Radeon Performance (anand's vs hardocp)

G

Guest

Guest
I have to say that Anandtech's recent review of ATI's radeon vs. the GF2 GTS was interesting. Hardocp found a much different result. They found the 32 meg radeon (166mhz) beating a 32meg GF2. Anandtech didn't push the resolution but they did a 64meg radeon (presumable 183mhz) vs a GF2 64meg (which isn't faster than a 32meg). The GF2 beat it, often fairly substantially (I'm not too intested in w2k scores). I admit the hardocp article wasn't perfect, but I'm surprised at the difference. It would have been nice to see anantech test at higher than 1024x768x32 but even these results are often too far apart. Of note was that the radeon did triumph in Alice (basically more demanding Q3A) yet lost in mercedes benz truck racing. Even so, hardocp really messed up.
 

rcf84

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
3,694
0
22,780
Maybe:

The 32mb DDR radeon is better then the 32mb GTS

But the 64mb GTS is better then the 64mb DDR radeon

Could be you never know?

:cool: First person to get a topic banned. ABIT BP6 Lives FOREVER!!! :cool:
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
Look at these benchmarks at ZDnet Gamespot, here is a snippet from the review about the Radeon 64:

<font color=purple>In 3D WinBench 2000 and at the highest Quake III resolutions of 1280x1024 and above, the Radeon outperformed all other cards except for the GeForce2 Ultra.</font color=red>
<A HREF="http://www.zdnet.com/gshw/filters/products/review/0,12835,374987,00.html" target="_new">http://www.zdnet.com/gshw/filters/products/review/0,12835,374987,00.html</A>

Kinda interesting when you compare the scores to the Geforce GTS 2 Ultra and the Radeon. May even make you wonder if all the extra money for the Ultra is even slightly worth it.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 02/20/01 10:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

tfbww

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2001
211
0
18,680
Funny that I saw this thread as I just read the anandtech article:

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1422 " target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1422 </A>

The gist of it is that Radeon is NOT ready for use in Win2k. The article compares the Radeon 64 DDR (driver 5.13.1.3100) and the GTS 64 DDR (driver 6.50) in 1024x768x32. While the Radeon generally underperformed compared to the GTS anywhere from 5-30% in Win98 (w/ the exception of Alice where they were equal), the Radeon was just undone by its drivers in Win2k. The GTS lost ~10% in two games and gained 10% in Alice going over to Win2k while the Radeon lost 40% in 3 games, 20% in one, 10% in another and didn't even work w/ Serious Sam.

As for those Gamespot results, the ULTRA CRUSHED the Radeon by around 35-40 fps depending on the tests where the resolution was 1024 or greater. You might want to reread those results before you stir up a new batch of ATI kool-aid.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tfbww on 02/21/01 11:47 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
You might want to reread those results before you stir up a new batch of ATI kool-aid.
Well tfbww I did, I went back and reread:

<b>ZD 3D WinMark 2000: 1,024 x 768, 32-bit, 32-bit z :</b>
<font color=red>ATI Radeon 64MB DDR <b>101 fps</b></font color=red>
<font color=blue>Prophet II GTS 64MB 95 fps</font color=blue>
Radeon 6% faster

<b>ZD 3D WinMark 2000: 1,280 x 1,024, 32-bit, 32-bit :</b>
<font color=red>ATI Radeon 64MB DDR <b>70 fps</b></font color=red>
<font color=blue>Prophet II GTS 64MB 61 fps </font color=blue>
Radeon 15% faster

<b>Quake III Arena Time Demo 1280 x 1024, 32-bit:</b>
<font color=red>ATI Radeon 64MB DDR <b>50 fps</b></font color=red>
<font color=blue>Prophet II GTS 64MB 47 fps</font color=blue>
Radeon 6% faster

<b>Quake III Arena Time Demo 1,024 x 768, 32-bit</b>
<font color=red>ATI Radeon 64MB DDR 77 fps</font color=red>
<font color=blue>Prophet II GTS 64MB <b>81 fps</b></font color=blue>(wow!!!!!!its better, I told you so.)
Prophet 5% faster.

These are the test at 1024x768x32 or greater between Radeon and GTSII. tfbww I was replying to an earlier statement about maybe the 64meg GeForce II GTS was better than the 64meg Radeon (as in faster, there are other qualities I consider also that are important). Now if you want to compare a $500 card to a $199 card be my guest. Still the Radeon 64 is signicantly cheaper than a 64 meg GeForce II GTS. On Pricescan.com these are the cheapest prices listed:

Guillemot Hercules 3D Prophet 2 GTS Ultra AGP 64mb $497.12 plus $11.95
VisionTek GeForce2 GTS 64MB $292 plus $6.95 for shipping
ATI Radeon 64MB DDR w/Video In/Out $198.99 plus $7.99 shipping
(On Pricewatch.com you can find cheaper prices but the price range between them is approximately the same.)

So why would anybody who is a high resolution 32bit gamer (best quality) buy a card ~ $100 more with slower benchmarks, poorer 3d rendering, poorer 2d and less features? Also note that after the Detonator III drivers came out the Geforce II GTS series overtook the Radeon at the Higher (>1024x768x32) resolutions which it dominated. Now ATI newest drivers outdoes the nVidia newest drivers in high resolution 32bit color, so who has the better driver team? But, but this isn't about W2k, yeap, I am talking about Win9x here comparing Geforce II GTS to Radeon. Now if you are a hard core gamer in W2k then buy a Geforce II GTS line or greater, that is if you can afford one or dual boot like many of us do. I wish the performance of W2k for games was as good as Win9x so that I could get rid of WinMe but I am not going to pay extra for something that is blurry (2d), less DVD and video qualities and less advance features for a few FPS. That is only my choice and may not be yours or anyone elses.
 

tfbww

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2001
211
0
18,680
To put things back in perspective, your ONLY comment on the article was:

Kinda interesting when you compare the scores to the Geforce GTS 2 Ultra and the Radeon. May even make you wonder if all the extra money for the Ultra is even slightly worth it.
My reply was well within its bounds when you realize this was the only quote I could be referring to. As for your quoted price, you can get a Visiontek Ultra for $100 less w/ the same performance (no VIVO, though). The performance of the Ultra is quite out of the realm of the Radeon and can certainly justify an extra $200 if you have the money. (Give up the blurry comments; while the Radeon is certainly better, the GeForce isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination.)

So, your changing back to comparing the GTS seems a bit incongrous with the post I replied to. Regardless, going over to the Anandtech article where multiple games are tested reveals some slightly different performance (listed below) and not in just Win2k. I put what the drivers were in my previous article but let me know if there are newer ones, since I honestly don't know which ones are which anymore. Gamespot didn't mention which drivers it was using for any of the products which is damn annoying when they play such a pivotal role as the one we are discussing. These benchmarks at least give the person a reasonable excuse as to why the would buy the more expensive card (~10% performance gains on avg). As for the price you quote, again, you can get the Hercules for about $25 less than you quoted ($270+$5).

------------------------
Rune
Radeon Win98 58
Radeon Win2k 48
GTS Win98 66
GTS Win2k 58

