Radeon Or Geforce3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
I would like to nknow which is better to get a Radeon or the Geforce3?
I have used a friends geforce2 and the only thing I did not like about it is does not have the ever good qulity.
Thanks Ron
 
There is a big price difference btween the two, roughly $300!! 3d games - GF3, Video/DVD - Radeon, DX8 GF3, 2d unknown (Radeon has excellent overall 2d while the GF2's had problems). Alot is unknown of the GF3 cards since they havn't been released yet as in Drivers, Hardware compatibility etc.. RadeonII is being taunted as more powerful than GF3 by ATI so a RadeonII maybe your ticket. Another option is to buy a Radeon LE, tweak and overclock it and enjoy the excellent performance and then buy a GF3 or RadeonII when the price has dropped a couple of hundred of bucks.
 
I wouldn't say that. You don't know if the GeForce3 will be better at DVD and Video stuff than the Radeon. Could be. And it will have better picture quality!!

Right now is not a good time to ask this question. In about a month more definate answers will be around.

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
 
Video, GF3 does not have IDCT nor Adaptive de-interlacing. Sorry, Video is and will be better on the Radeon at this time. 2d picture quality, well I will quote Sharky here both on 2d and video:
<font color=green>
<b>2D And Video</b>

Although we did not receive any specifications regarding the RAMDAC speed of the GeForce3, we were told that the card would offer " the same great video and 2D functionality as the GeForce2 family." Generally we have found the 2D quality of the GeForce2 to be lacking in 1600x1200 and above, so we can only hope that the GeForce3 will not suffer the same fate.

On the video acceleration front, the GeForce3 will be offering the same motion compensation engine found on the GeForce2 GTS along with alpha sub-picture blending to ensure those menus and sub-titles are decoded in hardware. NVIDIA's 5-tap horizontal/3-tap vertical filter is in place for the purpose of scaling accuracy. As far as quality is concerned, ATI looks to maintain the crown in this department with their adaptive de-interlacing support.
Click to expand...
</font color=green> :smile: <A HREF="http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/previews/nvidia_geforce3_hands-on/7.shtml" target="_new">http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/previews/nvidia_geforce3_hands-on/7.shtml</A>

Griz, when will you be getting your GF3 so that we can get the real scoop on these things? GF3 is the king of 3d right now for a game card.
 
I probably won't be buying one until summer.

Although GeForce3 is almost an entirely new chip, so i wouldn't make assumptions based on GeForce2 stuff.

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
 
OK the GF3 may not be out for a month and the Radeon II for Months.

I had (have somewhere here) a GF2 32 MB and dropped it for the Radeon 64 vivo. Now I love th quality of the Radeon bu the drivers do SUCK. I have running good in Me now. I had to shut off AGP 4X (not that it does much now). I like the vivo too. I can watch TV as I browse, capture video (TV), play DVD's out without an add on or special edition. It came with a DVD player too (no games like my Gladiac).


As far as price the GF2 can be bought for the same or less than the Radeon I have. The ultra is way more expensive $100++ extra, Pro (5 ns memory) about $50+. I rocomend the Pro. Make sure it is the 64 MB <b>5 ns memory</b> though.

Just as a point of interest: I was unable to get the Radeon to fully boot in XP with any W2K drivers until this last release the other day. And it still won't finish 3DMark2001. My GF2 won't either but I think this may be due to me overclacking it. Need to follow those basic guideluines of overclocking in increments (slowly) and checking the heat if you can. OOPS!!! At least it still runs.

Hey prices are dropping on the GF2 already and it isn't even out yet. I don't think it will be worth it. Can't wait the next generation already. As far as ATI I can't wait to see their next one either but I am very apprehensive to buy ATI with the driver issues. Hope I can make myself wait 'til next year to buy another one.

<b><A HREF="http://www.seti.tomshardware.com/" target="_new">How fast is your PC</A></b>
 
GF3 is probably the biggest quantumjump ever for a video card from one generation to the next.
Look at some of these videos from nVidia 😎 :
<A HREF="http://www.nvidia.com/Products/GeForce3.nsf/action.html" target="_new">http://www.nvidia.com/Products/GeForce3.nsf/action.html</A>
When brain functions return to normal :redface: , figure out how and when to buy a GF3. That was my first impression. I will wait to see how the RadeonII stacks up, for the prices to come down and software to be develope for these new quantum 3d cards. Will ATI be able to compete against the GF3? They are not at the moment, time will only tell.
 
Lets hope they deliver something reasonable and fast enough to compete with GF3, including good enough drivers, that way prices will hopefully come down. My next major card buy may indeed be a nVidia card GF3 line. In the meantime I am looking for a cheap card to run Linux and BEOS on a second computer I will be building.
 
"I rocomend the Pro. Make sure it is the 64 MB 5 ns memory though."
I agree with the 5ns part but why do you think you have to have 64MB? I mean really I have never been in a game that has used more than 25MB of the Video memory. I am buying a 32MB winfast GF2 Pro with 5.5ns memory. I want 5ns but I can not find a 32MB gf2 Pro card with 5ns memory. Just my opinion but 64MB of video memory is a status thing not a performance thing. But I am open to your explanation, just try to justify the $100-$150 extra for the minimal performance gain. Maybe it is better for DVD, I don't know since I don't use DVD on a PC, that is what TV is for 🙂



A revision to mpjesse's signature;
"My Signature Sucks"
 
Well if you start doing 3 to 4 textures per polygon then the 64megs would virtually be necessary at any decent resolution as in 1024x768x32 even with compression. The new game Serious Sam has an option to do 4 textures per polygon. 64megs also becomes more necessary as you go to ultra high resolutions to save you from using the very slow AGP texture memory. As games become much more realistic in higher resolutions then even a 64meg card will become strained. If you are talking about old games than a 32meg cards would be fine.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 03/25/01 00:06 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
Why 64 MB? As you just said they don't make a 5 ns card with 32 MB.

I'm not quite sure I would have to see bench marks but the higher you go in resolution and the more colors used (32 bit) they more memory that is needed. So maybe you do need it because we are buying the faster cards for higher resolutions. I don't play above 10x7x32.

<b><A HREF="http://www.seti.tomshardware.com/" target="_new">How fast is your PC</A></b>
 
Look, the geforce 3 will be released in april from500 to 600$.
And it's a very good card, and it's of course better than the rodeon, so bye it, And like they telling you that the rodeon2 will be released, and it will be better than g3, perhaps it's true but the release of the rodeon2 will take a lot of time, so nvidia will release with it the geforce 3 ultra, don't wait go and get it.
 
ATi is coming out with driver updates on a weekly basis now. I have a Radeon 64 DDR Vivo and cannot say I have had any problems with it. It is excellent and blows EVERY G-Force into the weeds when it comes to 2D quality.

I, too, had troubles getting it to run 3D Mark 2001 but a quick registry cleaning with the Raid On Tweaker fixed that. Now I get a score of 3130 under Windows 2000.

Who says the Radeon is inferior?
 
Well I got 3407 on my 884mhz T-Bird in W2k:
<A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?437979" target="_new">http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?437979</A>
I sure do love my Radeon, one of the best buys I've ever done on computer hardware.
 
How do I know how many textures per polygon there are? I play mostly flight sims, and 800x600x16. I can't go higher than that now becuase of my CPU only PII 350 and I use old TNT2 M64 card. I don't need to go any higher than 1024x768x32, that is what I want. Do you think that resolution needs a 64MB with the GF2 Pro 5.5ns memory?

A revision to mpjesse's signature;
"My Signature Sucks"
 
Flight sims are mostly CPU intensive, meaning your CPU power has more influence than the graphics card over FPS. 32 megs for todays flight sims in 1024x768x32 should be enough.
 
Great! I am building a 1.2GHz Athlon "C" as soon as I can find the K7 Master to put it on. So my CPU should help. How low do you think the GeForce 2 Ultra will drop? I mean if it comes down to $200 I can get that but I can't really go over $200 thats why im looking at the 32MB DDR 5.5ns Leadtek Winfast GTS PRO, core is at 200MHz and memory at 400MHz. It is selling for $155.

A revision to mpjesse's signature;
"My Signature Sucks"
 
That sounds like a very good setup, also the GF2 cards has better FSAA (less performance drop) then the Radeons. FSAA makes flight sims look even more realistic. Between the two cards it will really be mostly the cpu making you fly. The GF2 compared to a GF2 Ultra would be about the same performance except in FSAA then the Ultra would pull ahead.
 
Here is my whole set-up that I am planning on building within a week or 2. I just need to find a good motherboard to go with it. So i'll list everything and feel free to suggest a mainboard, I want the K7 Master but doebt I can get it.
-Athlon 1.2GHz "C" $246 Retail
-Samsung 256MB PC2100 CAS/CL 2.5 $190 Unknown
-IBM 75GXP 46.1GB ATA 100 $160 Retail
-Leadtek Winfast GF2 Pro 32MB DDR 5.5ns $155 Retail
-Sound Blaster Live X-Gamer $75 Retail
-Asus 50x CD-ROM $43 Retail
-Teac 1.44MB 3.5" floppy $17 Unknown
-Enlight 7237 case/fan with 400W Sparkle $150 Unknown
-MS Elite and Intelli Mouse combo $39 Unknown
-KDS 19" AV-195TF (Trinitron FD) $350 Retail
Anyone see any problems with this set-up? Like compatability or anything? Also if I am building this myself do I have to buy the mounts for the floppy and the hard drive? And the cables? Now all I need is a high quality Motherboard, I want the K7 Master!

A revision to mpjesse's signature;
"My Signature Sucks"
 
Actually you can find a 64mb 5 ns geforce 2 pro card for $199 at www.newegg.com

Move Sig. For Great Justice.
 
That is a rather good price for a GF2 Pro, 3dPowers??? Anyways here is the link for it:
<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?submit=manufactory&catalog=48&manufactory=1359" target="_new">http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?submit=manufactory&catalog=48&manufactory=1359</A>

Booky, if you are mainly flight simulator person than FSAA would really make a big difference. A VooDoo 5500 would work well but I would not recommend due to 3dfx closing down. The Guillemont 3d Prophet 4500 has the best FSAA besides the GF3. Look at the benchmarks at AnAndTech and SharkyExtreme, it beats the Ultra and GF3 at times in benchmarks. It is suppose to be less than $200 also. I will look around to see if I can find some benchmarks for FlightSims on the KyroII chip.
 
Looks good, however the product link doesn't work. I thought about the V5500 because it is sooo good for Falcon 4.0 but I think im going to stick wwith the Geforce family. I know nvidia has good drivers and I want a company that will be around for awhile. I will also try to look at the Kyro card, I just thought I heard something about it loseing performance over 800x600, and I want to run 1024x768x32. But hey If you find some reviews please let me know. I know it will hold its own if the 3d Prophet name is going with it.

A revision to mpjesse's signature;
"My Signature Sucks"
 
Hmmmmm, link works for me. Oh well, the Kyro II works better in the higher resolutions due to how it handles polygons using a tiling method. Not sure how it would perform on flight sims, I would expect it would excell there, once again I am not sure. CPU is the biggest factor, faster ram as in DDR would help, decent FSAA card would maximize you flight sim experience. I think you are on the right track. If you must, then go with the nVidia Pro 64 meg version so as to really get use out of FSAA. Note: on most games turning on FSAA wrecks havoc on FPS but not for flight sims. On the Radeon turning on FSAA didn't change the frame rate significantly (like 1-2FPS) in Flight Simulator 2000, but the Radeon was limited to 800x600 resolution with FSAA not the nVidia cards nor the KyroII. Once you use FSAA in a Flight Simulator it is hard not to use it later, it makes that much of a difference, believe me. Reason why FSAA doesn't affect FPS in Flight Sims is that the CPU is the limiting factor not the memory bandwidth of the video card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom