ATI Rage Fury 16mb vs G200 16MB

P

patwestlake

New Member
#1
Have the offer of both cards as a cheap upgrade from intel 3dxpress

Which one do I go for?

cheers, Pat
 
M

morphious

New Member
#2
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
 
G

Gigahert

New Member
#4
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.
 
P

PeODB

New Member
#5
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
 
P

patwestlake

New Member
#6
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
 
G

Gigahert

New Member
#7
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).]
 
C

CALV

New Member
#8
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
 
D

drzaius

New Member
#9
i thought the ATI drivers got better since the arrival of the RAGE128pro and MAXX.


Notorious AGD: as a dedicated matrox fan i should bitch 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).]
 

Associates