb ATI AIW Radeon card my 2d pretty much looked the same on my 19" FD Trinitron monitor running 1280x1024x32bpp@85hz, but that could just be me.
My GTS card was slightly faster in most things compared to my Radeon, even more so when I oc'ed it to Pro speed(200/400).
I think you meant VIVO, but most Geforce cards only have Video Out.
The AIW Radeon has a TIVO like feature, but the other Radeon's do not.
"Also, not nearly as good of 2D"
I really didn't notice a difference between the 2d of my GTS and my Radeon. When I switched from my 32mb Elsa Gladiac Geforce 2 GTS card to my current 32mb ATI AIW Radeon card my 2d pretty much looked the same on my 19" FD Trinitron monitor running 1280x1024x32bpp@85hz, but that could just be me.
My GTS card was slightly faster in most things compared to my Radeon, even more so when I oc'ed it to Pro speed(200/400).
Ahh, VIVO...Sorry, long day...But I still have to disagree, at high fps, 15 or 20 still isnt that noticable. If it was, why is video only 30 fps?
Rest of the hardware is the same?
Hmmm, guess I didnt know that 2 rendering pipelines with 3 textels per clock is the same as 4 pipelines with 2 textels per clock. And for some reason, I dont see Hyper Z on GeForce...Perhaps they disabled it....
To quote Anandtech...
"Although few games use 3 textures per pixel, ATI is betting on this to become the embraced standard."
"In addition to these T&L enhancements, the Charisma engine features T&L capabilities for both vertex skinning and keyframe interpolation, giving it an edge over the GeForce 2 GTS's T&L engine."
"Including support for 3D textures and 4 matrix vertex skinning (used in Microsoft's upcoming Dragon Siege) ensures that the Radeon will be able to handle the next generation of games."
As for your 15 or 20 fps better, heres a QIII excerpt...
"Running at 51.3 FPS, the Radeon 64MB DDR was able to perform 13.2% better than the GeForce 2 GTS 32MB and 3.8% better than the 64MB GeForce 2 GTS. At 1280x1024x32, the Radeon becomes the new king of the hill"
Hmm, you tell me which card you want. Granted, one set of numbers from one demo in one game isnt all inclusive, but you would have to be insane to agrue that the GeForce is so much better then the Radeon. Because it just aint so Todd...
Granted, I am partial to the ATI cards, so I tend to maybe put them in a better light then the NVidia cards. Personally, I dont think the Radeon is better then the GeForce. But I can tell you, its sure not any worse.
Rest of the hardware is the same?
Hmmm, guess I didnt know that 2 rendering pipelines with 3 textels per clock is the same as 4 pipelines with 2 textels per clock. And for some reason, I dont see Hyper Z on GeForce...Perhaps they disabled it....
To quote Anandtech...
"Although few games use 3 textures per pixel, ATI is betting on this to become the embraced standard."
"In addition to these T&L enhancements, the Charisma engine features T&L capabilities for both vertex skinning and keyframe interpolation, giving it an edge over the GeForce 2 GTS's T&L engine."
"Including support for 3D textures and 4 matrix vertex skinning (used in Microsoft's upcoming Dragon Siege) ensures that the Radeon will be able to handle the next generation of games."
As for your 15 or 20 fps better, heres a QIII excerpt...
"Running at 51.3 FPS, the Radeon 64MB DDR was able to perform 13.2% better than the GeForce 2 GTS 32MB and 3.8% better than the 64MB GeForce 2 GTS. At 1280x1024x32, the Radeon becomes the new king of the hill"
Hmm, you tell me which card you want. Granted, one set of numbers from one demo in one game isnt all inclusive, but you would have to be insane to agrue that the GeForce is so much better then the Radeon. Because it just aint so Todd...
Granted, I am partial to the ATI cards, so I tend to maybe put them in a better light then the NVidia cards. Personally, I dont think the Radeon is better then the GeForce. But I can tell you, its sure not any worse.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter