Which card is the best. Looking to buy one and money is not an problem . If there is even one better then those two let me know. System is Pentium 3 866@133mhz(slot 1) , 30 gig HD , soundblaster platinum , asus P3V4X MB , 256 pc-133 Mushkin Mem. Will be used for gaming and some web design .
Radeon Vs. Geforce2
- Thread starter WiGspliTTa
- Start date
yes geforce2 is quite a bit better, but if you get into all that video/audio/techie stuff, then the radeon 32mb ddr ALL-IN-WONDER may be the thing for you
i would go for a creative labs geforce2 gts 32mb for $200
of..........if you want, get a 64mb card
i would go for a creative labs geforce2 gts 32mb for $200
of..........if you want, get a 64mb card
The Radeon beats the GeForce at 32-bit color. If you plan on only playing 32-bit color, then I would get the Radeon. If you want 16 bit though then get the GeForce 2.
There is nothing better than a Radeon if you're looking for some real 32bit performance. However you will not be impressed by its 16bit speed. GeForce2 has the best raw power, but falls behind the Radeon when running 32bit. If you want FSAA, you might want the GeForce2, 'cause its drivers provides more FSAA options than the Radeon.
If money is no object wait just a little longer and get a GeForce2 GTS Ultra.
I think it's supposed to be released at the end of this month.
I think it's supposed to be released at the end of this month.
Or wait on the card Anand was hinting at in his Ultra review which I think may be the Radeon Maxx. Whichever card it is I'm getting it since it should be able to beat the Ultra and cost about $200 less.
When is the Radeon All in Wonder card supposed to come out?
My Elsa Erazor X isn't cutting it anymore... not in terms of games (I'm not a hardcore fps guy) but just overall stuff.
The reason I want the all-in-wonder radeon is one, it has better DVD playback quality compared to the Geforce 2 (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that and it's a great all around card not to mention it's very competetive with the GF2GTS cards.
I know it's a stupid question but I plan to build a brand new system in about 7 months. Should I drag my ass around with the Geforce SDR card I have or will it be better to buy the All-In-Wonder Radeon now and buy a new one later?
My Elsa Erazor X isn't cutting it anymore... not in terms of games (I'm not a hardcore fps guy) but just overall stuff.
The reason I want the all-in-wonder radeon is one, it has better DVD playback quality compared to the Geforce 2 (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that and it's a great all around card not to mention it's very competetive with the GF2GTS cards.
I know it's a stupid question but I plan to build a brand new system in about 7 months. Should I drag my ass around with the Geforce SDR card I have or will it be better to buy the All-In-Wonder Radeon now and buy a new one later?
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,003
- 126
Which card is the best. Looking to buy one and money is not an problem . If there is even one better then those two let me know.
Get the GF2 Ultra then. 60 fps in Q3 High Quality at 1600 x 1200.
The Radeon beats the GeForce at 32-bit color.
Do you mean a GF or GF2? I will assume you are talking about a GF2. The 64 MB Radeon slightly beats a 32 MB GF2 in one MDK2 test. The 64 MB GF2 can't be touched by a Radeon, and the Ultra demolishes everything.
Benchmarking results.
Get the GF2 Ultra then. 60 fps in Q3 High Quality at 1600 x 1200.
The Radeon beats the GeForce at 32-bit color.
Do you mean a GF or GF2? I will assume you are talking about a GF2. The 64 MB Radeon slightly beats a 32 MB GF2 in one MDK2 test. The 64 MB GF2 can't be touched by a Radeon, and the Ultra demolishes everything.
Benchmarking results.
Hafta agree with BFG10K on this one, with Det3 the 32 meg GTS beats the Radeon in most stuff, and a 64 meg GTS beats it in pretty much everything.
Of course thats just pure performance, which may or may not be the most important thing to you.
Of course thats just pure performance, which may or may not be the most important thing to you.
What type/size monitor do you have?
What OS are you running?
What resolution do you set your desktop for?
What OS are you running?
What resolution do you set your desktop for?
I think its my place to post a little something in here.
If you really want to think about in terms of whats best for you, what do you do? Web design and that stuff. If you run at high resolutions for your Windows desktop, you'll want a Radeon simply because the GeForce series sucks at 2d quality at hi res. Radeon is compared to the Matrox G400Max all the time in its visual quality, that says a lot right there.
As for game performance, yes, it is beaten out by a GeForce2 by a slight margin. If nVidia had stuck with the Det.5 series, Radeon would be beating nVidia in 32bit all over the place, but Det.6 series helped out the GeForce line of cars alot at higher resolutions in 3d applications. Now GeForce2's overtake Radeon in 32bit in Quake3 or Unreal Tournament.
Think of it this way, if you want a card with finess, go for a Radeon. It doesn't have the raw poly pushing that a GF2 does, but it has a good amount. GeForce2 is a monster in terms of raw power, but has yet to be tamed and exploited.
If you want to wait, get a GF2 Ultra or a Radeon MAXX. I'm a bit weary of ATi's MAXX series, heaping on another graphics processor on the same card just kinda sucks. But it will be fast, no doubt.
If you really want to think about in terms of whats best for you, what do you do? Web design and that stuff. If you run at high resolutions for your Windows desktop, you'll want a Radeon simply because the GeForce series sucks at 2d quality at hi res. Radeon is compared to the Matrox G400Max all the time in its visual quality, that says a lot right there.
