Need some info on GF2 and Radeon

[Gmr83]

I'm torn between buying a Geforce2 GTS 64MB and a Radeon 64Mb DDR. I just need some info on which card performs better in the following areas:

2d
3d
Dvd
16 bit
32 bit
compatibility
overall value

I play mainly FPS like UT, Q3A, Half-life, etc..., but i also want good solid 2d performance. I've heard the 2d on the GF2 Gts is terrible, so i just need to know which card would be better all around for my system (900mhz t-bird, 128 ram, 17" monitor) And which card will i be able to use longer? (unfortunatly, i cant upgrade every 6 months, i'm planning on keep the card for a good while)
Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[DominoBoy]

Hey man, I'm not trying to be rude. That's something I never do. But there are about 20 threads on this very same subject in the last couple weeks if you will just search the forums.

 

[Hawk]

2d
Geforce 2-usually horrible over 1024 or 1280
Radeon-pretty good at 1600, don't know about above

3d
Geforce 2-very fast
Radeon-fast

DVD
Geforce 2-eh, nothing special in hardware
Radeon-almost as good as a stand alone decoder card

16 bit
Geforce 2-a lot faster than its 32 bit
Radeon-almost the same as 32 bit, doesn't look very good (dithering and stuff)

32 bit
Geforce 2-fast
Radeon-image quailty very good, not as fast as Geforce 2

compatibility
don't really know, heard of lots of problems for both cards, and also heard of good things for both cards

overall value
depends on how much you can get either for, if about the same price, I would defiintely get the Radeon

 

[RobsTV]

Uh, no, the GeForce2 GTS 2d is not terrible, and it is not horrible. You honestly think a company could get away with something like that. 2d is what everyone uses 95% of the time. So with this in mind, comments that say terrible and horrible, must be coming from BIASED or unknowledgeable people, so how much faith can you have in what else they say?

Strange how "IF" we were to believe these people about how terrible and horrible the 2d was, we would also then have to say Anands, Tom's, Sharky's, and every other "respectable" review site must be out of there minds to rate the GTS as the "BEST CARD" to get?

According to what others are saying, the truth seems to be that some 19" monitors that use a Trinitron picture tube, when used with certain brands of GTS cards, and have resolution set at 1600 or above, do have text that appears fuzzy in comparison to other cards. So, if you have a 19" Trinitron, AND a GTS card that is NOT VisionTek or Elsa, AND you plan on using it's 2d at 1600 or higher, then you may want to chose a different video card or monitor.

 

[RoboTECH]

RobsTV, the truth is that nvidia has produced poor 2d image quality for quite some time. this dates back to the days of the Riva 128.

and before you label me "biased" (RobsTV's definition of "biased" - anyone who disagrees with me), I've owned 4 nvidia cards in the last few years, and all of them have had inferior 2d image quality when compared to other cards (ATi, 3dfx, Matrox)

The reason the GTS "wins" the shootout type comparisons is because it is a fast-ass card, and the reviews are largely benchmark-centric.

It all depends on what you are used to also. when I upgraded from my TNT2U to a 32MB GTS Prophet, I was surprised at the increased 2d image quality. then slapped a 5500 in there, and was like "okay, the GTS has to go"

Depends on how much emphasis you place on 2d.

Famous last words: "So with this in mind, comments that say terrible and horrible, must be coming from BIASED or unknowledgeable people"

3 words for you

POT
KETTLE
BLACK

***edit***

and it's not "1600 and above". 19" and below monitors don't go past 1600 usually

the GTS looks crappy above 1024x768

 

[WetWilly]

RobsTV,

the truth is that nvidia has produced poor 2d image quality for quite some time. this dates back to the days of the Riva 128
Like Robo said, very true. I used a Riva128 for a week and replaced it. Graphics were fast, but ugly. Saw a TNT, wasn't impressed.

2d is what everyone uses 95% of the time
...
we would also then have to say Anands, Tom's, Sharky's, and every other "respectable" review site must be out of there minds to rate the GTS as the "BEST CARD" to get?
The real point here is that pretty much every "respectable" review site irresponsibly pays very short shrift to 2D. If you've only used nVidia 2D, you won't notice. If you have a critical eye for 2D and you've been royally spoiled by Matrox, everybody's 2D comes up short - and I mean everybody's. Visit some Matrox forums and you'll see lots of people crying about giving up their Matrox G4xx for a Geforce and learning that speed isn't everything.

So, if you have a 19" Trinitron, AND a GTS card that is NOT VisionTek or Elsa, AND you plan on using it's 2d at 1600 or higher, then you may want to chose a different video card or monitor
Where do we start here?
1) Matrox, ATI, and 3dfx don't have problems at 1600
2) Matrox and 3dfx don't have problems with Trinitrons
3) It's not necessarily common knowledge that VisionTek/Elsa (same card) have better 2D than other mfgs outside forums/communities like this. What's worse is that mfgs with name recognition and reputations - say, Asus and Creative - have some Geforces with REALLY bad 2D.
4) Somewhat tied into #3, and this isn't personal, but you're really not the right person to make blanket statements about nVidia 2D? Why? You're running a VisionTek AND a Canopus. VisionTek is about the relative best nVidia quality you can find, Canopus is probably the absolute best. VisionTek/Elsa and Canopus are definitely not the majority of the nVidia/Geforce market, but Creative, Asus, and lots of other OEMs with very poor 2D Geforce cards are.

BTW, if you want to talk about really bad nVidia 2D, I've got three words for you: TwinView secondary display. Good luck getting above 1024x768 without eyestrain. In comparison, here's a quote from Anand's review of the Matrox G450 (TwinView's only real competitor):
On our Sony FD Trinitron GDM-F500 display the G450 provided a sharper picture than any competing card we tried, but that is to be expected from Matrox. What was even more impressive was that the image quality of the secondary display at 1600 x 1200 was definitely acceptable

 

[DominoBoy]

Listen to these guys. They speak the truth grasshopper. I have a GTS also and the 2D is poor.

Without question the Radeon is a better all around card than the GTS, and not just because of 2D, but for many other reasons too. There are lots of other threads about this subject if you search for them. Anyway, get the Radeon. It's a better card and I wish I had one instead of my GTS. Also consider the V5 5500. Another very good card, and a great bargain since the price drop.

 

[CountyRescue]

radeon awesome , geforce lame.

and alot of these people that review have to suck up to the manufactuers if they ever want to get stuff to review,

 

[RobsTV]

O.K., just to set the record straight on what I am comparing this to.
Previous cards used, (but Robo already knew about my vast knowledge of 3dfx from my previous posts, but even knowing this, he somehow thinks "I" am biased? Well I am. After a long an unhappy marriage with 3dfx, I am glad to find a card I can live with. You may also notice that I do not say anything bad about other cards, which a truely biased person would do).

Powergragh 64v
Diamond Stealth 3d 2000
STB Velocity 128
Canopus Total 3d 128v
Canopus Total3d 128v + Voodoo2 12 meg
Voodoo3 3000 AGP from March of '99 until end of October 2000.
Also, installed a dozen or so V3 2000 cards for resale machines.
As you can see, I have had what many called a very good 2d card in the V3, and I agree, it was very good. In comparison, the GeForce2 GTS is just as good, if not better.

Having a 3dfx card for 18 months, and a nVidia card about a month. Yep, that's all I took. No going backwards to 3dfx again

Actually, as everyone "SHOULD" know, all of todays are are GREAT.
To use words like Horrible and Terrible do not make sense. It would be like saying ATI has Horrible 16 bit, or is Horrible at low resolutions. Better, more honest words would be, the ATI is not as good as others in this area. Same may hold true with the GeForce2 cards. "Some of them" may not be as good as some other cards in this area, but to call it nasty, please....

The subject is what it is.
While many jumped all over nVidia's 2d, isn't it strange how no one said anything bad about ATI's 16 bit or it's compatability issues? Makes it seem like a nVidia witch hunt is under way from some of the posts.

 

[Laz]

It depends on how picky you are about image quality, as it is a subjective measurement. I used an Asus V7700 Deluxe at home and a Geforce DDR at work, I replaced the V7700 with a Radeon 64 at home and placed the V7700 in my work computer. After running the Radeon for 2 weeks I went out and bought another Radeon 64 for work and I don't even play games at work, but then again I also run a 19" Trinitron with a PIII 933 at work (My work comp. usually gets my used home components). I am not saying that the Geforce 2d sucks, in fact I never noticed anything wrong with it at all, since I bought a Geforce 2 after having a Geforce 1 and a TNT 2 before that. After seeing the Radeon I was annoyed at the 2d quality of the Geforce, keep in mind that I spend at least 8 hours a day on my work computer in 2d and that the cost of a video card is a very minor expense considering the amount of time I spend in front of it (trying to convince myself it was worth the cost, I believe they call that cognitive disodence .)

