does anyone have any updates on this cuz as far as i heard the 8500 can now beat the ti500 due to its matured drivers... (under winxp, this is)
LATEST DRIVERS: GF3ti500 vs 8500
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
The 8500 is an excellent card from what I've heard. It has much more mature drivers and is not "all potential, no substance" anymore. However, the Ti500 is a more consistent scorer for highest framerates in all games, and in a wider variety of games. For example, the GF3 Ti500 and Radeon 8500 are usually at most 5-10% in speed in different in games (sometimes one wins, sometimes the other), but many games (especially in Windows 2000 and XP, which I run) run slower on the 8500 than they do on for it Windows 98. The GeForce 3 Ti series show pretty much no difference in any game's FPS in Win 98/2000/XP/
Also, read @ Anandtech that the Radeon 8500 @ 1024X768X32 res runs @ 75 fps in Unreal Tournament (my favourite game), whereas the GF3 Ti runs it at 130. Serious Sam also goes way down in FPS with the new drivers for the Radeon.
If you play only newer games, the difference is a lot smaller usually, but UT is one of my most played games.
Basically, for the future, they appear to be more or less even, with the 8500 having slightly better 2D output and the GF3 potentially having more mature drivers, as they update them more often (fact).
I currently own a Radeon 32MB DDR which I like a lot, and just got a GeForce 3 Ti200 for my new comp. In my opinion the 8500 and GF3Ti500 are pretty much evenly met, and I'd recommend either one.
Also, read @ Anandtech that the Radeon 8500 @ 1024X768X32 res runs @ 75 fps in Unreal Tournament (my favourite game), whereas the GF3 Ti runs it at 130. Serious Sam also goes way down in FPS with the new drivers for the Radeon.
If you play only newer games, the difference is a lot smaller usually, but UT is one of my most played games.
Basically, for the future, they appear to be more or less even, with the 8500 having slightly better 2D output and the GF3 potentially having more mature drivers, as they update them more often (fact).
I currently own a Radeon 32MB DDR which I like a lot, and just got a GeForce 3 Ti200 for my new comp. In my opinion the 8500 and GF3Ti500 are pretty much evenly met, and I'd recommend either one.
hmmm but anands reviews never use any beta drivers... this said the ti500 also has some new beta drivers... 
Actively looking for a card to buy, I have read a lot of reviews on these two cards, and had some feeling that those ATI folks probably spent a lot more time on tweaking the drivers to score in benchmarks and "benchmark games", because it seemed 8500 usually would run as fast as Ti500 in 3dmarks, Quake III, UT, but lag far behind in those "less famous" games like Serious Sam or Flight Simulator.
lordex - the Radeon 8500 (all Radeons for that matter) blow in UT (well, 85 fps vs 130). They still just don't have that game pinned. The GeForce 3/4's just kill it in UT Open GL (Direct 3d sux for UT compared to high res textures in open gl).
I don't think ATI is greasing up their drivers to run benchmark games faster too much, but rather that nVidia just has a more optimized driver right now (and possibly a better driver team).
ATI appears to be making great strides towards a better driver, unified drivers etc, and their 2d quality is much better, but nVidia just seems to have the overall 3d performance crown.
I don't think ATI is greasing up their drivers to run benchmark games faster too much, but rather that nVidia just has a more optimized driver right now (and possibly a better driver team).
ATI appears to be making great strides towards a better driver, unified drivers etc, and their 2d quality is much better, but nVidia just seems to have the overall 3d performance crown.
<< ATI appears to be making great strides towards a better driver, unified drivers etc, and their 2d quality is much better, but nVidia just seems to have the overall 3d performance crown. >>
unfortunately for now
<< ATI appears to be making great strides towards a better driver, unified drivers etc, and their 2d quality is much better, but nVidia just seems to have the overall 3d performance crown. >>
I didn't pay too much attention to the 2d quality when I was reading those reviews cuz I thought hell all I want is to play games. So how much difference is there?
2d is only for windows and like videos and stuff... 3d for games so if youre a hardcore gamer then no fretting about 2d is necessary...
Even if you're a hardcore gamer, 2d is important. My MSI GF3Ti200 flickers ever so slightly @ 800X600 res, no matter the refresh rate. My ATI Radeon never did this. Even hardcore gamers spend at least as much time in the Windows environment as games, if not more.
I'm still very pleased with the Ti200's performance, but it's not so cut and dry who has a better solution, even for gamers.
I'm still very pleased with the Ti200's performance, but it's not so cut and dry who has a better solution, even for gamers.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter