Radeon review inconsistancy

[EdipisReks]

i have been reading a lot of radeon reviews lately, as i have decided to probably get a radeon 64 Mb VIVO when i build my new machine, and i have a question about benchmarks. a lot of reviews show the radeon about 20% slower in 16bit, and 0-10% faster in 32 bit than a geforce2 GTS. however, other reviews show the radeon being trounced in EVERYTHING. i've noticed that the reviews that show the radeon being faster in 32 bit were the earlier reviews from big websites like sharky and anand, and that more recent reviews from smaller sites, like gamebasement, show the geforce's winning in everything. have nVidia drivers in the past 8 months boosted geforce performance by 40% while the counterpart ATI drivers have dropping RADEON performance by 25%? i'm really curious to hear the real scoop. has anyone here gone from a geforce2 GTS to a 64 MB radeon and can report the speed difference?

thanks a lot!
--jacob

 

[EdipisReks]

^BUMP^

 

[fourtwenty]

maybe reviewers are biased because they have hopped on the nvidia band wagon? I really don't know...All I know is that for the features and cheap price I'm going with the 64M VIVO for my next upgrade.

 

[NicColt]

guy, enough already, get a Radeon and get over it.

 

[EdipisReks]

never mind

 

[EdipisReks]

NicColt i'm just trying to make sure that i make the right decision. i would have preferred one of ironduke's tourette's syndrome outbursts to what you just said, at least then we all could have had a nice big laugh. however, i'm just going to assume that you are being facetious and wry and are trying to speed me on my way to a good decision, and that you aren't trying to crap (which i DO think i have under control now)

--jacob

 

[BFG10K]

One of the major causes for inconsistencies is differing driver versions. Check the reviews that are fairly recent, or look for old reviews that have updated results from the new drivers.

 

[RobsTV]

The first benchmarks for the GF2 were done prior to Detonator 3 drivers.
Once the Detonator 3 drivers started showing up, the results shifted as you said.
But it doesn't end there. Newer releases continue to give boosts.
For example, the recent leaked beta drivers 12.90, give many a 10% boost over the 12.60 drivers in some cases.

 

[EdipisReks]

^BUMP^

 

[Geekbabe]

EdipisReks


I understand your desire to make the best choice.I agonize over video card upgrades myself,considering that vid cards often cost more than a CPU.

I am thrilled with my Radeon, but one thing that factored into my choice was the knowledge that if I didn't care for the card,that I could easily sell/trade it on the boards here for close to it's
full value.Heck,I tried for a couple weeks to snag one here before buying from newegg.


I say get the card !

 

[EdipisReks]

i never thought of that. even if i don't want to keep it, there will be plenty of people who would want to buy it from me. i'll definitely have to keep that in mind.

thanks!
--jacob

 

[Euripides]

EdipisReks (I see we think alike)

I also had a lot of concerns and heartaches choosing between a 64 Meg GeForce 2 and a 64 Meg Radeon. I wound up with the Radeon and I am very happy with the purchase. Boths cards are excelent so ask yourself what will you be doing more with your system. DVDs, 2D games?.....then go with the Radeon. If it is 3D gaming and you want more FPS?.....then go with the GeForce 2.

I was also influenced becuase the price was right on the Radeon which made it a slam dunk.

 

[EdipisReks]

the only problem is that i will be doing all equally! it makes it a very hard decision. if ATI was better with driver support, then it would be a very easy decision for me. i want the radeon, but seeing new geforce drivers come out continuously has made me think twice (actaully a few more times then that) about what i am getting myself into. if i can find out whether the asus 7700 deluxe (which doesn't have everything that i want, but is pretty close) has nice 2d quality, i might end up getting that. i know that the asus card's 3d quality will be about the same as every other geforce2, but i can live with that as geforce 3d always seemed fine to me, and there have been relaticely few complaints about geforce 3d (as opposed the rampant complaining about the 2d quality).

--jacob

 

[noxipoo]

after getting a radeon, i think i would liked a GF2/3 better. why? win2k drivers simply suck. i get 1/2 the performance in win2k than in winME.

 

[Bestill]

I just bought a refurbished Radeon LE from Newegg about two weeks ago. I searched around quite a bit because I wanted to get the best bang for my buck. I can tell you that I am very well pleased with my choice. If driver support is a concern, ATI has plenty of full and beta drivers to support their product. Go to Rage3d.com to learn more. Also, be sure to check out the Forums there as they can answer a lot of your technical questions better than me.

Bottom line. 2D is exceptional. 3D is great. Driver support is good to great; anyone that tells you otherwise doesn't own an ATI card, or didn't look very far for support. Again, Rage3d.com is all the support you need to keep your Radeon running at peek performance. They have all the latest drivers, to include the latest beta drivers. Tweaking the card is very simple with one of the many Radeon tweakers. I like using the Raid-On Tweaker.