As for game performance, yes, it is beaten out by a GeForce2 by a slight margin. If nVidia had stuck with the Det.5 series, Radeon would be beating nVidia in 32bit all over the place, but Det.6 series helped out the GeForce line of cars alot at higher resolutions in 3d applications. Now GeForce2's overtake Radeon in 32bit in Quake3 or Unreal Tournament.
Think of it this way, if you want a card with finess, go for a Radeon. It doesn't have the raw poly pushing that a GF2 does, but it has a good amount. GeForce2 is a monster in terms of raw power, but has yet to be tamed and exploited.
If you want to wait, get a GF2 Ultra or a Radeon MAXX. I'm a bit weary of ATi's MAXX series, heaping on another graphics processor on the same card just kinda sucks. But it will be fast, no doubt.
I don't hin I can live iwth Nvidia's cruddy Image Quality. But I'm a spoiled Matrox owner. The Radeons's Image Quality is decent.
Wow! RadeonWorking has a troll's name but doesn't troll! LOL
Yes, the GF2 GTS 32MB does pull ahead of the Radeon 64MB in 32bit, with the Detonator 3's.
Yes, the GF2 GTS 32MB does pull ahead of the Radeon 64MB in 32bit, with the Detonator 3's.
heh yeah not out yet.. by that answer, I guess you could just get an NV20, or Rampage, or G800.. oh wait, they're not out yet.
"Or wait on the card Anand was hinting at in his Ultra review which I think may be the Radeon Maxx."
more likely it was a higher clock version of the Radeon. ATi released a higher clock version of the Rage fury, called the Rage fury Pro. I'm suspecting that's what this will be, becuase 200mhz DDR SDRAM availability is why the original Radeon wasn't clocked at 200mhz like it was supposed to be in the first place.
I personally don't know what you would be using it for, so I can't give you a good answer.
"Or wait on the card Anand was hinting at in his Ultra review which I think may be the Radeon Maxx."
more likely it was a higher clock version of the Radeon. ATi released a higher clock version of the Rage fury, called the Rage fury Pro. I'm suspecting that's what this will be, becuase 200mhz DDR SDRAM availability is why the original Radeon wasn't clocked at 200mhz like it was supposed to be in the first place.
I personally don't know what you would be using it for, so I can't give you a good answer.
I should of asked which has the best IMAGE QUALITY not frames per second raw power. I use 32 bit color ,windows 98 SE ,800 X 600 gaming rez , 1024 X 768 Desktop rez. I truly love eye candy . I live with losing a few FPS .
At the settings you are using you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference between either of them for image quality in 2D or 3D the majority of the time. Either of them will allow you to run significantly higher resolutions in 3D, and with proper tweaks both of them produce excellent image quality(proper monitor calibration) at 1024x768 2D with a possible exception being some GF2 boards paired with some Trinitron monitors.
I would say go with a Radeon, superior feature support and headroom for 2D with high levels of image quality if you decide to upgrade your monitor to a larger offering.
The GF2 in absolute terms has superior 3D visual quality, but that is focusing on 3D visualization applications and not games. If you know that you have no intention of running 3D modeling software, don't give it a second thought. For games, with the exception of Quake3 with texture compression enabled, you would likely not be able to tell the difference between the two running side by side.
I would say go with a Radeon, superior feature support and headroom for 2D with high levels of image quality if you decide to upgrade your monitor to a larger offering.
The GF2 in absolute terms has superior 3D visual quality, but that is focusing on 3D visualization applications and not games. If you know that you have no intention of running 3D modeling software, don't give it a second thought. For games, with the exception of Quake3 with texture compression enabled, you would likely not be able to tell the difference between the two running side by side.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,003
- 126
You mentioned that you want eye candy but then you said that you run games at 800 x 600. That resolution is not classed as eye candy. That would be the resolution I would run in order to achieve high fps.
If you run games at 800 x 600 you would be far better off getting a GF2 MX. This board is half the price of the other boards and is almost as good as a GF2/GF2 Ultra at this res.
Assuming that was a slight slip of the tongue, since you are not interested in raw fps I guess the Radeon would be a good choice for you, plus it does have some other nice features.
You could also get a V5 I guess. Assuming the zombies' FSAA tales are true (which I am highly sceptical of), 3dfx's FSAA is supposed to be a bit better than the rest so you could give that card a go too.
If you run games at 800 x 600 you would be far better off getting a GF2 MX. This board is half the price of the other boards and is almost as good as a GF2/GF2 Ultra at this res.
Assuming that was a slight slip of the tongue, since you are not interested in raw fps I guess the Radeon would be a good choice for you, plus it does have some other nice features.
You could also get a V5 I guess. Assuming the zombies' FSAA tales are true (which I am highly sceptical of), 3dfx's FSAA is supposed to be a bit better than the rest so you could give that card a go too.
"Assuming that was a slight slip of the tongue, since you are not interested in raw fps I guess the Radeon would be a good choice for you, plus it does have some other nice features."
ever consider that he might not want to upgrade the card right after he buys it? if that's the case, getting a nice powerful card now, will increase the time he will be able to use this card without having problems.
so even IF he "only" plays at 800X600, later on, games that come out, may stress the card so much, that it will slow down at the resolutions you talk about (1024X768 and higher).
ever consider that he might not want to upgrade the card right after he buys it? if that's the case, getting a nice powerful card now, will increase the time he will be able to use this card without having problems.
so even IF he "only" plays at 800X600, later on, games that come out, may stress the card so much, that it will slow down at the resolutions you talk about (1024X768 and higher).
If you want better image quality I think the Radeon would be better. The GeForce2 GTS still has that S3TC problem...what other uses do you have for it?
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: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter