Which one would give more balance frame rate with image quality? And would be less of a bottleneck for faster computers. Also I don't want any answers that are bias.
Radeon DDR or GeForce 256 DDR
- Thread starter Armageddon415
- Start date
This is simple. Radeon.
I have had both, and the Radeon kicks it's ass.
Image quality is far better, and it is faster. It is on par with the Geforce2 not 1. It has lower peak frame rates than the Geforce2, but it is more consistent and smoother.
It also runs cooler and draws less power than the Geforce 256. The Radeon also has more features than the 256, plus hardware DVD playback.
No contest. The Radeon wins.
I have had both, and the Radeon kicks it's ass.
Image quality is far better, and it is faster. It is on par with the Geforce2 not 1. It has lower peak frame rates than the Geforce2, but it is more consistent and smoother.
It also runs cooler and draws less power than the Geforce 256. The Radeon also has more features than the 256, plus hardware DVD playback.
No contest. The Radeon wins.
Against a GF1, the Radeon. But, if live and die for max framerates, I think that you can find GF2's for about the price as a Radeon. In terms of best balance (even against the GF2), I say go with a Radeon - top notch visuals, very good frame rates.
-AJ
-AJ
If it were Radeon and GF2, I would go with a GF2, but against a GF1, there's no comparison, you have to go with the Radeon.
MADCAP: You're comment about the radeon having more "consistent" fps than the GF2 is laughable. It makes no sense.
Ok there are a couple of things to sort out on this post.
1. I think he might be talking about the slew of $110 32MB DDR Radeon cards coming out. Most of them are clocked at 143/143, which in almost all OpenGL apps will be slower than a GF1, and in D3D will be about the same speed.
2. There isn't a difference in the Feature set between the GTS and the GF1, so that isn't a problem either. BTW the GTS And GF1 both have HW DVD playback.
3. The Radeon doesn't have superior quality or more consistant frame rates. I have throughly benchmarked both cards and can tell you first hand that the GTS has both higher Average, Max and Minimum FPS in the slew of games that support this type of benchmarking. IE, UT and Evolva.
4. What you will see with the Radeon is overly bright textures in ALL D3D games, which makes Giants look especially bad. No LOD adjustment in D3D making it look more blurry than the V5 or GTS, and horrible drivers causing you to have to get constant updates to play newer games, or having to tweak the card to get the game to work.
To me even the GF1 is better than the Radeon. Maybe their next card will work better and have better drivers.
1. I think he might be talking about the slew of $110 32MB DDR Radeon cards coming out. Most of them are clocked at 143/143, which in almost all OpenGL apps will be slower than a GF1, and in D3D will be about the same speed.
2. There isn't a difference in the Feature set between the GTS and the GF1, so that isn't a problem either. BTW the GTS And GF1 both have HW DVD playback.
3. The Radeon doesn't have superior quality or more consistant frame rates. I have throughly benchmarked both cards and can tell you first hand that the GTS has both higher Average, Max and Minimum FPS in the slew of games that support this type of benchmarking. IE, UT and Evolva.
4. What you will see with the Radeon is overly bright textures in ALL D3D games, which makes Giants look especially bad. No LOD adjustment in D3D making it look more blurry than the V5 or GTS, and horrible drivers causing you to have to get constant updates to play newer games, or having to tweak the card to get the game to work.
To me even the GF1 is better than the Radeon. Maybe their next card will work better and have better drivers.
IBM'er is simply misguided. He is making absolutely ridiculous claims.
Radeon all the way. Easy choice.
Radeon all the way. Easy choice.
IBMer.
1. Sounds fair enough, in that case I'd skip on both of them and just get an Elsa GTS
2. I agree.
3. In 2D I dont agree, though I havent tested a Radeon myself, most GF/GTS's 2D quality sorta sucks. Of course there are exceptions such as Visiontek/Elsa.
4. I'd say most of that is highly subjective, and for many people can probabaly be said about nVidia based cards as well.
1. Sounds fair enough, in that case I'd skip on both of them and just get an Elsa GTS
2. I agree.
3. In 2D I dont agree, though I havent tested a Radeon myself, most GF/GTS's 2D quality sorta sucks. Of course there are exceptions such as Visiontek/Elsa.
4. I'd say most of that is highly subjective, and for many people can probabaly be said about nVidia based cards as well.
"IBM'er is simply misguided. He is making absolutely ridiculous claims.
Radeon all the way. Easy choice."
I found that what you've said actually applies to you only. IBMer gives the detail while u only came here with the 4 words "Radeon all the way". Do you work for ATI?
Sorry to jump into the thread suddenly.
Radeon all the way. Easy choice."
I found that what you've said actually applies to you only. IBMer gives the detail while u only came here with the 4 words "Radeon all the way". Do you work for ATI?
Sorry to jump into the thread suddenly.
Although it pains me to say this, Radeon. But are Geforce DDR's still even available to make it an option? I would rather have a Geforce 2 GTS or higher than a Radeon but I would much rather have a Radeon than a Geforce DDR.
The Radeon 166 isn't a whole lot faster than the Geforce 256 DDR and the Geforce is less troublesome in general, so I would go with it. Plus, at only $99 (www.mwave.com, Creative Annihilator Pro) it's an incredible bargain.
Geforce 256 DDR gets my vote.
Geforce 256 DDR gets my vote.
<< The Radeon 166 isn't a whole lot faster than the Geforce 256 DDR and the Geforce is less troublesome in general, so I would go with it. Plus, at only $99 (www.mwave.com, Creative Annihilator Pro) it's an incredible bargain. >>
Other than the fact that you're wrong, why are you dragging out a 10 day old topic?
Actually this is very easy as I have both cards right here.
The contenders
#1 Creative Labs Annhilator Pro DDR Overclocked to its maximum speed of 140 mhz core and 340 mhz memory (170 mhz DDR actually).
#2 Ati radeon LE Clocked at its max speed of 199 mhz Core and 199mhz DDR memory. I figured I would test at what both card will hit in reality. I have not modified either card in any way.
Test Computer Duron 800@1030 mhz on Asus A7v, 256 MB ram. 20 GIG yada yada yada. BTW using WinME.
1st test Quake 3 Arena version 1.27H. at 1024x768 32 bit max details.
GeforceDDR= 67.1 FPS
Radeon= 74.2 FPS
2nd test Quake 3 Arena 1600x1200 32 bit max details
GeforceDDR 31.4 FPS
Radeon 40.9 FPS
I am sorry I don't have a real good D3D game to test them in, but in Open GL the radeon is definetly a more powerful card, and on top of it I think that the radeon has a noticeably better visual quality over the Geforce based card. HEHE I just wish I would have bought the Radeon instead of the Geforce lol.
The Geforce is mine, I paid $300 for it when it first came out. The Radeon is a part to a computer I am building for a client of mine lol. I think I may just get me a Radeon 64DDR with the money I am gonna make building this pc lol.
Anyway I hope this will give you a good idea of how these 2 cards compare to each other. COnsidering they are both priced within about $10 of each other I would get the radeon.
The contenders
#1 Creative Labs Annhilator Pro DDR Overclocked to its maximum speed of 140 mhz core and 340 mhz memory (170 mhz DDR actually).
#2 Ati radeon LE Clocked at its max speed of 199 mhz Core and 199mhz DDR memory. I figured I would test at what both card will hit in reality. I have not modified either card in any way.
Test Computer Duron 800@1030 mhz on Asus A7v, 256 MB ram. 20 GIG yada yada yada. BTW using WinME.
1st test Quake 3 Arena version 1.27H. at 1024x768 32 bit max details.
GeforceDDR= 67.1 FPS
Radeon= 74.2 FPS
2nd test Quake 3 Arena 1600x1200 32 bit max details
GeforceDDR 31.4 FPS
Radeon 40.9 FPS
I am sorry I don't have a real good D3D game to test them in, but in Open GL the radeon is definetly a more powerful card, and on top of it I think that the radeon has a noticeably better visual quality over the Geforce based card. HEHE I just wish I would have bought the Radeon instead of the Geforce lol.
The Geforce is mine, I paid $300 for it when it first came out. The Radeon is a part to a computer I am building for a client of mine lol. I think I may just get me a Radeon 64DDR with the money I am gonna make building this pc lol.
Anyway I hope this will give you a good idea of how these 2 cards compare to each other. COnsidering they are both priced within about $10 of each other I would get the radeon.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter