BoozemaN, are you smoking crack? If you are talking about 16bit 1024x768 then ya, the GeForce II eats up the Radeon. But why the hell are you going to get a $200-400 card and play in 16bit?! In 32bit the Radeon starts to open up a can of whoop-***! Here are benchmarks that count....>>>QuakeIII HQ MAX<<<
Secondly, why the hell are you getting a $300 card and connecting it to a 14" monitor?! Get a monitor first (at LEAST a 17"), then get a nice card.
[This message has been edited by LaoChe (edited 07-18-2000).]
LOL the Radeon killed the GF 2 in all res above and including 1024X728 in 32bit colour so don't give me the " the radeon is crap at 1024x768 compared to a geforce2
don't fret unless your goning to playing games at 1600x1024 " what the hell kinda review have u been reading maybe it beat it at 1 site but 1 out of 5 isn't anything!
You know one question I have though, how high of an AGP speed can the Radeon take? Since I run my AGP at a minimum of 89MHz, this is a VERY important question that needs to be answered for me.
will ati support win2k? driver support from ati has always been shotty
the point was that the geforce2 is better at 1024x768x16 and equiv at 1024x768x32 or better (LaoChe -your looking at the worst case sernereo go back to the 32-bit color page)
and I will never run a game a a higher res then 1024 on my 21"
I like to see the ati card up againt one of those gainward's cards.
I know I'm looking at the "worst" case senario but isn't that what you want a BAD *** video card to give you. You want to play the game with ALL the eye candy right? If you don't, stick with a TNT and 640x480 game play. At that res your game will still be fast.
I also have a 21" monitor and I'm looking forward to playing games at 1280x1024 32bit and higher. I can play UT at 1024 16bit just fine now with my Voodoo3 3000. But I do want 32bit color and 1280x1024 res.
If you have a 14" monitor, I would suggest neither a GFII or a Radeon, I'd go with a Voodoo5 5500 and do FSAA 2X or 4X at 640x480 or 800x600.
Ive heard rumour of a Radeon 2....supposedly running 128megs of DDR Ram and twin Radeon GPU's"similar to the MAX configuration......( I know a guy who has stock in ATI and he let me Read his ATI R & D report.....) Now wouldnt that be kick in the ***!
------------------
Just a Few Fries Short of a " Happy Meal "!
"HEY! WHO are all you people and WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY BATHROOM?"
I think a Radeon is the right way to go for anyone, it will be able to kick the GF2 GTS *** ever more when they start revising the drivers for better performance. ATI just made my choice harder though a Voodoo5 or a ATI Radeon? LOL maybe i should get both 1 for my bros comp and one for mine!
Just 2 months away from the NV20 too
BTW I too have heard the Radeon MAXX rumors. There were similar rumors earlier this year concerning the GF2 having similar capabilities. I wouldnt be surprised. nVidia hasnt to this point needed to go this route but if need be, it may be there.
Well its a bad time to buy a GTS 2 anyways, its be well 3 months or so into its production release, 3 months from now, if nVidia handle things like they've been doing, their next product will be pretty impressive too. In either case the Radeon is very nice for what its shown in the preview state, if ATI can kick out its driver updates and different OS support then Radeon will do pretty well. But 3 months from now, if nVidia's next gen card (nv20? nv25? I forgot) is as their production line number would say (nv10 is geforce, nv15 is gts2 right?) then expect some kick *** performance. I wonder how they'll address the mem bandwidth bottleneck...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks