Win2K: Radeon or Gforce?

[Wallydraigle]

I don't play many games, but sometimes I play quite a bit. I am building a new system sometime soon, and can't decide. I've never had either one, but I know everyone has their favorite and will tell me to get that one. The Radeon looks good, but someone told me they have issues with Win2K, is this true? I plan on running Win2K so that will matter. Thanks.

 

[TbirdJayC]

Radeon has superior image quality, and ATI is known for their stability

 

[ikaika1]

You can take a look at the results of the ATI vs NVIDIA w2k article that they ran very recently... It tells alot, although ATI's poor showing has been disputed by more than a few people on the boards. I have a Radeon and its ok in w2k and thats all I use. I cant really say too much besides it works and it looks nice. I cant really comment on the speed...

 

[Hawk]

Radeons don't have issues in Win2k (at least not anymore), it's just that their drivers aren't as fast as their counterparts in Win98. So if you are purely looking for speed (apparently you aren't really), then the Radeon isn't a good choice. But if you want an overall better card (IMO anyway), and don't mind it not being blazingly fast like these 2 cards in Win9x, then there's no problem with the Radeon.

 

[ikaika1]

Thats not entirely true Hawk, a few games still have some minor issies, and ATI in anands test didnt complete a bench in Serious Sam 2 with the 3100 drivers, and even though those drivers are no longer current, I believe they are fairly close to whatever was just released. I could be wrong. Anand is a little harsh on ATI, but I'd have to say that I agree to some extent: The drivers are much better than the originals but way behind where they should be according to the 9x figures. But I wouldnt trade my Radeon for any old GF2 Ultra, even if they were the same price, simply because I love the Radeon 64's VIVO and DVD acceleration.

 

[Shudder]

I just got a RadLE a couple of days ago and like the tests, there's only a few games where the difference really matters.

in Unreal Tournament, I got about a CONSISTENT 35-40 fps in win2k.. Though it never really jumped up high, it never dropped either.

In Win98 I got about 60 almost all the time, not too bad.

I think things can only get better and the performance difference seems to shrink with every driver release.

 

[Biggs]

Here is the link.

 

[Yoshi]

I have had both in my machine in Windows 2000. I'll take the image quality of the Radeon for the small hit to frame rate. I play quite a few games and have not noticed the difference really. No trouble with drivers in terms of stability either.

I would recommend Radeon.

 

[CurtisBilly]

Running radeon le from newegg in win2k with beta drivers....works great! And now newegg has the card w/ tvout for only 93 bucks! Too sweet.

 

[Wallydraigle]

I got a Radeon 64 vivo today but haven't installed it yet. Thanks.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Got it installed. I had no problems <crosses fingers>, and things look good. Thanks.

 

[Hawk]

Cool, hope you like your Radeon.

ikaika1: I am sure there are some guys that the Geforce can't run without problems either (there must be games out there).

But as long as lirion is happy, it's all good. =)

 

[Mustanggt]

They keep coming out with new beta drivers for radeon but there not that great win 2k with a radeon takes a big hit in performace.

 

[SonOfZeuz]

For win2k the gf is far better than the radeon in both performance and drivers. even anandtech posted an article on this and they are known as pro radeon.

 

[Mustanggt]

I have Win ME and 2K in dual boot and I have a Radeon DDR here are benchmarks from 3d mark 2000 Win ME 4333 Win 2K 2712 latest drivers on both OSs. same excact settings on both. Also dont buy a Vortex2 sound card wont work in 2K.