Radeon 64 (Awesome!!!) Geforce 2 GTS 64 (yawn...)

[Bartman39]

Well what can I say I just installed my new Radeon 64 VIVO and my former card was the Geforce 2 GTS 64 and all I can say WOW!!! the difference is really there... The 2d & 3d are very bright and stunning as compared to the GF2 GTS. The Geforce card is somewhat faster in 3dMark2000 but shear speed is not what its all about... Visuals are where its at and this reminds me of my G400Max & V3 3K (yep had`em all at some time or another). The Nvidia card (Geforce 2 GTS) was a damn good card and fast as hell but my eye`s really like this new look...


Anyone else care to convey there opinion??? (open can "O" worms)

 

[GoSharks]

brightness could be related to your settings in the drivers/game. is there really that big of a difference?

 

[CoolDude365]

I have heard this also, many people, have said that the Voodoo5's and Radeons 2d image quality is much better then The Geforce2 gts's. Im not sure if its true, thats just what I have heard.

 

[radeonUltra]

It is not just 2D, 3D is amazing, day and night difference!

I used to own a 32MB GeForce2 GTS and have no regrets upgrading to a Radeon DDR. Who cares about FPS, they are both about the same. 3D, DVD and 2D image quality are superior in every way. I know a lot of people that upgrade to a Radeon simply because of sub-par 2D image quality on the GeForce2 GTS.

Want more proof from ex-GeForce2 GTS owners?

http://www.rage3d.com/forum/ubbhtml/Forum13/HTML/000987.html

 

[pidge]

I am to tired to argue. Enjoy.

 

[han888]

i am the one too! i just swap my asus v7700 with voodoo5 5500, and i can see the different, the geforce card just the damn faster, but the image quality is very bad!

 

[Bartman39]

Hi Han888 havent seen ya in a while... So you V5500`in now??? I also almost got a V5, funny how we go for the speed then discover a whole new world...

 

[Oli]

I too changed my Geforce 1 SDR for a Radeon 32Mb and I love it. All the problems I have with the Geforce just disapear, the 2D are excelent, now I can use the 1920*1440 resolution and can read the text, with my geforce I can't. Not talking about the 3D, I play games in 1600*1200 32bits with all details.

 

[Nesta]

How does the Radeon do in Win2K? Anyone?

Thanks.

 

[Looney]

<< brightness could be related to your settings in the drivers/game. is there really that big of a difference? >>



There's a huge difference... and it has nothing to do with the setting... it's the colors themselves. I have a V5 and Radeon 64DDR VIVO, and in Everquest, the difference in the textbox is REALLY noticeable. With the Radeon, i thought i had somehow 'highlighted' the texts, because they were sooooo bright and crisp. I spent over 4 hours trying to figure out if i could do the same thing with the V5 box, and another couple of hours fooling around with the monitor settings, but it's the Radeon itself.

 

[RoboTECH]

How does the Radeon do in Win2K? Anyone?

poorly, from what my friend tells me. Real sluggish performance, even in 32-bit. Kinda unstable, too.

He likes his Radeon alot tho, so he just boots into winME almost all the time.

 

[Napalm]

Yup - tables have turned on NVidia.

They used to produce slightly slower, but better quality cards. Now they produce slightly faster low quality cards. Their marketting is all about benchmark numbers and not video card experience. Given that the V5 and Radeon are more than fast enough (i.e., 1024x768x32bit colour), I can't see any reason to give up quality for an extra 10-20fps that I can't see anyways.

Cheers,
Napalm

PS. I agree that the 64Mb Radeon is easily the best card I have owned thus far.

 

[Doomguy]

Napalm: How does nvidia release lower quality cards? Besides the S3TC issue in Q3 which is carmack's fault how is the radeon better for game? NVidia dosent have nearly as much pixel popping as 3dfx and ATi due to their opengl drivers being geared to also work for 3d modeling apps.

 

[TempusIrae]

I have a prophet II ultra hooked up to my SGI 1600SW through DVI and it is superb. I had the same monitor hooked up through a Matrox G400MAX with the DVI add-on and it was nowhere near the same quality. I assume that had to do with the limited refresh and resolution. Everyone is bashing the GeForce for 2D clarity, there are simple alterations to fixing the problem to bring sub par with Matrox cards. I agree that it is a pain but you are by far not limited. You have 2 options, DVI or alterations to the RF Filters.

 

[Taz4158]

There's no doubt the Radeon smashes the nVidias in almost every way. About time people started to realize it.

 

[ScottG]

Tempus, you say you have the SGI panel and you use the prophet with digital out? I thought that the prophet only had digital out res. max of 1024 by 768? Are you not displaying in the native 1600 by 1024? I am asking all this because I just purchased the SGI panel w/ multilink and I am trying to figure out what video card to use (like you I am intrested in digital out only.) I am the one who posted that question on the wonder radeon displaying 1600 by 1024 - thinking that other cards like the prophet (despite the superwide savy SGI designation) only would display 1600 by 1024 in analog, not digital.

