What's better? GeForce 2 Ultra or the new ATI Radeon?

[TegSkywalker]

I am currently in the market for a new video card (I've had this 3dfx Voodoo 3 3000 for around a year now) and I am wondering which is the better buy.

I heard GeForce 2 has raw speed compared to the better image quality and features of the Radeon.

What do you guys think is the one I should get?

 

[AxelRose]

Geforce2 GTS Ultra By far. Hits over 60 fps at 1600x1200 32 bit



But... As of now, the Radeon IS faster in high resolution 32 bit in games like quake3 than a geforce2 GTS 64 meg.

 

[Techno]

There was a rumor that ATI was working on drivers that make the Radeon faster then the GTS Ultra. Just have to wait and see.

 

[Comp10]

You also cant forget that the GeForce Ultra retails for at nearly $100 more than the Radeon 64mb DDR. Personaly I prefer the better features of the Radeon vs the raw speed of the Geforce Ultra.

 

[TegSkywalker]

Thanks for the advice guys. I think I may go for the GeForce 2 Ultra.

One other quickie:

What would you guys suggest as the best GeForce 2 card? Would you say Creative for the price sans the TV Out or like Hercules?

 

[Sunner]

If you dont need a whole lot of fancy features, go for a Creative card, they're generally pretty cheap, but still a well known brand.

If you're looking for fancy stuff like VIVO, etc etc, go Asus, or Hercules.

 

[GuardianAli]

This pisses me off...excuse the language.

I HATE it when some one says one card is better cause the FPS on a particular game is more.

GRRR!!!!!!

There is no simple answer. The only RIGHT one is choose the card that is best for U!!!

If u need good video in/out features, not much of a frame rate drop from 16 to 32 bit color, and the such the ATI is the way to go..specially since it is hell of a lot cheaper than the Ultra.

If you want the best possible FPS and have the MONEY..then the ultra is the way to go.

One is not better than the other in any GENERAL terms. One is better than the other when you consider what U need compared with what the card OFFERS.

Choose wisely grasshoppa'

 

[Doomguy]

The GF2 with the 6.18 drivers is already faster than the radeon in 32 bit color so the ultra blows it away.

 

[han888]

yup, geforce2 with 6.18 denator kick radeon and voodoo5 and voodo5 and radeon never can beat geforce ultra may be just can beat the geforce2, but it's too hard!

 

[KarsinTheHutt]

GeForce2 GTS if you are really hard core and need those frames. nVidia also has decent driver support in the form of Detonator 3 drivers. I've only seen a 32 Meg card personally though.

I think Radeon has lots of potential, but I've never personally seen one in action. Supposedly Radeon has a better balance between frames and image quality.

If I had to buy an upgrade, I'd try out the radeon since I don't really play games all that much. Then again, I might by a Matrox card.

 

[ErikaeanLogic]

If you want 70+fps in UT(1024x768, 32bit, D3D), the best DVD playback in a vid card, video in, video out, a hassle-free install, and an extra $100+ to spend after you get your video card, go Radeon64 DDR! I've had alot of video cards(TNT2, TNT2 Ultra, GeForce DDR, V2, V2 SLI, V3, V5, and the Radeon) and it has been the best performing, and the easiest to use. If you just want straight up mind-blowing Q3 framerates and the bragging rights that go with them, go with the GTS Ultra, but I want more than that so I chose the Radeon64 DDR for $319.

 

[TegSkywalker]

One other thing:

Is the GeForce 2 Ultra that much faster than a GeForce 2 GTS? Should I save my money and get a normal GTS instead?

 

[BenSkywalker]

If your only looking for a gaming board and don't plan on running Win2K, then the Radeon may be a good choice for you.

The GTS Ultra is $500, if you have the money to spend and want the fastest bar none card, then by all means go for it. If I was buying a board right now for a Win9X gaming machine I would go with the Radeon.

It has the best feature support in terms of 3D and particularly video, has solid performance even if it isn't up to GF2 levels, and also has consistently high levels of 2D quality which is hit or miss with the GF based boards, particularly if you have a Trinitron tubed monitor.

If the Radeon was priced the same as the GF2 Ultra that would make things more difficult, the speed difference between those two is huge, the GF2 being nearly twice as fast. But fro ~$250-$300 the 64MB DDR Radeon is IMHO the best gaming board for a Win9X machine right now.

 

[randomlinh]

why no win2k? I was thinking of getting an AIW Radeon eventually. For the DVD and TV tuner mainly (ok, i don't really NEED the dvd, but it's nice to have ).

Is it stability, or just the games are slower?

 

[BenSkywalker]

Is it stability, or just the games are slower?

Yes The drivers for Win2K leave much to be desired at this point. That could very well change, but I don't know if I could sleep at night after reccomending someone wait for an ATi driver fix

 

[radeonUltra]

GeForce2 Ultra is a $500 card that doesn't even support DX8 features like the Radeon. 2D\3D image quality still looks like crap compared to Radeon. Wow! The 500th GeForce driver can beat ATI's first Radeon drivers! I e-mailed ATI and they told me they are going to release D3 style drivers real soon for the Radeon. Radeon 64MB is around same price as a 32MB GeForce2 GTS. Once DX8 games come out like Halo, Radeon will be way faster than any GTS card, it has the ability to surpass an Ultra in 3 texture games. I had GeForce2 GTS before and switched to Radeon because the GTS 2D was blurry in high resolutions. Those who can afford it have upgraded from a GTS to Radeon, just look at Radeon forums on the net.

