Have the offer of both cards as a cheap upgrade from intel 3dxpress
Which one do I go for?
cheers, Pat
Printable View
Have the offer of both cards as a cheap upgrade from intel 3dxpress
Which one do I go for?
cheers, Pat
umm i'm not sure but i think the ati rage fury is better. if you can get it cheap look for the 32mb version
G200, higher quality image & stable drivers.
ATI's Rage Fury was actualy proven to be the better bargain with a superior image quality compared to most cards. I don't know where you got that the G200 offers a better image... I've seen both and the Rage looks a bit better (comparing colors and vibrancy...).
Preformance may be the differnce between them.
G200 Suck bigtime cause it uses a OpenGL Wraper no the real OGL ICD witch means slow OGL ans ATI faster and better OGL or D3D
Thanks everyone - I use mainly 2D, so the lack of native OGL operation isn't so much of a disadvantage. Guess I'll go for the G200 based on better 2D performance, and better overall driver support
Cheers, Pat
Oh,
About the bad driver support for the Rage, that's purely false. Infact, the driver support was so terrible at the begining that it sprung a huge available driver base from people who supported the card - from ATI itself to independent installments from Rage users.
Oh, and also about the stable drivers - my Rage locks up about 1.5% of the time... usualy due to overusage or human error; don't believe everything you hear http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/wink.gif
[This message has been edited by Gigahert (edited 06-23-2000).]
I have a rage fury 32meg, if I could go back in time i would have kept my 2 x 12 meg voodoo 2's nothing but trouble www.rageunderground.com
have a read, never again will i buy an ati product
------------------
Next time you wave, use all your fingers.
CALV
i thought the ATI drivers got better since the arrival of the RAGE128pro and MAXX.
Notorious AGD: as a dedicated matrox fan i should ***** at you for saying that the opengl sucks. but since i'm in a good mood, i'll just tell you. Matrox made a full opengl ICD since the 5.23 drivers and then a turbogl driver with 5.50 driver, which pushed the G400 past TNT2 (@ same clock) in the opengl programs it supported.
the driver that were used in the first few benckmarks of the G400 were the old 4.xx which didn't reflect a good picture of the true performance of G400.
[This message has been edited by drzaius (edited 06-23-2000).]