Expendable
Radeon Win98 87
Radeon Win2k 47
GTS Win98 93
GTS Win2k 93

MDK2
Radeon Win98 87
Radeon Win2k 79
GTS Win98 112
GTS Win2k 99

Alice
Radeon Win98 46
Radeon Win2k 46
GTS Win98 43
GTS Win2k 47

Q3A
Radeon Win98 81
Radeon Win2k 80
GTS Win98 99
GTS Win2k 99

Serious Sam
Radeon Win98 42
Radeon Win2k Failed
GTS Win98 47
GTS Win2k 47

UT
Radeon Win98 82
Radeon Win2k 45
GTS Win98 85
GTS Win2k 83

MBTR
Radeon Win98 55
Radeon Win2k 34
GTS Win98 63
GTS Win2k 64
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
Just remember that Gamespot is talking about resolutions of 1280x1024x32 and above. Below those the Geforce II GTS dominant. Good point on drivers, picking and choosing different drivers on a series of video cards can have a big influence on comparisons. $400 for an Ultra is more resonable, but if your monitor is limited to 85hz (meaning it is only updating the screen at 85 times/sec) then any frame rate greater than 85 FPS is just wasted processing that you will never see. Right? There is a good comeback on this by saying the minimum frame rate you will see is higher for the Ultra then the Radeon and I would have to concede for the most part. Since I just don't play games on my computer, 2d clarity or sharpness is a major concern of mine and I also use my computer for DVD and TV watching. So in my case the Radeon is the better deal. I fully understand for others that are die hard gamers that the Ultra would be a better choice especially a W2k gaming machine. Best prices can be found on PriceWatch.com, I used PriceScan.com for ease and speed to post my post. Are you sure about the 10% increase with the Ultra? I think it is more than that, as in 30-40%. Correct me if I am wrong.
 

tfbww

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2001
211
0
18,680
Sorry for the confusion at the end there. The 10% was if you took Anandtech's numbers comparing the GTS and Radeon, albeit at the lower resolution.

I know Gamespot just reopened their hardware section but they're going to have to a better job than they are. Not saying driver versions, comparing to the "average" video card and using 1 game and 1 ZDNet benchmark just doesn't cut it. There's a friggin' Voodoo in those comparisons for pete's sake. I mean, come on, really.
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
lol, well AnandTech did good by exposing ATI's lacklusty W2k drivers. Maybe ATI will take heed not to mention that there are some folks that use Linux, once again nVidia looks good. So comparing video cards does have many factors to consider. I will be building a Linux box in the near future and you can bet a non ATI card will be installed. Reason, no direct support from ATI with Linux. Now on the Radeon, OpenGL games and programs in W2k run just as good if not better then Win9x. Bottom line, W2k D3D stuff just plain sucks on the Radeon, ATI get with it.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 02/21/01 03:12 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Those scores are from before Nvidia introduced the detonator 3 drivers. Initially the radeon was faster than the GF2 GTS, but the detonator 3 drivers increased performance about 10-20%!
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'd like to believe that, but that's not why. The GF2 GTS 32/64 meg perform almost identically in even the most demanding situations let alone 1024x768x32.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Maybe we should think twice before we take anything Snrub has to say about the Radeon at face value..... He is completely misinformed when it comes to the Radeon LE and the VE... he confuses some of their descriptions, and has been giving bad advice to people on the forum... try reading the previous posts here and in the overclocking 3d section.... I think you know alot about the retail, but before you give advice, make sure you know ....


-AMD's are not for the faint of heart... Intels? those are for newbies :eek:)-
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
I beginning to doubt the validity of those benchmarks due to the lack of info on what drivers where used. The article was supposenly updated 1/22/2001 but what in the article was updated I havn't a clue. I should have looked at it more carefully before posting here. Anyways as it stands ATI needs to iron out there W2k drivers particulary in Direct 3D, appears OpenGL doesn't suffer the servere performance loss from going from Win9x to W2k. From my experience OpenGL applications (TrueSpace 4.3 and 5.0) and Games run virtually the same between Win9x and W2k. Truespace 5.0 runs much better in W2k then Win9x particulary with OpenGL API vice D3D. Virtually anything D3D in W2k with the Radeon runs significantly slower then when in WinMe.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 02/21/01 05:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
This is all moot, GTS 32 megs cost 175 bux these days, it performs better than Radeon 64 megs (195 bux) in most (if not all) games. So this is all just a moot thing. 2D on GTS is all right, much much better than most of cards 1 or 2 years ago...

By the way, anything above 10x7x32 becomes choppy on any card anyway.
On the way out, take a look here: http://www4.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q4/001204/geforce2ultra-04.html

K7 + KT7A + MX300 + VooDoo3000 = :smile:
P3 + CUSL2-C + MX300 + Asus7700 = :smile:
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
By the way, anything above 10x7x32 becomes choppy on any card anyway.
I don't know what games you are playing but any card? My minimum resolution for playing games is
1152x864x32 and the Radeon is as smooth as silk. Maybe even smoother. Those benchmarks for the Ultra are pretty impressive too I am sure at 1600x1200 on an Ultra would be pretty smooth as well. So the GTS 32 performs better in games how about all the other things that maybe important to someone purchasing a video card, as in:
*better 2d
*better DVD
*better video scalling of an image without any artifacts
*better color
*better rendering of 3d scenes
*better drivers
*better FPS in games
*better in being trouble free, low maintenance
*better support
*better W2k support and performance
*better linux support
*better support for future type games as in more Directx8 support
*better OpenGL drivers
*better video in/out
Well in a number of areas the Radeon beats the Ultra :eek: . You don't say so, my gosh. In other areas the Ultra wipes the Radeons behind :redface: . Maximum FPS doesn't always equate to a better card for a given person :frown: . If I really don't play games or do 3d work and all I do is 2d web authoring and watch movies on my computer than a Matrox may be the best :smile: . Anyways I hope you are getting my point :wink: . In the near future I will be building a linux machine and I need a graphics card that has good support :eek: , low and behold that GTS II mx is starting to look good. I may go with Matrox as well depending on how good of support they have. I hope future reviews cover more than who is top dog in numbers, like FPS. I've seen a Geforce II GTS 2d quality, played around with it, I am not impress, thus a purchase of my Radeon 64 ViVo Retail and been very happy with the purchase and performance is beyond what I expected :smile: .

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 02/22/01 01:31 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
Who in the world will want to watch a DVD movie on 20” (in the bestest case) monitor? Are you nuts? With 45” TV and stand-alone DVD unit (which wipes ars with any ATI card in image quality) I am crazy enough to do that? And who in the world is buying GTS to stare at 2D, I have a VooDoo for that matter, which has 2D not worst than any ATI card was ever released, Linux supports VooDoo right after the installation.

I assume you are joking about W2k support and performance, right? As I have said before, I don’t need any TV in and out thing, I have a TV for that matter, and today’s cameras have a USB or Firewire support if I need to transfer any video staff into the PC. My Asus7700 is ok if I will really need one.
And yer Radeon 64 (not 32) does not even comes close to a GTS 32 in most of settings, just in the highest settings it takes a small lead, which is nothing, cos as I have said, the game becomes choppy at those settings, I cant stand if it jerks even once within a play. I am playing SOF, Q3 and UT for that matter.

I had AIW, so I know what you are trying to get across. This is old song; I have no need to stare at monitor 3 feet away to watch a movie anymore. I can just turn my head and see it on the TV set while doing useful stuff on the monitor. For video editing I prefer Maxtor, there is no match for it. I just don’t do it now, so VooDoo does just fine for all 2D stuff I do (writing code mostly, reading stuff). Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying Radeon is bad, I am just saying that for games GTS is better anyway you turn it.


K7 + KT7A + MX300 + VooDoo3000 = :smile:
P3 + CUSL2-C + MX300 + Asus7700 = :smile:
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
lol :lol: :lol: , use your Voodoo to write code, is that because the GeForce 2 GTS is blurry? Get a headache? Once again proving that GTS 2d is lacking somewhat. I play QuakeIII at 1152x864x32 everything MAXED, no choppiness here, too bad your GTS doesn't do that. I am happy you can turn your head while writting code and watch your 45" big screen TV with a DVD playing. I do that while I am modelling or coding with the DVD playing right in front of me or I watch the news buddy while I am working. The Radeon hardware support takes most of the load off the cpu so I can definitely do more than one thing at a time. I don't need multiple computers to do individual tasks either. Some people have hours upon hours of video on tape which they will like to trasfer over to digital not to mention people who still use analog video cameras. Meaning Firewire may just be useless for some folks at this time. Getting back to games, people over and over again who had GeForce II switching over to the Radeon says that the Radeon was smoother in 32bit gaming, less jumping around in framerate. When the complexity of the scene goes up the GTS slows way down while the Radeon slows down less (probably due to HyperZ) which makes the GTS gets choppy on complex scenes in the moment of battle. Who cares that the GTS can do 150 FPS while your monitor is only updating 85 times/second at a high resolution but then jumping down to 21FPS when the battle begins when you need the framerate, while the radeon doing 110FPS max but doesn't dip below 45 FPS during the same scene giving you smoother game play. In other words the GTS framerate jerks all around the place while the Radeon is more smooth and consistent. Average FPS means little if the minimum framerate hits a point where it becomes jerky as in the GTS. So are you saying the better solution is to have one computer for games, another for coding and a TV with a DVD player to watch DVD's? Well maybe you should buy a X-Box for that big screen TV and junk the GTS computer and keep the Voodoo for serious work. Myself I will just keep my radeon and do all those above. Oh if you didn't know I do have TV out so if I wanted to I could hook up a big screen TV and not only watch DVD's but also play some awesome games too (no need for Xbox). Oh if you didn't know the Radeon with a special cable can be outputted directly into a High Definition TV (even more awesome game play and DVD watching). lol :lol:
 