 

[Babrone]

I bought a radeon 64 and I love it, but I really doubt there is all that much difference in the cards. In fact, if the V5 was available for $145 about a month ago I would have bought it instead. With new cards coming out every 6 months it makes more sense to get the best price/performance card which is the voodoo. I'm sure all three cards run games fine, and all three will be considered outdated soon, so unless you can afford 300-500 bucks every six months I would have to change my vote to voodoo. On the other hand, if you want to keep your card for a long time the radeon may have a little better lifespan with its few DX8 capabilities.

 

[TempusIrae]

I have a Prophet Ultra not the GTS. The GTS has a problem with the internl TDMS transmitter to DVI and thus can only support 1024x768. The original Prophet DDR-DVI and the new Ultra has an external TDMS transmitter from silicon image that handles up to 1600x1200. You have you run Detonator 3 drivers to support 1600x1024. I am currently running Win2K pro since it have native support for the 1600SW. Win9X I know does not have built-in support for that LCD. Gotta love that SGI Price drop. As soon as I saw it, I drove to the SGI offices 20 minutes from where I live with my VISA and picked one up = )

 

[ScottG]

Are you saying that Hercules supplies (detonator 3?) drivers that will support the 1600 by 1024 on digital output? Are you also saying that these drivers will or will not work with Win 98/me (or does win2k have drivers that obviate the need for the detonator drivers)?


Thanks again (yeah, the SGI current price is a steal.)

 

[BFG10K]

RoboTECH:

He likes his Radeon alot tho, so he just boots into winME almost all the time.

He should be booting into Windows 98 SE. Windows ME has significantly slower framerates than Win 98 SE.

 

[Prospero424]

I just got my Radeon 64 and I have been reading the forums alot trying to guage people's reaction to it versus the Geforce2 (which was my second choice.) So far I have been surprised by the favorable remarks made for the Radeon; I had thought more people would flame back with responses like &quot;NO WAY, my Geforce2 kicks the crap out of your Radeon's 3DMark2000 score any day.&quot; However, I have been disappointed by the fact that even the Radeon owners are saying that the card is slower than the Geforce2. This is only a true statement if you use the default 3DMark benchmark (1024x768x16bit color.) or one of even lower quality. I don't know what most people run at, but with a DDR card and a 19&quot; perfect flat monitor, I like to run in 32bit color at resolutions of 1024x768 or 1280x1024, sometimes higher. At these quality settings, the Radeon is no slower than the Geforce2, in fact, at 1280 and higher, the Radeon is actually a bit faster than the Geforce2 because of the HyperZ function (fancy-named limited hardware clipping.) When taking into account it's having the best quality DVD decoding and the clearest TV-out on any consumer 3D card, I'd say I made the right decision, and I've got the 3DMark2000 scores to prove it (I have the fastest score at 1280x1024x32 and above for my processor speed, which is an Athlon classic, 550mhz overclocked to 700mhz with PC100 RAM.)
Cheers

 

[snow patrol]

Win ME has almost identical frame rates to Win 98, as far as I know...

 

[Prospero424]

I'm using ME with an AMD 750 chipset, what finally made me switch was DirectX8. When I installed it, my ME scores shot past my 98SE scores for the first time, but I am still using the 3063 drivers for my Radeon rather than the DirectX8 optimized beta drivers because they seem a bit slower and cause me not to be able to play Sacrifice.

 

[RoboTECH]

BFG, he likes WinME. I don't.

Doomguy: &quot;NVidia dosent have nearly as much pixel popping as 3dfx and ATi due to their opengl drivers being geared to also work for 3d modeling apps. &quot;

now, now, now. you are merely parroting what Ben has written here, and you can't name a single instance, other than a 3d modeling application, where the 5500 has issues with pixel popping, you silly guy you!

Seriously. 3dfx doesn't do professional OGL apps for $hit. I couldn't care less WHAT type of score it gets in SPECperfview. It means nothing to me. Games are another story, and that &quot;pixel popping&quot; you speak of (because Ben told you so) simply doesn't exist in games bub. Sorry.

 

[BFG10K]

Win ME has almost identical frame rates to Win 98, as far as I know...

Read some reviews of it. Every single one I have read had 3D gaming benchmarks and the framerates were lower.

Also I recently visited my friend and he had upgraded to Windows ME since I last saw him. We ran some timedemos and every single game we tried was slower under ME. For example, in GLQuake he was getting 96 FPS versus the 108 FPS he got under Win 98 SE. While you might not notice that while playing, it is a significant difference.