 

[WetWilly]

RobsTV,

I want to make clear that I didn't (or didn't mean) to accuse you of being biased, but I wanted to point out that your viewpoint of nVidia 2D had some inherent bias simply because of the equipment you were using, which is better than pretty much all other nVidia cards out there. I'll take an extreme, but relevant example. Suppose I own a Geforce2Ultra, say the Canopus Spectra 8800, their Geforce2 Ultra card (which if I were ever going to plunk down $500 for an Ultra I would hunt down simply because you can replace the 15-pin VGA out with a 5 BNC connector out). Plus Canopus focuses on video quality with their Super Signal Highway and Dual Filter System stuff. So I'm running my new Spectra 8800 using its BNC outs, SSH, and DFS, and I read about crappy 2D on nVidia Geforces. Of course I'd say that's nVidia's being unfairly dumped on because my Geforce looks great.

As an aside, it's too bad Canopus pulled out of the US market. They were and still are the cream of the crop. Their 3dfx cards were great. Remember the internal Voodoo passthrough on their cards so you didn't degrade the VGA signal? And for those who carp and whine about the 4-pin power connector on the V5500, they should note that Canopus uses one as well on all of their Geforces - the Geforce 256, Geforce2 GTS and Ultra. What does Canopus know that no other nVidia OEM does?

isn't it strange how no one said anything bad about ATI's 16 bit
Actually ... check this recent thread: 16-bit on ATI cards isnt "disgusting" !

 

[RobsTV]

I think to blame a chip company instead of the board manufacturers is the wrong approach. If your Asus or Creative card has bad 2d, demand they fix it. But to say GeForce in general has bad 2d, that's just plain false.

Ahhh, Canopus.....
Imagine the possibilities if 3dfx had merged with them instead of STB.
That combination would have probably done to the video card world, what the Duron has done for CPU's.

 

[WetWilly]

I think to blame a chip company instead of the board manufacturers is the wrong approach

I somewhat agree agree with you here, but nVidia is at least partially responsible:

1) At the outset, from what we can tell from the products on our market, even the best Geforce 2D implementation isn't up to the quality of Matrox's G4xx, so nVidia isn't completing for "best," but "very good." My four year old Matrox Mystique with a 170MHz RAMDAC has better 2D than a Geforce.
2) nVidia's spec for the reference design shouldn't be so loose as to allow some of the rather poor implementations out there. Remember, the majority of Geforce products out there are pretty much straightforward implementations of the nVidia's reference design. Yes, nVidia is in the business of selling chips, but poor implementations of their product don't help their reputation and, as you've seen here, the blame doesn't just fall on the OEM/implementer
3) When there appear to be so many poor implementations out there and very few good ones, the blame looks like it belongs to the core product.
4) nVidia gets blamed because it's easier to say "nVidia" than Asus/Creative/MSI/PowerColor/Cardex/Leadtek and countless other OEMs. Or to say "Everybody besides VisionTek/Elsa and Canopus". Fair? Maybe not, but see #2 and #3.
5) This isn't just nVidia-bashing. When pre-STB 3dfx sold their chips and reference designs much like nVidia, some of those OEM products had similar problems. In fact, I'd come across a fix for the Orchid Righteous Voodoo (a blast from the past) that's VERY similar to the fix circulating around for the Geforce's filters. I remember similar complaints about 3dfx quality that could/should have been placed on OEMs.

Ahhh, Canopus.....
Imagine the possibilities if 3dfx had merged with them instead of STB.

We can dream, can't we? I doubt, though that they could have been the Duron of the video world. Canopus was always a premium product with a premium price, and unfortunately the price pressures from low-priced, lower-quality implementations drove them out. Their Ultra is a piece of work. Looks like it's clocked at 250/500, and has a copper plate over the RAM and GPU. Check it out here. Heck, you know you can even change the video-out from 15-pin DB15 to BNC on their Geforce MX? I'd seriously consider paying $200 for a 32MB Canopus Geforce2 MX, but I don't think there are a lot of us that would in the US. Especially with generic MXs running less than $100.

 

[Varborta]

2d aint horrible period for proud owner of GTS card. Yes, it is not as good as Radeon but it aint terrible!

 

[han888]

i am agree with robo and wetwilly, geforce2 have a poor 2D image quality, this the card i ever owned:
asus v6600
asus v7700
asus v7100
and my last card is voodoo5 5500

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I just sold my Prophet 2 64MB to go with the better image quality, 2D and 3d, of the Radeon VIVO. It's pretty noticeable, but the GTS is a better gaming card in terms of framerates.