Radeon seems to be technologically better than GeForce 2 series

[j@cko]

the technologies ATI implemented are more, and if not better than Nvidia, the only down side is its 16 bit performance, but I am wondering if you can playing at 32 bit fast, and smoothly, why even bothering ask for 16bit??

 

[Stephen24]

Of course, the Geforce cards are PURE horsepower.

 

[Thump553]

Never even tried 16bit on mine-no need.

I got the Radeon 32 DDR and an Elsa Gladiac 32MB DDR in December with the intention of returning the one I didn't like. Installed the Radeon and didn't even bother opening up the Elsa's box.

 

[Rent]

Nuff' said

 

[thorin]

"the technologies ATI implemented are more, and if not better than Nvidia,"

This statement doesn't make sense at all. Dod you mean.

"the technologies ATI impletented are more numerous and perhaps better than nVidia..."
or
"the technologies ATI implemented are as good if not better then nVidia..."
or
Some other meaning.......

Thorin

 

[Syborg1211]

Seems to me the Geforce is just pure horsepower and basically nothing else besides a tv-out here and there and the Radeon is very good speed with many, many features and great quality picture. After comparing my Geforce's picture to a Radeon's picture I had to have one.

 

[Moving Target]

Troll... When will this Radeon vs. nVidia crap stop, who cares! Buy what you want, let others buy what they want! END OF STORY!!

 

[ninjazed]

How about compatability issues peoples? I think NVidia chips give a great image and you're pretty much guaranteed that the driver updates will be plentiful and effective no matter what you do with the cards. What NVidia did with the Detonator drivers is nothing short of brilliant!

 

[Noriaki]

Well I must say that I like nVidia's unified driver front, so you don't have to worry about an older board not getting supported later (which is more than I can say for a certain 3-letter-named competitor).

I've had a few compatibilty problems with nVidia (none with 3dfx though, 3dfx is the compatibility king! oh well 3dfx is dead no sense bitching about it), and I also owned a Radeon....that was a very unpleasant experience.

Unless matrox gets back in the saddle my next card will almost certainly be nVidia.

Yes the Radeon has a few more features than the GeForce2...but Great Hardware, Bad Drivers (Radeon) is behind Good Hardware, Good Drivers (GF2) IMHO...of course we are all allowed to have our own opinions.

 

[Taz4158]

<< When will this Radeon vs. nVidia crap stop >>


You've got that right. Good thing they haven't discovered the video section here yet!

 

[j@cko]

I was just speaking out my thought, because I saw a KICK ASS deal on RAdeon, so I did a bit research (reading)...

 

[nitrousninja]

I don't know why people are crying about Radeon drivers( especially people who don't own one), as I've never had a problem with any of them.

 

[Taz4158]

<< I don't know why people are crying about Radeon drivers( especially people who don't own one), as I've never had a problem with any of them. >>


You my friend are in the majority I assure you.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Well, ATi has the overall best feature support, but there are some shortcomings compared to nVidia.

1) Poor T&amp;L performance

2) Lesser support for certain shader functions(register combiners)

3) Poor FSAA

4) Poor 16bit speed and quality(which has already been mentioned but shouldn't be an issue anyway)

5) Improper rendering compared to the native API

6) Extremely poor memory bandwith utilization(HyperZ fails to put them on equal footing with nVidia on this one, even though they have a ~11% edge in bandwith, they lose most bandwith limited benches by roughly that same margin)

Although ATi has the edge, they are definately not a run away winner in this category. Plusses I see for ATi

1) Out of the box color calibration(Recently picked up a new monitor and it took me several hourst straight, and then many fine tweaks to get my nV board to the image I wanted, only takes about half an hour with a Radeon)

2) Video playback- ATi remains best of class

3) Vertex morphing/keyframe interpolation

4) Volumetric textures

5) 16 tap Anisotropic(nV has only eight as of right now)

6) A lot of room for improvement

Clearly the drivers are still in a very poor state looking at the performance relative to the GF2 and V5. With the bandwith available on the 64MB Radeon DDR it should be besting the V5/GF2 in every bandwith limited bench every time, no excpetions. That ignores completely HyperZ which should put the 64MB Radeon on par, if not edging out, the GF2 Pro. If HyperZ isn't another feature like S3's &quot;hardware T&amp;L&quot; and does show up working properly at some point in the future, Radeon owners could see a much larger boost then nV owners had moving from Det2 to Det3. While I wouldn't wager that Radeon owners will ever see that kind of performance(going strictly by ATi's track record involving drivers), we already can tell that nVidia has to be very near the limitations of what is possible with their hardware. Therefore, I would not expect any sort of big performance boost, ever, out of any future drivers for the GF2 while the Radeon it is definately a possibility.