- Mar 11, 2000
<< I am sorry but I don't trust your benchmarks. In your scores, you show the Radeon in the first 20MHz gaining about a 2FPS improvement while in the next 20MHz higher, it gains 6FPS? That does not coincide with what others reported and from my own results. >>
pidge, Sorry, It was a typo I typed a "5" instead of an "8". It was correct in the graph though.
<< I am sorry Eug but I cannot recognize your reponse due to the fact that I reviewed your system specs and you are a ATI user on both ends(laptop & desktop). Is LE really better then VE? I must hear from an unbiased graphics card user!! >>
As others have posted, the VE is simply not the card to get if you want speed. I do use ATI in my desktop and laptop. For my laptop, at the time it was the fastest card in existence. (Geforce2 Go didn't exist yet.) For the desktop it was the best bang for the buck, although I was considering a Kyro II. It replaced a Voodoo 3 that died. I didn't consider nVidia because the Geforce3 costs too much and the Geforce2 is plagued by 2D issues.
Here is one review of the VE. You can do a search to find others.
Budget: Radeon LE
Lower Mid: Kyro II - creeps into the upper mid as well.
Upper Mid: Geforce2 Pro (although make sure you get one with good 2D). Otherwise maybe Radeon VIVO.
Dual head: Matrox G450
These are just rough estimates. Different cards have different plusses and minuses.
<< My replies only come from my views of 3dmark2001 graphics cards test program(please tell me of another I should play). But I do not know of any other respectable tests that I could compare performance otherwise. Please post a link for a new test. >>
Most of us use the games we play or the games we plan to play as the tests. For instance, I like Quake III and UT. The Radeon LE does very well with Quake III, but not as well with UT at 1024x768x32. However, I'm told the VIVO (with 64 MB) does significantly better with UT than the LE and also the AIW Radeon, the latter two of which only have 32 MB.