I read all of the Article about the new Radeon 3d card at Tom's Hardware (yea all of it...) and the other reviews and I am a little confused. Toms conclusion said yea its good but only beat the Geforce in a few benchmarks....
It beat the Geforce in EVERY IMPORTANT benchmark. Who cares about framerates in low res or 16 bit mode? Did you gamers bring your GeForce2 GTS home, unwrap it and enjoy quake at 640 x 400 and 16 bit mode? I don't think so. You plugged it in and set the settings on high, the resolution as high as you could and enjoyed pure gaming bliss. The consumer is paying top dollar for a top notch card so the only real IMPORTANT benchmarks use 32 bit and hi res.
In 32 bit and resolutions exceeding 800 x 600 the Radeon mopped the floor with the GTS! In fact the Radeon had better 32 bit scores that 16 in some benchmarks. The card was built for 32 bit.
I am puzzled why Toms or other reviews weren't more excited about this card. It is a certified GeForce2 GTS killer. It also beat the V5 5500 in 32 bit FSAA!
You hardcore gamers out there let me know if I am crazy but shouldn't the only comparison be between 32bit hi res scores? Since that is all that matters to me I am announcing the Radeon as.... (drumroll)
T H E B E S T 3 D C A R D !
Finally got the 600e and the Global win VOS32. Now I need some good ram...
My concern would be that ATI's drivers have been **** in the past and there stuff often boasts great features which have not been used. They also haven't got such a great reputation as 3dfx or Nvidia. Why should I consider this card?
Remember Banana-Dude, Nvidia once had basically no reputation compared to 3dfx.
Your not crazy Doc. It still seems to fall a bit short on graphic quality compared to the V5, but its speed with the FSAA capabilities it does have makes the undisputed king in overall performance\graphics. I'll know for sure as soon as I can get a couple for my small computer shop.
This thing came out of nowhere.
[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 07-17-2000).]
i7 2600k @ 4.6 ghz by Turbo multi - MSI Z68A-GD65-G3 - 8 gig GSkill Ripjaws @ 1600 8-8-8-24 - Corsair H100 Closed loop water cooling - 2 XFX 6870 DD Crossfire - 256 gig Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe and 250 Gig WD Blue Series - PCP&C Turbocool 850 SSI
I read threw Anandtech, SharyExtreme and Tom's reviews and I'm not sure what to think!? SharkyExtreme practicly says it's the best card out there, AnandTech reports that it can barely keep pace With a GeForce256DDR and gets the snot kicked out of it by the G2 64DDR with the Radeon only beating it in one 32bit test. Tom says it keeps pace with new GeForce2 but all he had available to test was a 32MegG2 model.
Tom says the Radeon is more of a hightech road machine like a Porche and the GeForce is more brute force like a Dodge Viper, and he prefers the Radeon. Me, I like raw power! I own a 4x4 Diesel pickup and there's nothing like pulling a heavy trailer up a steep hill, stomping on the accelerator and still being pushed back into your seat. Thats a GeForce!
Now I just wish I owned one instead of playing on someone elses!
[This message has been edited by KilrB (edited 07-17-2000).]
Abit NF7-S Rev2
XP2100+ @ 200x11.5 2300Mhz
512MB Corsair XMS Platnium PC3200 Ultra Low Latency CAS222
Tyan Tachyon G9700 Pro w/Zalman ZM80a-HP Heatpipe
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz
"Fat, Drunk and Stupied is now way to go threw life Son!" Quote: Dean Wormer.... Animal House
Ive read all the review I could find, and I can summarize them into the four most important things about the Radeon:
- It has the best high res 32-bit gaming performance of any card on the market, even the GeForce GTS2, and thats for D3D AND OpenGL. WHO buys a $300+ card and CARES about 16-bit anymore?
- It's geometry engine delivers real-world performance within %95 of the GTS2
- It has some SERIOUS driver issues with:
certain VIA chipsets.
16-bit color (not as important as you think)
- It performs TERRIBLY on Professional OpenGL applications versus the other options avaliable.
Thats all you really need to know, but that doesnt make the decision any easier. ATI has proven they can pull a Nvidia and release a kickass card out of nowhere with good speed and drivers, but the card still has serious issues. On the one hand, their last gaming card was quietly forgotton as far as driver updates go due to porr sales...on the other hand, this is the first time ATI has had something that will actually sell itself.
I would personally wait a month, but I have a feeling ATI will be providing unprecedented support and upmost speed as far as driver updates go.
Wow. Awesome looking card. 16bit performance absolutely blows, but I agree that if you're spending that much on a card, you should be more worried about normally slow 32bit performance. Even on my TNT2 Ultra I try to stay away from 16bit whenever possible. I'm not going to go back to 16bit ever again.
Some points of interest:
800x600x32 with 4X FSAA is fast enough to play
(thats right 32bit AND FSAA at the same time, totally impratical on the GTS or 5500)
1280x1024x32bit is fast to play
T&L keeps up with the GTS
Radeon beats the GTS on Q3 NV15 demo
Too bad it costs $279. If I could pick one up for a bit over $200, I might jump on it. I have a feeling the street price won't dip as low as the GTS, though. And damn, $399 for the 64meg TV!
Its performance is close to the GTS across the board, it won't drop as much with added texture passes, and it has a more expansive feature set. That pretty much covers all that you could want in a video card at this point. Again, too bad it doesn't clearly beat the 5500 and GTS in the price arena.
I didn't think ATI could do it but they pretty much did. It's not perfect, but most of its flaws (VIA problems and 16bit) don't really apply to me or my preferences. And the magic 1024x768x32bit setting flies. 800x600x32bit with 4X FSAA is still not half bad either.
I think its a great card.In 32bit hi res its performance was great in Q3 and in Unreal Tournament.Before i was strugling to decide if to get the V5 because I really like U_T better than Q3, now I can get great U_T performance.....and great performance in Q3.I really hope the potential of the "Charisma Engine" is realised.
In Sharkys preview the Radeon seems to perform very well with the Athlon in some benchmarks....any reasons??
The reason for conflicting reviews is most likely the base system it was used on. I know Tom used a 1Ghz CuMine and Sharkey used an Athlon. Don't know about the others, but I would assume they all would be different. So that might be the reason also, there are two versions of the Radeon card out a 32Mb DDr, and a 64Mb DDR that also might be the problem. Just some thoughts, but since it was only released to the public yesterday it will probably be a week or two before we get some good hard evidence either way.
You should have killed me when you had the chance.
Shuffling through all the benchmarks, the Radeon doesn't beat the GTS in ALL 32bit benchmarks, just most of them. And all the slowest bandwidth limited tests it beats the GTS. I'd say overall its a bit faster than the GTS in 32bit.
Obviously 16bit blows, but who spends $300 to get 16bit? Oh yeah, FSAA nuts. </cheap shot>
If this thing has a street price lower than the GTS, I'm very tempted to jump on it.
BP6, P3-700@770 (for now), 320mb, eVGA MX Plus (dual CRT), waiting for VIVO module
After reading all these initial reviews it appears ATI have learned finally how to compete, that is get the card on the shelves while it is still competitive. They copped out on the drivers a bit basing them on Max versions, but that could mean there is more performance to come.
Out of all the reviews the Anandtech gives the best in detail report and specs. Although the Raidon is faster at 1280 x 1024 generally it gets beaten by the GTS below this.
As usual I want to see it perform as equations, calculations and engineers reports only give half the picture.
[This message has been edited by BladeRunner (edited 07-21-2000).]