ATI Rage Fury 16mb vs G200 16MB
Home | Reviews and Features | Special Reports | Forums |

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: ATI Rage Fury 16mb vs G200 16MB

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Barrow, UK
    Posts
    21

    ATI Rage Fury 16mb vs G200 16MB

    Have the offer of both cards as a cheap upgrade from intel 3dxpress

    Which one do I go for?

    cheers, Pat
    Northwood 3.2 @ 3.6 air stock cooling
    ASUS PC4800-e beluxe
    1gb OCZ 3500EB
    9800 pro @420/359
    twin maxtor 120 raid-0
    Audigy 2
    XP pro / sp2

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    whitby/ cobourg, ont, canada
    Posts
    1,263
    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
    duron 800@900 - asus a7v - 640mb pc133 - radeon 8500le 128mb - sb live - 16x dvd-rom - 48x24x48 burner

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    1
    G200, higher quality image & stable drivers.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Machias, Me, US
    Posts
    307
    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.
    Please support the diminishing Doom2 revolution by participating in the Internet Deathmatch community. csDoom:
    http://csdoom.sourceforge.net/eng.html
    -Need to Play: Doom2.wad v1.9 + csDoom

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hell :<)
    Posts
    174
    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Barrow, UK
    Posts
    21
    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
    Northwood 3.2 @ 3.6 air stock cooling
    ASUS PC4800-e beluxe
    1gb OCZ 3500EB
    9800 pro @420/359
    twin maxtor 120 raid-0
    Audigy 2
    XP pro / sp2

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Machias, Me, US
    Posts
    307
    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

    [This message has been edited by Gigahert (edited 06-23-2000).]
    Please support the diminishing Doom2 revolution by participating in the Internet Deathmatch community. csDoom:
    http://csdoom.sourceforge.net/eng.html
    -Need to Play: Doom2.wad v1.9 + csDoom

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,979
    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

    This sig In memory of my kid sister, Mandy. Died 14-8-02 aged 30.
    Murdered for nothing at all by Louise Berry

    CALV

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    879
    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).]
    people that drive slow are easy to pass, it's people who drive fast that provide a challange.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •