Radeon 64MB, G2 GTS 64MB, or wait for G2 Ultra?

[XMan]

Simple enough, eh? System will be a 1GHz + Palomino on an AMD760 platform. Games, DVDs, etc.

 

[Babrone]

This Ford vs Chevy kind of question has been beaten to death already. You need to be a little more specific as to what you want in a card. What games do you play, are you looking for better 2D or 3D, etc.

 

[XMan]

Well,

I mostly play first-person shooters, Mechwarrior-type games, and sports games. 2D is pretty important as this will be hooked up to a Sony G500 Trini at 16x12@85Hz. Not really concerned if 3D is the aboslute fastest, I just want a good, non-jerky (constant 30+ fps) picture.)

So do I go Radeom, then? 😉

 

[Comp10]

For your needs I would reccomend the Radeon, however, keep in mind that some people with trinitron monitors (including myself) are having some shimmering problems with the Radeon. While it doesnt really affect image quality unless you get about 6 inches from the screen, its something you should keep in mind. But the 2D quality of the Radeon is still extremely good.

 

[Maverick2002]

for what you outlined, a geforce 2 mx DDR should be more than enough.....and i hear creative labs is gonna sell theirs for $130!!!!

 

[XMan]

Hmm, perhaps I should just keep my current card and put an el-Cheapo like a V3 or MX into my crack box?

I have an Asus V6800 DDR now . . . it's faster than the G2 MX DDR, isn't it?

 

[snow patrol]

The thing about Nvidia cards is that they really don't cut the mustard at 1600x1200 in terms of 2D. Hopefully they'll be sorting that out with there very latest range of cards, but the GTS, by all accounts is not a good card for hi res 2D work.

 

[XMan]

Don't have a problem with mine, snow patrol.

The only thing I don't like is the fact that my current monitor won't go over 60Hz at 16x12, so I drop it to 12x10 and run 75.

Looks like I'll drop a V3 into my crack box and keep my DDR until something head and shoulders better comes out . . .

 

[StickHead]

Try this on for size. 3DMarks 2000: Duron 700 with a GeForce 2MX :4150 GTS:5552

Faster but $400 faster?

 

[VladTrishkin]

64MB DDR Radeon would be my choice. Great 3D, sweet 2D, ok drivers. It depends on your choice of games, but the Ultra is pretty damn fast!

 

[snow patrol]

xerox - have you tried yours on a decent monitor with a higher refresh rate? I've just heard very bad reports of GTS 2d performance at high res. I've only seen a couple, but I have to say 1600x1200 and even 1280x1024 weren't really up to scrath IMHO. This was on a trinitron 19" and a 17" Sony...

 

[XMan]

Don't have a GTS, snow patrol. I have a V6800 DDR.

Runs great 1600x1200x32@75Hz.

 

[Hawk]

You might as well keep your card, and I think yours is one of the rare ones that have good 2d.

 

[otheipi]

Snap up an ATI Radeon 32 DDR as they represent the best value. I just ordered mine (with overnight delivery) through Outpost.com for $169.00

Read the 3D Video Card Shootout over at Sharkyextreme.com. Much praise for this little gem. Get them while you still can! (BTW: all the Radeons scale very well with increasing polygon count. Read the comparisons using Villagemark, for example.)

 

[JMorton10]

I would agree about the Radeon with one exception. At least for now, Radeon's suck in W2K.

I know, I have a Radeon 64meg VIVO. I had a 64meg gts. The Radeon blows away the gts in Win98SE, but the gts was WAY better in W2K.