GF2 GTS or Radeon DDR?

[Marty8]

Finally going to replace my TNT1! I had decided on a GTS2 32MB, but then saw the results of the high poly bench mark at Ace's Hardware.

I've read some comments on the Rage3D forum from people who have apparently switched from GF2 to Radeon and claim better overall performance.

In the UK I can get a Radeon 64DDR for the same price as a 32MB GTS2. Recommendations?

BTW, System Spec...

Celeron 366 @ 550 (soon to be Duron/Tbird @ 900)
128MB
Win98

Marty

 

[Dean]

with either card you will notice a huge increase in performance over what you currently have, and both cards offer basically the same performance. What i feel seperates the cards is quality and features. The radeon's graphics are superb, it basically has more toys and is overall a better buy. That is what lured me to buy it

On the other hand if you use Windows 2000 or plan on using Windows 2000 exclusively in the very near future i would avoid the radeon right now until the get their win2k drivers more stable for 3d(although in 2d they are fine now)as they are kinda slow and quirky in 3d right now under win2k.

 

[Marty8]

Thanks Dean. Win2K is not an issue at the moment, I'll have that running on a second box with my TNT.

My other concern is driver support. Nvidia seems to be very good with updating their drivers regularly. What's ATI's driver support like?

Are there any image tearing problems (due to Hyper Z) in Q3A or UT?

What's the potential for overclocking (mostGTS2's seem to do 220/380+ core/memory)?

Marty

 

[Dean]

Marty trust me, Q3 and UT have never looked as good as they do on a radeon , the drivers for the radeon now are top notch for a win 9x operating system, very stable indeed

as far as overclocking goes, depending on the radeon you buy, if you buy an oem with 166/166 clock/memory you can safely overclock it to around 185/185-195/195.

If you buy a retail board with 183/183 you can crank it up to over 200 easily

 

[hjs]

Radeon all the way

and Because Nvidia leaks Detonators all the time it will not mean they have good driver support, the latest Detonators 3 caused al lot of problems

I upgraded my V550 to a Radeon 32mb DDR and i love it

 

[sandorski]

Yea, don't mistake Nvidias shotgun approach as good driver support. For many people only a few of those countless drivers actually work well enough to use.

 

[LegionX]

for the same price i would take the radeon 64 meg card over the gts 32 easily. probably would take it if it was the 32 meg card too becuase image quailty means more to me than speed. thats why i am stuck still with a g400 and eagerly awaiting the g800. God i hope it comes soon and lives up to what they say it will be even if nvidea has something faster out at the same time.
Image over speed anyday

 

[Jgtdragon]

I agree with most, the Radeon will be a better buy especially if you use or planning to have DVD.

 

[glen]

From what I can gather from people who have both cards, the Radeon looks sharper in 2D at high res only on KDS and Sony monitors. So, why get a Radeon if you don't have one of those monitors?

 

[Hawk]

Do you mean that only people with those monitors have said the 2d is better? How can the image be better for some monitors and not others? Maybe just no one with other monitors have said anything? Anyone actually say the Radeon looks worse? Doubtful...

 

[soljahz]

Radeon all the way !!! I just installed it today removing my gts 2, the colors are more vibrant then the gts. Still can frag alot in unreal tournament. Radeon is one sweet card

 

[BenSkywalker]

From what it sounds like you are looking for, go with the Radeon.

Yes, there are a few problems in UT with image tearing, but they are easy to fix and only show up if you are running the Loki patch(which you should be running if you are using either a GF2 or Radeon).

Trinitron/KDS monitors- Have a problem with GF based boards, as do Radeons although it is far less of an issue then the GF boards. What exactly causes it I haven't seen, but I can tell you that running 1600x1200 on a Sony monitor looks a lot worse then on a Philips monitor when both are equipped with the same GF based board. Clearly the Sony is a better monitor, but nVidia boards don't seem to "get along" with Trinitron tubed monitors(this includes more then just the KDS and Sony models but they are the most popular).

Again, if you are looking for a Win9X gaming board, go with the Radeon, particularly if you can get a 64MB for the same price as a GF2(64MB Radeons are clocked faster then 32MB, it is more then just the added RAM).

 

[silver24]

I traded my GTS 32 meg for a Radeon 32 meg, and its the best trade ive ever done.

 

[PeAK]

There are about 30 reviews
of Radeon based cards using a
stock ATI driver with almost all
of them being favourable.
Radeon Review Links

Image quality issues are
covered at the following sites
Sharky on Radeon's 2D quality Review
Maximum PC Review of Radeon and visual quality
Savage News on Radeon Sharpness
Gamecenter comments on Radeon's outstanding visual quality

Avault's on Radeon 2D quality

 

[UltraWide]

what i want to know is what monitors they are all using!!!!!!!

 

[HotRadeon]

Alright! My Radeon is gonna be at my front door on Monday. I also have a KDS monitor!!!! This is heaven!

 

[rickn]

the radeon is very crisp on FD trinitron tubes

 

[Marty8]

Wow, I'm really surprised that no-one has come on and told me that the GTS2 is the way to go. You guys have sold me on the Radeon - placing the order on Monday, thanks everyone.



Marty

 

[Wooster]

Heard Radeon are better than GTS cards. Unfortunately I am only one had to go for GTS. I got KDS monitor and mainly playing UT on Windows 2000. Guess I have no choice but go for GTS. But think about good side, I got good deal on GTS 64MB DDR. How's those two compares?