Radeon or GF2?

[kamikaze9]

I've been looking to upgrade my video card from my current TNT2 Ultra to either a Radeon 64MB DDR or a GF2 64MB... I've been leaning toward the Radeon because it doesn't lose much performance when you get to higher res and color depth, and it's also about $50 cheaper. Is there any huge advantage to buying a GF2 instead? I play mostly Unreal Tournament..

------------------
[-=Insert Witty Comment Here=-]

[K6-III]

I suggest going with the Radeon. Performance in 32bit and high res is fantastic. They both now support S3TC in Unreal Tournament with the latest patch. The Radeon's picture, though, looks alot better. DX8, when the final version comes out, will certainly benefit the Radeon more. DVD playback is better too. Get the Radeon and enjoy.

------------------
Gimme my TriLevel Cache

[AlbinoPenguin]

Originally posted by K6-III:
I suggest going with the Radeon. Performance in 32bit and high res is fantastic. They both now support S3TC in Unreal Tournament with the latest patch. The Radeon's picture, though, looks alot better. DX8, when the final version comes out, will certainly benefit the Radeon more. DVD playback is better too. Get the Radeon and enjoy.

Agreed entirely. Go for the Radeon.

------------------
AMD Athlon 700@950, 1.85v on an Abit KA7-100
Antec full tower case w/ 300W P/S
ATi 64MB Radeon w/VIVO & an ATi All-in-wonder Pro 8MB
Sound Blaster Live! Platinum w/ Klipsch Promedia 2.04 THX Speakers
Pioneer 10X DVD-ROM & a Ricoh 8X/4X/32X CD-RW
IBM 34.2GB 7200RPM hard drive
256MB Crucial PC-133 RAM
Lots of air cooling


Hail Styrofoam!

I fully support A Nudist's Dream

[RinGo]

I was also wondering which one to get, know i am convinvinced to get the ATI card

[AUDSCOTT]

I have been using a 32 MB GeForce Guilemont 3D Prophet GTS (GeForce 2) for the past months.

I installed a new hard drive and happen to have a Radeon 32 MB DDR lying around that going in a new system, so thought, what ta' heck.

Installation wasn't bad, although the card will not run at 4X AGP, but not much lost there.

Color is nice, but it still does not surpass the GeForce in speed, versatility (games & 2d) & raw power.

I know some albino bastard & his eastern European friend will be along shortly to diagree...but the Radeon still takes a back seat to GeForce IMO.

Now that I'm back to GeForce (few hours after original message posted) - I can definately tell that the GeForce is the end all, beat all.

Now one may aks if the 64 MB Radeon may be better...to which I'd say Hell NO the 64 MB GeForce would be better & ultra will wipe Radeon all over the place.

------------------
Scott

[This message has been edited by AUDSCOTT (edited 11-06-2000).]

[serb2]

AUDSCOT man what the heck you saying the 64MB VIVO Radeon Spanks the Regular 64MB GTS in any High Res Modes under 32Bit and has way better DVD playback and Picture plus its cheaper! Yeah the Ultra can beat it but its 500 bucks!
Alex D

------------------
WTF?? I am just trying to help OK!

[AUDSCOTT]

Serb2,

I just put a 32 MB in, as I explained - it really sucked - not just a little, but a typical ATI lot.

But I didn'thave to reformat & all that crap to go back to the GeForce - it even runs 4X, for what ever little boot in performace I get, versis the Radeon, with wouldn't run AGP 4X even on a freshly formated drive, newest drivers, ect, ect.

Colors - no better, as a matter of fact the GeForce has much nice display characteristics. I don't view DVD's on my computer, that's what I have DVD player/56 inch TV for, but I've heard the Radeon excells in DVD play. There may be on potential advantage in going with ATI.

------------------
Scott

[outside looking in]

Ignore Audscotts drooling unintelligible babble.

The vast majority of reviewers have noticed the superior 2D quality and performance, and 3D image quality of the radeon. I happen to agree. Unless you're running glquake at 16 bit resolution at 320 x 240 then there's no reason to choose a GTS. Yes, you may sacrifice a few fps at the most common resolutions, or pick up a few fps if you have a bad *** machine that can handle 1280 x 1024 or higher. The point is that the performance is very close between the GTS and Radeon, and the Radeon has better image quality in 2D and 3D (Audscott's drooling again), the rage theater chip which is pretty cool, and supports nearly all DX8 features (which means it will perform much better than the GTS in games 6 months from now).

Despite what some people might try to convince you, the Radeon is just as good of a purchase as the GTS. And better if you're not a fps crazed hard core gamer.

------------------
Those who fear the facts will forever try to discredit the fact finders. - Daniel C. Dennett

[AUDSCOTT]

Drooling, maybe, babble - I think not

You're full of it - look at the frame rates (Q3 - UT) at anything but unplayable resolutions for the story on the superior performance of the GeForce - 32, 64 - don't talk about Ultra, you'll be crapping your (already soiled) pants.

I don't think you get the picture. I put in a new HD with the 32 MB Radeon, set it up with the newest drivers, went through a rediculous regement to get the card to "work," at 2X AGP.

Not that the dif between 2X - 4X is great, but sh*t, I paid for performance & I want the thing to perform.

PLayed around with it all day, visited the web page ebok was kind enough to supply in another thread - uh, uh.

Lastly, I aks do you have first hand experience with both cards - I do. The Radeon was noticably, visably slower than the GeForce. I set the driver environment up to disable verticle sync, adjust z-buffer depth & anisotrophic filtering.

The aniasing was horrid. High resolution play non existant. I tell ya' I either got a bad card (doubtit) or you (all 3 of you!!) who are supporting the Radeon are mentally challenged.

Drool on that!!

------------------
Scott

[AlbinoPenguin]

Originally posted by AUDSCOTT:
I know some albino bastard & his eastern European friend will be along shortly to diagree...but the Radeon still takes a back seat to GeForce IMO.

Notice the three key letters. IMO. In My Opinion.

Opinion. That's exactly what it is. And what's with the name calling? Are you six years old or something?

[serb2]

SHUT THE **** UP! Here i can prove it to you little bastard!

[Edit: Do not post benchmark scores from another online publication, we do not want to get into copyright issues]

So i guess that proves in future games the Radeon will spank the GTS when it comes to high qualaty modes and 32Bit colors!
But i guess since ou got P1 100MHZ no wounder your scores suck!
Alex D

------------------
WTF?? I am just trying to help OK!

[This message has been edited by Sander Sassen (edited 11-09-2000).]

[AlbinoPenguin]

Originally posted by serb2:
So i guess that proves in future games the Radeon will spank the GTS when it comes to high qualaty modes and 32Bit colors!
But i guess since ou got P1 100MHZ no wounder your scores suck!
Alex D

No, no, no. You got it all wrong. Here's his computer:





[This message has been edited by AlbinoPenguin (edited 11-06-2000).]

[AUDSCOTT]

Anand review won't link, but the UT benchmard http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1281&p=32 has the v5 outgunning both our favorites here, both in 16 & 32 bit, all resolutions - that is what kamikaze9 indicates is his most played game, followed by the GeForce DDR, SDR in 16 bit & an overclocked (225/205) Radeon 64 MB in 32 bit.

The reason given is the game engine, rather than the cards.

If kamikaze9 is looking for a good value, then the SDR is clearly the preferrance for the "most played game.

Anyone can find benchmarks to support their position, of course, it does help when the purpose is understood first.

------------------
Scott

[Razor6]

Actually the GTS, since the Detonator 3's came out, does beat the 64MB Radeon. Sharky Extreme and a couple other's I have read show this. 1024x768 HQMax, about 71fps for the Radeon and 85fps for the GTS. This does show quite nicely that in the future if ATi releases some better drivers it could catch back up since it was beating the GTS on the older drivers.

-Razor6

------------------
Home LAN routed through a
Linux box with a cable modem
connection == SWEEET

[Zakar]

Thats funny, I don't see the Radeon going into the xbox

I remember the days when all proclaimed the tnt2 to have much better image quality than the v3...very true, I even remember the days when the g400 had superior image quality...true; however, I fail to see just how the Radeon produces better image quality than the GTS??? I have seen both many times, have used both many times, and I can say without a doubt that ATI does not spank the GTS in any manner and if you think it does, you need your head examined. The race is so close it could be easily misconstrued that one might win over the other, but the fact is, with the Det 3 drivers the tides turned. This supposed "superior" image quality is hogwash...the sort of babble people use to help jusity the needless purchase of their Radeons. If you need vivo, then fine, the Radeon is the card to get, but if you like to play games, the GTS is a much better choice.

------------------
http://members.home.net/zachv/Cartman/Cartman.htm