Yeah, I'm pro-Radoen. I started playing Unreal Tournament and hit a max frame rate of 72 with an average of 40 at 1024x768x32...without tweaking the card. Yeah, Anandtech had there average at 52, but I only have a Duron 750 verses their Thunderbird 1.33. Can Nvidia do better? Maybe. But I would have had to pay a lot more for the card. For the price you pay, you get a great card. Check out here to see a good comparison of all video cards out there in 3DMark2001 (LINK). You can see the full article here (LINK).

So what's my point: I payed $60 shipped for a Radeon LE that can perform as well as a Geforce2 GTS. The Radeon 64MB VIVO can perform as well as, and sometimes better than the Geforce2 Pro and Ultra.

It's your call, but I say go Radeon. And if you don't like it, let me know...I'd be more than willing to take it off your hands.

Bestill

 

[jobberd]

the Radeon LE (hacked and everything)gives performance similar to the geforce2 GTS, but it is not equal to it, not even in 32 bit mode. And as for the Radeon VIVO, I haven't seen any benchmarks for it yet, but the small increase in clock and memory speed will not allow it to perform up to par to a Geforce2 Ultra or even Pro

 

[Bestill]

Jobberd,

Not looking to start an arguement, but go look at the benchmarks I refered to for 3dMark2001 (LINK). On the particular system that this benchmarker used, the 64MB Radeon VIVO outperformed the Geforce2 Pro and Ultra on a few of the benchmarks (Game 2 at High Detail and Unreal Tournament, to be specific). Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. They did an equal comparison and the overclocked Radeon came out on top in this instance. Will it come out on top for your system? Maybe not. What's the point? The 64MB Radeon VIVO has the potential to perform on par with the Geforce2 Pro and Ultra. That's the only point I was making. Is it better than the Pro/Ultra? In 2D, yes. In 3D, for the most part, no. But between the cost, VIVO, and exceptional 2D performance, it is an attractive choice when compared to the more costly Geforce2 Pro and Ultra with the same VIVO feature.

 

[EdipisReks]

^BUMP^

 

[Rocksnow]

I am very happy with my Radeon AIW, I don't have ANY problem w/ this card. I try it w/ WinME, Win98, Win200, BX, VIA..etc, all rock stable. 2D quality is WAY better then Nv Card(if you have a good monitor). The only problem I have is the ATI cd player don't play VCD. Both Geforce and Radeon were great card, if you havn't own a ATI card before, why not give it a try?

Stan

 

[UltraWide]

I have a radeon 32mb ddr running win2k and i must say it is way clearer in 2d than my old nvidia geforce 2 gts. I have no problems with the drivers, i am running the official ones non-beta under win2k. i would recommend this card because the 2D is just so crisp and i know everyone does not play games 100% 24/7 on their pc, so you need clear image when in windows and IE, photoshop, etc. the only thing i regret is that i got the 32mb i hear that the 64mb ones now are the Special editions with 200mhz DDR instead of the 183mhz.

give radeon a try and you will see what everyone has been saying so far.

 

[joeryu]

the people who say that win2k performance is half or even noticably lower than in other operating systems are either:
a. don't own a radeon and are going with the word of others who dont own a radeon either
b. don't know how to install/tweak your system
c. nvidiot

seriously, if you install it correctly and install the newer drivers, you will see NO noticable performance hit from win2k. i actually gained .7 fps from winme to win2k. radeon is a great card, i personally own a AIW and it rocks. geforces2's are aslo great cards, and their driver team is second to none.

 

[shiner]

Here's my take...

I had a Geforce 2 Pro and was always disappointed in it's 2d performance. I recently built a PC for a friend and he didn't want to pay big $ for a Nvidia product so he had me put a Radeon LE in it. I quickly flashed the LE to a full DDR, enabled Hyper-Z, and the card kicks ass and I really can't tell much difference in frame rate in games between the GF2 Pro and the Radeon. The 2d on the Radeon is a helluva lot better than my GF2 Pro, so much better that I have ordered myself a Radeon DDR 64 that costs less than 1/2 what a GF3 would. Will I take a hit in some games? Probably, but to me the better 2d is worth it since I spend most of my time developing web pages and other using my PC for other non-game activities.

 

[AlexMc]

I have a Geforce 2 GTS and my friend has a Radeon DDR. We have benchmarked our machines in just about everything. We both ensure that we always have the latest drivers. His radeon is faster in some games and my geforce is faster in others. It seems to depend on how much the game or benchmark has been optimized for one card or the other. Having said that I'm happy with my card and he's happy with his.

 

[Shudder]

Anand needs to DEFINITELY do an updated win 98 vs 2k for driver comparisons. That few month old article just isn't cutting it and ATI's released 2-3 official drivers and probably baout 10 sets of beta ones. I'd say they've come a long way.

In games like UT I noticed a lower framerate overall,however, it was MUCH more stable. Meaning in 98 it would go from 30-75 all the time.. in 2k it didn't dip below 45 much at all, even if it only went up to 60

 

[djspitfire]

10 sets is all?

I have a Radeon LE, it performs equally as well in win2k and winme, I usually just use the latest beta drivers that are out for it.