RAEDON DDR 32MB best interim card

[Himbald]

I have scrutinized countless roundups and reviews for the best interim budget card to fill the gap between the present and the future (when I can afford a GeForce 3 or Raedon 2). With the exception of a few apparent glitches (listed below) I have seen NO mention of any specific problems with the RAEDON DDR 32MB in recent articles. These are the only flaws I have found presently substantiated in print:

16-bit alpha blending bug . . . Who cares, I?ll be in 32 (probably has been patched by now).
Performance drops in some Intel test systems . . . So what, I?ll have an AMD.
Major problems with Windows 2000 drivers . . . Bah, 98SE for me!

It?s also apparently true that in res above 10x7 the fps start to plummet but with my tiny 17? I will only very rarely exceed 10x7. Since the Raedon has proven test after test to maintain excellent image quality even in higher resolutions I don?t care so much about the fps numbers anyway.

Unless any of you can provide current links to prove otherwise I think the RAEDON DDR 32MB is the best choice for me. For an AMD/98se user interested in solid dependable performance with high-end image quality for low-end bucks this appears to be the best choice.

 

[rbV5]

I think your right, except, my Radeon works very good with Win2k as well.

 

[Himbald]

rbV5, Do you have the DDR 32MB retail version?

 

[Wingznut]

I picked up a 64mbDDR a couple days ago, and made the jump to Win2k at the same time. So far, I've found no issues. The newest beta drivers totally rock.

 

[pidge]

ATI cards seem to be having lots of DX8 issues right now. Don't know if that is a concern for you. I would just go with the Geforce 2 GTS since you can grab one for $138 from newegg.com and it is a very stable card.

 

[arod324]

My card hasn't had any problems with DirectX8 yet, (although the only one I have tested, is 3dmark2k1)

 

[Killrose]

pidge, what DX8 game is there that you can buy right now on the shelves that the Radeon does not work with? 3DMark2001 runs flawlessly on my system with the latest driver release for my card. My 3Dmark score is 3265. I thought 3dMark is a DX8 benchmark. I am however only running win98 so maybe thats why. I still have my Asus 6800 DDR, and the Radeon looks noticably better, showing added effects that never showed up while using the Asus. I will say however that 16bit on the Radeon sucks. It will make QIII appear as though it was painted on canvas. Actually very odd looking. The Leadtek PRO at newegg, for $164.00 looks like quite a bargain as well.

 

[pidge]

There are hardly any DX8 games on store shelves. The only ones I can think of are Mech4 and Nascar 4. But the Radeon has problems with Aquanox, 3D Mark 2001 and who knows what other games that are still under development. I just haven't had any problems with my Geforce 2 series and that means a lot to me. The Radeon is a different story.

 

[arod324]

I would disagree with you when you say that the Radeon DDR LE has problems with 3Dmark2K1. I have not had a single problem with it at all.

 

[pidge]

The Radeon is a great card. You can't go wrong with either I guess but personal preference is Geforce 2 GTS. I still read many people having problems with textures in 3D Mark 2001 as did I with the Radeon AIW using the third to last driver released (leaked).

 

[Mac]

My household has 3 PC's with Radeon 32MB DDR (Retail) and one with a Creative Geforce GTS 2. Paid $230 for the nVidia and around $130 each for the Radeons. If I didn't already own the GeForce when I purchased the first Radeon, probably would have 4 Radeons instead of 3. No slam on the GeForce, it is still faster, but Radeon's are a better deal and to my eyes, a more pleasing image.

Don't know anything about the LE's or VE's whatever. Although seems as if the GeForce has come down so it is more competitive now.

Just my two cents.