Wait for RV250 (Radeon 9000?) or upgrade now

[hans007]

all the rv chips are value.


the rv100, was the radeon ve, much slower than the r100 or original radeon

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: Rand

The 8500 only has 3 pixle pipe's. The extra pipe along with the extra mhz should be a good enough performance increase to justify a new name if you ask me.

The R200 core has four pixel pipelines and two textures pipes/per pixel.
I'm not sure where you heard the R200 only had three pixel pipelines, but their definitely incorrect.

Perhaps your confused with the R100 core which had two pixel pipelines, and three texture pipes/per pixel?

Yes I did

 

[Bad Dude]

The only reason why I would consider the Radeon at all over the Nvidia cards is the fact that the Radeon has a much better 2D quality display than any NVidia card. If I am wrong please correct me.

 

[AnAndAustin]

You're wrong Bad_Dude.

GF2 cards had comparatively awful image quality. GF3 cards were a little better but still way behind either Matrox or ATI.

NOW the GF4 cards have excellent image quality and are easily as good, if not better than ATI and Matrox (perhaps the P512 being the exception). However, I think these cards now have such fantastic image quality that it's a bit like trying to visually see the difference between 400 FPS and 410 FPS! IE The HUGE majority of specialists (let alone us mortals) probably couldn't tell in a 'blind' A/B/C test. The limiting factor is almost certainly the old clunky CRT monitors the majority of us use.

So just to dispell the myth that nVidia still suck at image quality because it really is no longer true.

I've seen many reviews and consumers' opinions to back this up, here's a link from a study conducted by Matrox about their new P512 (overpriced and underperforming) card:

Matrox showing technical stuff comparing GF4 and ATI cards to the P512

 

[Mingon]

GF2 cards had comparatively awful image quality. GF3 cards were a little better but still way behind either Matrox or ATI.

Rubbish I have owned around 8 nvdia cards, 2 Ati, 3 voodoo and 2 kyro cards. Of these the best quality was either my geforce 2 ultra (elsa) or my current geforce 4 (inno3d) I had a dual setup and their was no difference between the voodoo 5500pci and the geforce 2.

Card list;

Ati rage pr x 2
Diamond TNT
creative gef1ddr
Herc gef2
creative gef2mx ddr
Elsa ultra
Voodoo 5500pci x 2
Voodoo 3000 pci
Herc kyro 4500
Vivid xs
3dpower ti200
and some more I cant think of now.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Mingon, I've handled a LOT more than 8 nVidia cards in my time and I pay close attention to a lot of online communities and review sites too.

It is important to remember I'm talking image quality not 3D performance. Most people call it 2D quality but because it is the quality of the signal (not to mention DAC, CAD and all manner of other things too) being sent to the monitor it effects anthing the card displays from BIOS screens, through Windows to games, which is why I call it image quality. Obviously many members of the general public are unlikely to tell much, if any, difference between cards regarding better image quality but that doesn't mean it isn't there, esp as many people use 15" monitors! And it does depend A LOT on the monitor or other final output device(s). It is what you personally find acceptible and can notice, just as an example many people find 70Hz refresh rates more than fine while others find 100Hz is needed to prevent headaches.

GF2 cards were notorious for poor image quality, that isn't anything to do with 3D ability, build quality, ports, AA, filtering methods etc but simply to do with clarity, stability and legibility of the final output which the monitor displays, esp when considering higher resolutions and refresh rates. There's a lot more to a clear sharp image than simple xxHz in the same way that there's more to a monitor than simple dot pitch and more to a CPU than simple mhz.

I find your verdict of "Rubbish" a little childish and offensive, but I'll route around and see what supporting links I can find on this subject ASAP.

 

[Blu]

Stats on ATI's new cards.

We should also say that RV250 will look very attractive as it will be the first mass solution with Pixel and Vertex Shaders >>

<---Can nVIDIA match this seeing as how the company is already haveing money troubles according to the stock market experts?

And seeing as how it will ship for around 150$ it can't be denied as a good value IF and only IF ATI can fix thier bad driver problem.
This card will definately be on par with GF4 Ti's. And this isn't even the R300....

 

[dannybin1742]

nvidia is shifting their production of processors to .13 -> the only graphics company to do this (for the next generation cards only, as in the product being released after the gf4) this will reduce manufacturing costs per chip making nvidia chips quite a bit cheaper. nvidia uses tsmc fab plants to make processors. no other graphics chip makers are doing this, not even ati, it will be hard for competition to beat nvidia in a raw price per chip battle -> nvidia will win.

i really dont' care for brands, i look at performance and then decide to buy based on that. with this shift to a smaller manufacturing methods, it should bring card prices down with the introduction of the POST GF4 cards.

it will be interesting to see what ati and nvidia bring to the table this fall.

but i'd have to agree that th ti4200 on a price to performance is the bet choice right now.

but for me i'll just keep my gf3 ti200 (235/525) for now

 

[Blu]

R300

ATI will be going 0.13 as well....and will be out BEFORE nVIDIA more than likely.

As for thinking that the GF4 Ti4200 is a better solution than the very near release RV250 from ATI(Mid July). It will more than likely be equal to the likes of the 4200 or 4400 YET be a mainstream BUDGET card! Selling most likely for 150$!!! Will have full DX 8.1 specs(shaders and all) yet be 60 percent the price!! ATI is bringing the heat. Thank god cause i'm tired of high prices.

Competition among graphic chip makers results in one really good thing for us! LOWER PRICES! That's why i'm pissed that Matrox seems to have dropped the ball. High price with GF3 performance! Lez pray that Creative/3DLabs puts together a good product and brings some heat to the race! Which btw John Carmack had a little to say about that here in his .plan...

Carmack.plan

 

[Freshbrain]

Yes, that's right, both companys (ATI and nVIDIA) are shfting to 0.13nm process by the end of the year, nVIDIA for the NV30 and ATI for the same R300, probably clocked higher than the first ones to be released in august.

But, eventhough the 0.13 shift should make production of the chips cheaper, I don't think the new cards will have any reduction in prices because of that. It's just the way it goes. We have a very good example right here. The new AMD 0.13 chips are no cheaper than the old ones, we can see the 0.13 2200+ priced exactly the same as the old 2200+ one.