Radeon8500 64mb vs Geforce 3 Ti

[blindspot]

Which one is better? Price not a factor.

 

[EdipisReks]

ti500 or ti200? if ti500, they are about on par. if ti200, the 8500 is a bit faster.

 

[Rand]

I'd vote for the R8500 most definitely.

Performance wise the R8500 is marginally faster then the Ti500 overall, while the 8500LE trails it by a notch. Both will solidly outperform the regular GF3 and Ti200 in most instances.
The R8500 will provide you with more consistently high quality 2D output among the many varied manufacturers. You'll get vastly better DVD playback capabilities, superior TV-Out implementation on the driver level. Slightly better 3D feature set.
R8500 will yield you faster though lower quality anisotropic filtering implementation, whereas the GF4 has faster but lower quality FSAA implementation.

The GF4 Ti4200 is a much better comparison, the GF3 is simply beyond it's prime and inferior to the R8500 in almost all respects at this point in time.

 

[rogue1979]

Until yesterday, I would have voted for the Geforce3 Ti200. I have one running at 250/530 and I compared it to a Radeon 8500LE @ 300/315 back when the Catalyst 2.2 was first out. While 3DMark was equal, the GF3 was consistently running 10-20fps faster in most games at 1280 x 960, and when FSAA was enabled the Radeon fell further behind.

Fast forward to Catalyst 2.5 and a retail Radeon 8500 128MB at 315/310. The Radeon is consistenty 10-15fps faster in most games. When playing Unreal Tounament the GF3 gave me a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024. When using 32-bit color, max anisotropic filtering and 2X FSAA, the GF3 @250/530 averages 75fps, the Radeon 128MB @315/310 averages 90fps! Funny thing though, when I enable vertical sync the Geforce still stays at 75fps, but the Radeon drops to 70fps even though my refresh rate is set at 85Hz. I like to use 2X FSAA at 1280 x 1024 to keep things really smooth, but when I turn it off the Radeon averages 140fps while the GF3 blazes at 175fps. Here's the real kicker, with the Radeon I am given the 1600 x 1200 option, and without FSAA (I really don't need it at 1600 x 1200) the Radeon looks slightly better than the Geforce3 at 1280 x 1024 x 32 at 2X FSAA. While the Geforce3 chugs away at a 75fps average, the Radeon at the higher resolution rocks out 115fps! I can now play the Unreal 2003 demo smoothly at 1600 x 1200, the Geforce3 chokes at this. If I turn off anisotropic and put set all the sliders to performance, the Radeon hits 10,100 in 3DMark besting the GF3 at 9000.

I would think a little research might turn up a Radeon 8500 LE for under $70 that has a good gpu and 3.3ns ram. If it will reach 300/300 than it will be the best bang for the buck!

 

[blindspot]

thanks to all. very informative.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Right on Rand, very good summary. As said GF3 vs Rad8500 is a pretty mute point, GF4TI vs Rad8500 or GF3 vs Rad9000 are much closer battles with plenty of points for and against. Do consider the Rad8500LE cards as they are very close to Rad8500 perf, and for all Rad8500 series cards do look out for the 128MB versions as they give you a good speed boost whether the extra memory is even needed. Definitely take a Rad8500LE-128MB over a Rad8500-64MB.

If you are looking under 100 notes the Rad8500 series is great, the Rad9000PRO is largely inferior but not by a huge amount. If you can afford a little more then you can consider the GF4TI4200 but the card of choice is certainly the Rad9000PRO but then we don't all have 200 notes to splash out though do we LOL! As an additonal note, considering the prices of the entry level to mid-range CPUs it makes a lot of sense to avoid choking your new card what ever you decide to go for. In summary I'd suggest the Rad8500LE-128MB or other Rad8500 card or if you can afford a little more the GF4TI4200.

 

[Rand]

Nice to see your back AnandAustin, I havent seen you around AT in quite some time.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Thanx. Had and still have loads of family probs but I'm trying my best to make some time for the forums.