G

Guest

Guest
I've taken what you've said seriously, dxkj and after looking extensively at some different places where I originally got my information here's what the problem is. I've been correct about the VE, but I was wrong about the LE. The VE should definately be avoided.

The problem is that I've seen the LE described differently in different places. eg. Described as both SDR and DDR. And this is not just from "some guy" it's from people who sell the product. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the LE is a slower DDR radeon (148meg) with no hyperZ (I've seen it advertised both with and without hyperz). I affirmed these specs before reading your other replies, you seem to be getting a bit pissed with me and I guess you have the right to be. The problem is that while in the middle of exams my brain tends to be thinking about a millions things at once and I have a tendency to confuse facts. Big problem there, when I sit down to do message boards I'm not giving it a large percentage of my brain. (and yes you can argue that I should just shut up then)

My thought before was that it seemed to me if the regular 166mhz version costs about the same, why bother with the LE? But now have me doubting whether all sub $100 radeon 32meg DDRs are actually LEs. Even the people selling these cards don't seem to know the difference. For instance I just noticed that anandtech's "top prices" list is misleading. It has the radeon 32meg DDR for $88 yet if you follow their link it turns out to be a LE.

Assuming HyperZ is not apart of the LE you'd be looking at a ~20% performance hit (maybe more), clock for clock with the normal radeon. The problem with this is that the radeon really starts to shine in higher res. but if you take away 20% performance in these situations you may not have a playable frame rate. However, I read some of your other replies in different threads you've reminded me that you can enable it.

The purpose of me starting this thread was to discuss the problems and misinformation about the radeon. I fully admit I was wrong about the radeon 32meg DDR performance, mainly because the hardocp benchmarks were invalid.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Snrub on 02/22/01 02:46 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
Low and behold, ATI released or should I say leaked out a new driver set for W2k 3102. Maybe AnAndTech stirred up some dust. First reports says some improvement in OpenGL but none in Direct3d, which Direct3d is and has been the issue with W2k drivers to begin with. Meaning OpenGL games and programs run just as good or better than Win9x drivers and Directx games and programs suck on W2k compared to Win9x. Buyer beware, if you are a W2k person and play all sorts of games and don't dual boot then think before you buy a Radeon.
 
G

Guest

Guest
yes and no, snrub, the MAIN confusion with the RETAIL Radeon's and the LE's, are that the sellers are MISLEADING THE BUYERS.... if you see a sub 100 dollar card posing as a retail DDR 32MB, it is really an LE.. thats just the simple facts.... most Radeon DDR 32MB go for 140-170....

now to correct you, once again....

hyperZ, you're exactly right! Without it the LE is crippleD!! Solution... do a search for hyperZ in this forum or the overclocking 3d chips forum... you will find a way to fix this using registry files.... The simple fact is that hyperZ just needs to be enabled in software, it is built into the chip...

also, the VE is NOT DDR it is SDR... do not buy this card...

anyway, I appreciate you looking up the info... if you have any questions ask away, I've done extensive research and have facts from people who do reviews to back it up...

Old addage: "Users never prosper" :eek:) Long live the tweakers
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
Check this tread out:
<A HREF="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?start=21&catid=44&threadid=356653." target="_new">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?start=21&catid=44&threadid=356653.</A>

<font color=purple>I will caution you however, ATI's Radeon LE part is made from the regular Radeon parts that failed to work as fully functional Radeon chips. This is why HyperZ is disabled by default on the LE, it's not actually supposed to work on the LE which is why it was turned off. You may be able to get it to work and actually give you a performance boost but there's no guarantee that the card will be reliable with it turned on.

Take care,
Anand
</font color=purple>

This from the boss, Anand Lal Shimpi himself. Wow!!!! Where does he get this information?
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
Wow, what a brain giant we have here, he can code, watch DVD, do some modeling and everything at the same time and everything on the same monitor! That’s the man America was looking for, lol. You made me laugh big time, BWAHAHAHAHAAA, Oh baby, oh man, oh sucker, it's bad, it’s very, very… HAHAHAHAA, funny, oh boy. Ok, hold on, ok, calm down. Anyway, I am wondering, how could you see the code, modeling and DVD at the same time, you have 4 eyes or something, two in the front of the monitor for editing, code and two are watching the movie from the rear? (I wonder what kind of code writer you are if you are watching a DVD while programming, I hope you are doing it for yourself and people are not using what you write :) Anyway, back to the case. I have two machines, that’s right, one is for me (AMD - business and UT sometimes) and one is occupied by my 4 years old “racer” (Intel - I use it sometimes for SOF and Q3 though). That is why I have said that I am using VooDoo for writing and reading stuff, cos it’s my main business machine, not because GTS has bad 2D, it is all right, but I am not using it for my needs, just games sometimes when I get really bored.

As far as Radeon goes, there was no Radeon 64 when GTS came out, and Radeon 32 is not a match for GTS in anyway you turn it. So I am glad you are having such a wonderful card and enjoin it, cos I am enjoin mine as well. And by the way, I am waiting for Radeon 2 for that matter, the first one is just a probe on the ice. Just like the first GeForce was, that’s why I have GeForce 2, not 1. Got that? As I have said, I had AIW Pro before, I know it’s a cool thing to have, it is just I have whole buncha toys now, so I don’t really need AIW to do everything on the monitor anymore. Got married, got a kid, have no time to stare at monitor any more. Like to sit with my honey on the couch and talk while watching a movie. Computer is a strict for business and games. And it is no match for PlayStation as far as games go. If they will put UT and SOF on it, I would think about buying one, otherwise my PC is a way to go for now.

That’s all I had to say, Radeon lover… heh


K7 + KT7A + MX300 + VooDoo3000 = :smile:
P3 + CUSL2-C + MX300 + Asus7700 = :smile:
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
Well that is cool :cool: , watching TV or DVD is pretty easy when I shrink it down into a small window and then force it on top. Radeon is design well in sizing video in a window. Watching the news and browsing is pretyy simple, modelling and listening to some music either by DVD or CD is cool also. Motivational for me. It is actually pretty easy and very addictive once you do it. Putting in time with family is definitely more important then whacking at a key board and watching videos so keep that up. The GF3 looks like a very impressive design chip hopefully the Radeon 2 will compete so that most of us will be able to afford one. I am very happy with my Radeon and I am glad you are getting what you want out of your setups. :smile:
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
Yeah, you are right about the addiction thing. I am not taking off my ear phones ever at work while writing stuff. MP3 roolz as far as compact music goes. But it's different from looking at different things at the same time, so that is why I was wondering about yer ability of doing it :smile: . Listen and work works cool for me, but I can't play clips with Divx;o) and work at the same time (it has the capability to stay on the top as well with window resizing), getting carried away from what I am doing :smile: .

Yeah, I am impressed by the new stuff too, but I do not want to spend $300 each half of the year to get the "bestest" stuff. Once a year is fine though. And it happens with the full system upgrade anyway, I don’t by just a card itself, sound is different, MX300 is more than 2 years in my PCs. Best one for me as far as sound output in MP3s. Will not replace it until find something better, which is not the case now still.

By the way, at work I have 6 PCs and they all have ATI (2 of them Maxtor) cards, really easy for my eyes :smile: .

Have fun… hehe


K7 + KT7A + MX300 + VooDoo3000 = :smile:
P3 + CUSL2-C + MX300 + Asus7700 = :smile: