Why would anyone buy a Radeon 8500?

[Se7en01]

I mean, if you buy one Retail it costs $300. Sure you can order online but If it doesnt work right or you dont like it your stuck having to send it back by snail mail. GF3 ti200 can be had for less than $200 retail and performs and looks wonderful. Is the Radeon really $100 better than the GF3? AND......... With the GF3 you get new drivers every 10 minutes. With ATI you get new ones every 10 months.

 

[Daovonnaex]

<< I mean, if you buy one Retail it costs $300. Sure you can order online but If it doesnt work right or you dont like it your stuck having to send it back by snail mail. GF3 ti200 can be had for less than $200 retail and performs and looks wonderful. Is the Radeon really $100 better than the GF3? AND......... With the GF3 you get new drivers every 10 minutes. With ATI you get new ones every 10 months. >>

Due to the fact that a retail R8500 online is $200, and OEM online is $165. Furthermore, the R8500 (especially at 275/275) far outperforms the GF3 Ti200 in 3D, and in many cases outperforms the GF3 Ti500 in 3D. Finally, it has a richer feature set, with features such as dual display support, a faster RAMDAC, industry-best hardware DVD acceleration, and superior 2D. As for the drivers, ATi's drivers are pretty good now, especially if you're willing to beta test.

 

[rimshaker]

The devoted and die-hard ATI fans would choose the 8500. I understand the situation though.... it took me a while to accept and switch from 3dfx to nvidia. Brand devotion is bigger than most would think. Come to think of it, it took me a while to finally switch to AMD over Intel

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The 8500 has a nice feature set and performs nearly at Ti500 levels. Compare apples to apples next time.

 

[essend]

it's selling for $219 here
mwave

 

[oldfart]

<< Retail it costs $300 >>


Does it?


<< Sure you can order online but If it doesnt work right or you dont like it your stuck having to send it back by snail mail >>


And how is this unique to a Radeon 8500?


<< With the GF3 you get new drivers every 10 minutes >>


Some may not view that as a good thing.

 

[romec]

The 8500DV retails for about $300 (closer to $315 but listed at $400).
I chose the 8500DV because I actually plan on using all of its features. Traditionally I have never like All in one type cards, but this one fit my needs so i bought it.
Granted had i waited on building my system for about a month or so, i would have gotten a g4 and personal cinema.

P.S. you HAVE to love the idea of a radio frequency remote . I know that they are available separately, but I saw the remote as an added plus in my decision to buy the 8500 DV

 

[KentState]

I really don't see the point of this arguement. Yes, you have to go online to get a deal on either the GF3 Ti200 or Radeon 8500 and there is a $100 price difference usually for retail. Then again the $100 for either the Radeon or GF3 Ti500 is somewhat worth it if you don't O/C. Personally I went for the Ti200 because for this generation you really can run anything on it and the extra power doesn't give me much. I can see your point though about being nervous about buying online. I had some problems even with my GF3 from Newegg and I would hate to spend more money and end up feeling this way. Stores like Best Buy do stock all the GeForce and Radeon cards if you do want to buy from a store that doesn't charge a restocking fee.

 

[reformat]

Well first off because it's image quality is better, both cards have framerates so high you can't see the difference in real games. But don't go there with the drivers, I've got a system with a GEFORCE 2 whose drivers change once a month, but check a little deeper, NVIDIA drivers get Microsoft certified in a week, ATI's take up to three months, and I'm not talking BET'a's. Might that somehow be backdoor politics, can you say XBOX?

 

[sandorski]

Umm, why wouldn't they?

This isn't 5 years ago, framrate is not the issue it once was.

 

[Killrose]

The GF3 Ti200 is a great card and the prices are comming down. The Ati 8500 is far better, and prices are dropping as well. If you want to buy an Ati product, get the 7500, it's less than the Ti200, slower, but still very fast, and a bargain at under $100 .

 

[Rand]

<< I mean, if you buy one Retail it costs $300. Sure you can order online but If it doesnt work right or you dont like it your stuck having to send it back by snail mail. GF3 ti200 can be had for less than $200 retail and performs and looks wonderful. Is the Radeon really $100 better than the GF3? AND......... With the GF3 you get new drivers every 10 minutes. With ATI you get new ones every 10 months. >>



You can get an OEM Radeon 8500 for about $10-20 more then a GF3 Ti200.
You'll get better performance in 3D games, you get a slightly better 3D feature set, you get better 2D quality then virtually all GF3's, you get Dual display, and DVI-Out natively, the best DVD playback in the industry, and a better FSAA implementation.
All for... slightly more then a GF3 Ti200?
Damn appealing IMHO!

 

[bevancoleman]

The ATI 8500 is only faster than a GF3 Ti500 in 3dmark and thats only a benchmark not a real game

in the latest video card comparison on anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=9
which includes Nvidia GF 3 and 4 and ATI 8500 and 8500LE the 8500 show as following

Quake III Arena - 1/2 between a Geforce 3 and Ti500

Serious Sam: The Second Encounter - 8500 is slower than a NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200 and NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 460

Return to Castle Wolfenstein - Slower than a Geforce 3

Unreal Performance Test 2002 (Build 856) - Slower than a Geforce 3

3dMark 2001 - Faster than a Ti500 and the GF4 MX

Strange that ATI is ONLY faster in 3dmark, stikes me that this looks like a case of optomising for a benchmark!! I wonder if anyone has tried renaming 3dmark, possably to 3dbark or even 3dbarf


In terms of upcomming games (Doom 3!!!!) here is a quote from John Carmack after comparing ATI 8500 and NVidia GF3 performance
"I can set up scenes and parameters where either card can win, but I think that
current Nvidia cards are still a somewhat safer bet for consistent performance
and quality."

and on Nvidia drivers in general
"Nvidia's OpenGL drivers are my "gold standard", and it has been quite a while
since I have had to report a problem to them, and even their brand new
extensions work as documented the first time I try them. When I have a
problem on an Nvidia, I assume that it is my fault. With anyone else's
drivers, I assume it is their fault. This has turned out correct almost all
the time. I have heard more anecdotal reports of instability on some systems
with Nivida drivers recently, but I track stability separately from
correctness, because it can be influenced by so many outside factors."

He also says that GF4 MX isn't really a good buy for Doom 3, it works fine but lacks many featuers that can be used by the new engine.

 

[Daovonnaex]

<< in the latest video card comparison on anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=9
which includes Nvidia GF 3 and 4 and ATI 8500 and 8500LE the 8500 show as following

Quake III Arena - 1/2 between a Geforce 3 and Ti500

Serious Sam: The Second Encounter - 8500 is slower than a NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200 and NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 460

Return to Castle Wolfenstein - Slower than a Geforce 3

Unreal Performance Test 2002 (Build 856) - Slower than a Geforce 3 >>


The situation is vastly different now if you use the 6018 and up (6018, 6025, and 6032) beta drivers. In this situation, the 8500 will win much of the time. Besides, frame rate really isn't an issue with any of these games (though higher frame rate is desirable). What is more important (IMO, I suppose) is feature set and image quality. The 8500 has superior FSAA and higher quality images, especially with Truform enabled games.



<< 3dMark 2001 - Faster than a Ti500 and the GF4 MX

Strange that ATI is ONLY faster in 3dmark, stikes me that this looks like a case of optomising for a benchmark!! I wonder if anyone has tried renaming 3dmark, possably to 3dbark or even 3dbarf >>


It's not due to driver optimization. The reason is that the 8500 has superior and more powerful hardware than the GF3 line and the GF2.5 (I refuse to call it the GF4 MX).




<< In terms of upcomming games (Doom 3!!!!) here is a quote from John Carmack after comparing ATI 8500 and NVidia GF3 performance
"I can set up scenes and parameters where either card can win, but I think that
current Nvidia cards are still a somewhat safer bet for consistent performance
and quality." >>


I'm not going to disagree there, especially given nVidia's excellent track record. However, ATi is converting to a unified driver structure and we've already evidenced better drivers from them (e.g., 6018). Therefore, you really wouldn't have a problem with either of them.



<< and on Nvidia drivers in general
"Nvidia's OpenGL drivers are my "gold standard", and it has been quite a while
since I have had to report a problem to them, and even their brand new
extensions work as documented the first time I try them. When I have a
problem on an Nvidia, I assume that it is my fault. With anyone else's
drivers, I assume it is their fault. This has turned out correct almost all
the time. I have heard more anecdotal reports of instability on some systems
with Nivida drivers recently, but I track stability separately from
correctness, because it can be influenced by so many outside factors." >>


Historically ATi has never been stellar at OpenGL (not counting the FireGL line, of course). However, that is already changing.



<< He also says that GF4 MX isn't really a good buy for Doom 3, it works fine but lacks many featuers that can be used by the new engine. >>


Probably because it's based on the NV17 core, which is simply a supercharged NV15 (which in turn is essentially a supercharged NV10--which appeared three years ago) with some NV20 features.

In case you think all of my reasoning is due to ATi bias, it isn't. I'm using an Asus V8200 T5 Deluxe in my current config, which is essentially a GeForce 3 Ti500 with VIVO features. I'm satisfied with its frame rates, but not with its feature set nor its 2D quality. The card I had prior to this was a 3dfx Voodoo 5500, and prior to that a Matrox G400. I do have a Radeon 7500, though, on my cheapie/free system, which I purchased for value reasons.

 

[bevancoleman]

I agree you can get better scores with different drivers, but at the cost quality/stability in other games. They noted in the artical as why they choose those drivers, they couldn't run some of the other benchmarks with the betas.

Personally I always choise drivers that have stability, quality and then speed in that order, so based on that you can hardly use a set of drivers that will only run well in a singe game / benchmark as the bases for an entire benchmark?? You do have to take into account that the drivers might be taking advantage of a 'shortcut' which will not work in the long run and the final driver might be just as slow as the release ( the 6035 betas allready have reduced the lead over the release drivers ).

Also in all the driver comparisions of I have seen only VillageMark and 3DMark 2k1 benifit to any degree from the new drivers. Games like Quake 3 seem to stay stable, and in fact have a large performance cut with the new 6032 beta drivers.

http://www.epigamer.com/article.php?a=28 (last page for 6032 update)

I will say though it is very hard to find an artical wich is trully bananced, I have seen many sites benchmarking ATI on slow release drivers to beta nvidia and vice versa (the 23.11 are stable, but not very fast in comparision to 27.xx).

Practically all articals that I have seen recently (that don't appear to have a huge bias) seem to put the 8500 between the Ti200 and the Ti500, and given John Carmack (id software) comments, particularly regarding the high polygon scenes (ATI think there is a may be a HW flaw, ie not fixable by a new driver) I have trouble seeing why many people consider the 8500 to be faster than the Ti500.

Nvidia needs to convinced it's manufactuers to life their game when it comes to the RF filter and improve 2d quality, ATI defentily has a lead there. 3d is more debatable, particularly since since SmoothVision is simply a modified version of SuperSampling that Nvidia has since their GF2 cards but since replaced with faster routines since the performance cut was WAY to high. Nvidia and 3dfx where in a simular conflict when Nvidia was comparing SS against 3dfxs AA, 3Dfx refered to SS as a 'driver hack' back then and I can't see why SmoothVision can't be considered in the same light.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1562

 

[GeForceG]

LOL every 10 minutes! It's kind of true in a way!

A Radeon is faster then both the Ti-200 and Ti-500......
Advanced tech. more features I think....

 

[MutoidMan]

<< ... industry-best hardware DVD acceleration... >>



Hands-down industry best DVD acceleration goes to the Sigma Designs Hollywood Plus. I wouldn't bother watching a DVD on your PC with anything else. At $99 for the card and the remote, if you frequently watch DVD on your PC, it is indispensable.

 

[Daovonnaex]

<<

<< ... industry-best hardware DVD acceleration... >>



Hands-down industry best DVD acceleration goes to the Sigma Designs Hollywood Plus. I wouldn't bother watching a DVD on your PC with anything else. At $99 for the card and the remote, if you frequently watch DVD on your PC, it is indispensable. >>

Hollywood II was better, I thought. The R8500's DVD acceleration is industry best for a 3D accelerator. Rage Theatre is pretty good.

 

[MutoidMan]

<<

<<

<< ... industry-best hardware DVD acceleration... >>



Hands-down industry best DVD acceleration goes to the Sigma Designs Hollywood Plus. I wouldn't bother watching a DVD on your PC with anything else. At $99 for the card and the remote, if you frequently watch DVD on your PC, it is indispensable. >>

Hollywood II was better, I thought. The R8500's DVD acceleration is industry best for a 3D accelerator. Rage Theatre is pretty good. >>



It goes by a few names. Hollywood Plus, Hollywood II and one or two others, depending upon who is reselling it. Hollywood Plus is what Sigma Designs calls it, so that's what I call it.

 

[Skibby9]

Given that it is true that all of the GF3 Ti cards and the Radeon 8500 have great framerates in pretty much any available game, I chose the retail 8500 (64MB) for $237 from mwave at the time over the ~$150 Ti200 or ~$300 Ti500 for two reasons: 1. From what I've read in reviews and forums, ATI's 2D is regarded as much better, and 2. With the release of the 128MB 8500 and the R250 cards imminent, the card I have is sure to drop in price-- already $219 at mwave. This means I bought a top of the line card with the option to pricematch using Amex Blue later on. This price speculation and matching is a whole new way of planning purchases for me!

 

[TapTap]

I have owned only Voodoo cards until last year. I knew with the upcoming release of WXP, I should change my video cards to get driver support.
I experimented twice with ATi.
My last try with them was horrific. I still feel it was the biggest sham ever pulled by a manufacturer--I speak of the RageFury Maxx of course. Promised driver support for W2k, game compatibility, and pre-production performance claims all turned out to be (criminally) false.
They knew this was a crappy design, and unleashed it anyway.
I swore never to have an ATi card again, even free.
So..........
Im in BestBuy the other day and see the 8500 All-in-Wonder playing "Gone in 60 Seconds" friggin perfectly.
Then the guy loaded up Max Payne. Geesh, visually looked very crisp, ran great--looked much better than my current oc'ed GF2 Pro (240-460)
Now I am looking at ATi again. I am such a boob.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah the card works well in their system, but everyone is different in specs. You may have trouble running various games when using the 8500 like i did. Also how long did you see Max payne running for? Most problems appear after 30minutes of use when the card heats up and stuff gets really hot in the case. Then you freeze or crash. In a few short minutes you won't see anything wrong at all. Extensive use will show the weaknesses.

 

[Rand]

<<

<< ... industry-best hardware DVD acceleration... >>



Hands-down industry best DVD acceleration goes to the Sigma Designs Hollywood Plus. I wouldn't bother watching a DVD on your PC with anything else. At $99 for the card and the remote, if you frequently watch DVD on your PC, it is indispensable. >>



I disagree, it takes more of the load of the processor then does the R8500, but visual quality is noticeably inferior.

 

[rbV5]

<< Hands-down industry best DVD acceleration goes to the Sigma Designs Hollywood Plus. I wouldn't bother watching a DVD on your PC with anything else. At $99 for the card and the remote, if you frequently watch DVD on your PC, it is indispensable. >>



Hardly indespensible,

The "ONLY" thing the H+ one trick pony is better at than Radeon concerning DVD playback is the CPU load and quality of the video-out and it is only marginally better and comes at the expense of your 2D quality , IMHO that leaves the H+ relegated to use in older, less powerful computers.


For the same price you could get a DVD standalone player, or a Radeon 7500. Both far better buys for the money.



<< after 30minutes of use when the card heats up and stuff gets really hot in the case. Then you freeze or crash. In a few short minutes you won't see anything wrong at all. Extensive use will show the weaknesses. >>



Sounds like you could use some better case cooling. No doubt about it, the new tuner chip ATI uses in the 8500dv generates more heat, but if you have adequate ventilation and cooling in your case, it shouldn't be a problem. 30 minutes is quite some time to generate enough heat to cause problems, probably wouldn't take much imagination to come up with a fix.

 

[BFG10K]

People buy a Radeon 8500 because of its excellent price and fast performance.

The ATI 8500 is only faster than a GF3 Ti500 in 3dmark and thats only a benchmark not a real game

Your benchmarks are far too old. With newer drivers used in many significant games (Quake3, Giants, RTCW) the Radeon 8500 now edges the Ti500 in the results. The difference isn't huge but it's there.