I attended a lan party just a couple of weeks ago and using my 8500 was the one walking away the performance leader with a Ti500 choking on my silicon dust particles. Sorry, but true.
I attended a lan party just a couple of weeks ago and using my 8500 was the one walking away the performance leader with a Ti500 choking on my silicon dust particles. Sorry, but true.
This guy had the 8500 and his game kept crashing with 32bit textures in ghost recon. He missed out on most of the play but eventually learned it just couldn't handle 32bit textures. It was fine when it was dumbed down!!! It also mis reproduced A LOT of textures that I personally saw. 8500 is known for this because of bad driver support. The wheels in Renegade were solid green. Worked fine on all 11 nvidia systems though...interesting that is.
vash wrote:
"With these kinds of benches, I still wonder why my Ti500 continually outpaces my Radeon 8500 128meg. In Quake3, the Radeon is pretty fast, but when it came to Direct3D, the Radeon gets beat nearly every time. Playing America's Army, the Radeon just gets beat to sub 20fps often and with my ti500, it rarely drops below 30fps. Both system processors and ram are identical, the only difference is the video card."
I always wondered that myself. When I got my original Radeon 8500 Retail (64MB, 275/275) I was awed by the fact that it scored several hundred points higher synthetically speaking. But in my favorite titles (like Serious Sam) the 8500 couldn't deliver. My vanilla GeForce 3 (200/460) ran smoother and delivered a slightly higher and more consistent (more playable) framerate.
It seems the 8500 is "tuned" for synthetic benchies. Real world performance never measures up. I've never found GeForce 3 or 4 to disappoint -- either in synthetic benchies or real-world performance.
"With these kinds of benches, I still wonder why my Ti500 continually outpaces my Radeon 8500 128meg. In Quake3, the Radeon is pretty fast, but when it came to Direct3D, the Radeon gets beat nearly every time. Playing America's Army, the Radeon just gets beat to sub 20fps often and with my ti500, it rarely drops below 30fps. Both system processors and ram are identical, the only difference is the video card."
I always wondered that myself. When I got my original Radeon 8500 Retail (64MB, 275/275) I was awed by the fact that it scored several hundred points higher synthetically speaking. But in my favorite titles (like Serious Sam) the 8500 couldn't deliver. My vanilla GeForce 3 (200/460) ran smoother and delivered a slightly higher and more consistent (more playable) framerate.
It seems the 8500 is "tuned" for synthetic benchies. Real world performance never measures up. I've never found GeForce 3 or 4 to disappoint -- either in synthetic benchies or real-world performance.
Ummm....that's nice. 8500 still doesn't come close to GeForce 4 in either performance or compatibility/stability.
7757524: Not necescarily. In 3d that can be true but in 2D the Radeon8500 does well in both image quality and DVD playback, not to mention dual monitor.
ATI used to use better analogue conversion than most nvidia cards but nvidia instituted better guidlines (mandatory) so that nvidia now produces the same image quality as nvidia with all GF4 cards. Also, their new Dual monitor is better than ati's. Read some reviews.
Hmmph, well for DVD playback image qualitiy is as important as performance. What's the difference between a 1000$ DVD player and a 100$ DVD player? Can you tell the difference? I definatley know people who can tell the difference between a Radeon8500 and software render.
Sorry..............I've got an 8500 with the Omega drivers in a P4 2.53. It still can't touch my PNY Ti4400 much less the 4600 in almost any B/M's so unless there are drivers out there better than the Omega's (which is doubtfull) I'll stand by my original statement.............I love my 8500 for some things, but, honestly, it just isn't in the same ballpark as the Ti 4400 or 4600 for a lot of games............leave that to the soon to come R300.....
To be me: Ah, well, whatever. I'm a proud R8500 owner and whether or not it can hit the Ti4600, I don't really care.. I was just suprised that the Radeon8500 could actually get above and beyond a Ti4400.
Try your 2.53GHZ Radeon8500 at Jedi Knight 2 and maybe we can get some more reliable results here. 1600X1200X32.
Try your 2.53GHZ Radeon8500 at Jedi Knight 2 and maybe we can get some more reliable results here. 1600X1200X32.
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