I wouldn't buy a Radeon now though, ATI said they are releasing their Radeon II before end of year and the Radeon MAXX is coming out in October.

Isnt it funny how it seems like Nvidia zealots always talk about frame rates when anything past 60fps you can't see, thats because there is no other advantage the GeForce2 has over Radeon.

 

[BenSkywalker]

<< it has the ability to surpass an Ultra in 3 texture games >>



Not in raw throughput it doesn't. With three pass texturing the GF2U can hit 1.5GTexels and 750MPixels, both well beyond the levels of performance the Radeon has. Also, you shouldn't comment on DX8, we don't know what will be included except to know that both the GF2 and Radeon will be well short of having a complete feature set. The Radeon does have more features, and probably will be closer to matching DX8 specs, but neither of them will be fully compliant.



<< Isnt it funny how it seems like Nvidia zealots always talk about frame rates when anything past 60fps you can't see, thats because there is no other advantage the GeForce2 has over Radeon. >>



Win2K driver support and OpenGL application(non games) support. If you are running a Win9X gaming rig then I would definately go with the Radeon. If you are running a Win2K workstation then you would be a fool to purchase a Radeon over a GF2.

 

[Envelope]

Ben is right that if you are running a W2K gaming rig you would be better off with a Geforce, but if you are running a multimedia video capture/gaming rig, the Radeon has no equal. Plus, and I think even Ben may agree with me here, for general surfing/spreadsheet editing/ 2D, the Radeon's only competition is a Matrox G400 - and even then, in 2D it may be too close of a match to tell which is the decisive victor.

 

[Doomguy]

LOL the radeon with det 3 performance increases. Lets wait till they get some halfway decent win2k drivers.

 

[BFG10K]

I can't believe the speculation even exists over what card to get! These benchmarks show you everything.

The GF2 Ultra (yellow) is doubling the V5's (grey) performance across the board and tripling it in the T&amp;L MDK2 tests. The Radeon (red) is faster than the V5 but still is no-where near the GF2 Ultra.

With the new Detonator 3 drivers the Radeon only beats the 32 MB GF2 (light green) in one test, but can never touch the 64 MB GF2 (medium green).

Quite simply, if you want the fastest graphics card on the planet, nothing can touch the GF2 Ultra, driver updates or not. It's as simple as that. You could also get the 64 MB GF2 which is only beaten by the GF2 Ultra and save some money.

It's also really funny to see the V5 getting pounded by the original GF (army green) in a lot of the tests, despite it being a generation behind the Voodoo. In the T&amp;L game MDK2, the GF demolishes the V5 in every test! &quot;No&quot; says 3dfx, &quot;you don't need T&amp;L. It deesn't make a difference.&quot;

 

[TegSkywalker]

Ok I want you guys to take a look at These new Q3 benchmarks and see how much the GeForce rapes the Radeon. For example:

1024:
* GeForce 2 Ultra: 170.8 fps
* GeForce 2: 160.4 fps
* Radeon: 102.7 fps

1280:
* GeForce 2 Ultra: 147.9 fps
* GeForce 2: 117.4 fps
* Radeon: 64.9 fps

1600:
* GeForce 2 Ultra: 111.2 fps
* GeForce 2: 78.7 fps
* Radeon: 45.4 fps


Heh I guess that proves you Radeon fanboys wrong.

 

[Sunner]

Of course, thats with the &quot;fastest&quot; setting, which means 16 bit color, low res textures etc etc.
In this mode memory bandwidth isnt as big a limiting factor as it is in higher detail modes, and hence the GTS's enormous fillrate rips everything else apart, but have a look at the &quot;high detail&quot; numbers, the GTS is still the fastest(save the Ultra of course), but the marigin is far smaller.

 

[cool]

You've read lots of pros and cons.

And here's my statement: Get the ATI Radeon. Yes, the GF2Ultra is the fastest card out there but the Radeon has more DirectX8 features than the GeForce2Ultra. I think it's a more important argument than just &quot;GF2 hits 120fps, Radeon 'only' 110&quot;. And you probably know, DirectX8 will be released in the next few weeks and games that will use them will come out next year or even later... The Radeon is the best investment you can make right now!

cool has spoken!

 

[Orbius]

Radeon definitely, with Ati, you have one solid company producing the cards, with Nvidia based GTS cards you have all these manufacturers trying to eek out a profit making cards and competiting with each other on price..Quality does suffer, just look at all the people who have problems with the Geforce line of cards.

Hardware wise the Ati Radeon is a superior design, it has 3 texture units compared to the Geforce 2's, 2 units. Note: This 3rd unit on the Radeon isnt utilized yet. The T&amp;L on the Radeon allows for more complex T&amp;L calculations than does the unit on the Geforce 2. And it supports the entire Direct X 8 featureset, as well as having probably the best Tv-Out and DVD playback in the business.

For out and out frames per second in Quake 3 the Nvidia cards are fast, but its been said that the way the new drivers attain such nice speed increases, is that corners are cut in rendering textures, who knows? It would be best if you could judge both cards in action for yourself however.

I personally recommend the Radeon, but your best bet is to see the cards in action for yourself in various games to determine which one is right for you.

 

[Doomguy]

The radeon's extra features are useless without mature drivers.