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

[hjs]

Well after reading this post the choice is simple. The Radeon is it for me, I think the difference between 130 or 110 fps is unimportant I go for quality and future ready. Hell I even get a 32mb DDR version, slower clocked but fast enough for me.

 

[cool]

I can only confirm what Orbius said: the 3 texture units per pixel pipeline will kick some serious ass when HALO is out. It will probably apply 3 textures on one pixel. The Geforce can handle only 2 per pixel. So there will be a huge performance difference.
Usually, I don't buy a gfx-card for just one game but in this case I would do it!
Though, I can't wait to see DNF on my V3...

But the Radeon does NOT feature the entire DirectX8-set but it covers more parts of it than the GeForce1/2.

 

[Sunner]

Umm, Orbious, you're forgetting one thing, even though the Radeon has 3 textuing units, it has only two pipelines vs the GTS's 4.
So in games that do 3 rendering passes the GTS and Radeon will be equal in terms of pixel fillrate.

 

[cool]

That's what Matthew Witheiler wrote in his ATI Radeon 64MB DDR review:

"...The GeForce 2 GTS, on the other hand, relies on two of its pipelines to render a single pixel in a three textured game, with one pipeline rendering two textures and a second one rendering the third, leaving the second texture in the second pipeline wasted. Although few games use 3 textures per pixel, ATI is betting on this to become the embraced standard..."

and

"The second part to ATI's decision to use a three texture unit pipeline comes from the fact that texels simply do not add speed due to memory bandwidth limitations. This can be seen in the GeForce 2 GTS: while the GPU is capable of pushing out 1.6 gigatexels per second, this fill rate is never seen due to the extensive memory bandwidth limitations encountered."


Now some calculations:

2textures x 4pipelines x 200MHzclock = 1600MTexel/s for the GF2

3textures x 2pipelines x 183MHzclock = 1098MTexel/s for the Radeon (I hope that's the right core clock)

So here's my theory: When playing a game which uses 3 textures per pixel, then the fill-rate of the GF2 is halved (see explanation above). Is that right or BS? With my 'theory' the GF2 would only have a fill-rate of 800MT/s (below Radeon).

Correct me guys!

 

[TegSkywalker]

Ok you say that Radeon has all of this DirectX 8 stuff and so on, but you got to remember that NVidia will come out with new drivers as they always have in the past that support the latest technolgies.

 

[Sunner]

Supporting stuff such as mesh transforms and bump mapping through drivers wont happen, those are hardware features.

 

[cool]

Hey TegSkywalker:

I would really take the Radeon right now. As the Radeon is the flagship of ATI's products, you don't have to fear about bad written drivers or even bad driver support. It's the first time in '3D history' that ATI has a product that is competitive - if not better - than a nVIDIA card.

This is just my opinion. It's really a tough decision if you have enough money for one of these cards 'cause both cards are excellent. But like said I'd prefer the ATI Radeon not just because of his 3D features and performance but also the great DVD hardware support.

Good luck!

 

[BFG10K]

Isnt it funny how it seems like Nvidia zealots always talk about frame rates when anything past 60fps you can't see

:|

There is always someone who has to resort to this kind of BS to justify the lower performance on their board.

 

[RoboTECH]

<<
Isnt it funny how it seems like Nvidia zealots always talk about frame rates when anything past 60fps you can't see

There is always someone who has to resort to this kind of BS to justify the lower performance on their board. >>



here's another take:

&quot;Isn't it funny how it seems like nvidia zealots always talk about framerates in Quake3 or 3dMark2000 when someone asks for a gaming board&quot;, when Q3 is OpenGL only, and 3dMark2000 is a completely inapplicable, useless benchmark in its current iteration?

There, how's that?

 

[merlocka]

There are few good quantitative measurments for video cards out there. Q3 hi-res is a nice one, I don't like 3dmark because the scores seem overly weighted towards T&amp;L.

>60FPS not important? Benchmarks are averages. Framerates are very dynamic and a card that can spit out an average of 100FPS will be less likely to dip below the 60 number during gameplay. So the argument goes. I got my old V3 to bench about 60fps in q3 1024 and I found it to be very choppy during online play.

 

[TimTim]

First of all, arguing over these cards is like arguing over Porsche or Ferrari. Either way, you are going to get a kick-ass card. However, the RADEON is a vastly superior piece of technology, that has not even begun to stretch it's legs yet. Here are a few facts that I have gathered from assorted reviews, forums, and hardware articles. We are, of course comparing the standard GeForce2 to the standard Radeon. The Ultra GeForce 2 or the Radeon Maxx are completely different subjects, and will be priced at a completely different (insane) level, out of reach of most people. Hell, even a standard GeForce2 or standard Radeon are already out of reach of many people.

__________________________________________

I can't emphasize this enough >> The RADEON with the VERY FIRST drivers did indeed beat the GeForce2 that had already had MANY driver updates before the Det 3's. However with the latest drivers, the GeForce2 has pulled back ahead, but that is a temporary situation at best. So there is no doubt that the RADEON is a more powerful card. When you compare the GeForce2 with the latest drivers to the RADEON with the VERY FIRST drivers you are comparing apples to oranges. For an apple to apple comparison, just compare the GeForce2's launch performance with the RADEON's launch performance, and it's quite clear the RADEON wins by a large margin. Just imagine how the RADEON will perform after it's had the same time to mature that the GeForce has had. WOW!

Plus, with both cards having plenty of speed, the focus then moves to Image Quality, Rendering Quality, Features, and DirectX-8 support for future games. The Radeon wins EVERY SINGLE one of these categories. Not only does it look better now, but it has very special rendering techniques that ARE ACTUALLY BEING SUPPORTED in upcoming games that will make the Performance and Image Quality even better.

Some of these powerful features that ONLY the RADEON has are:

>> Vertex Skinning <<

The Radeon chip can handle up to 4 matrices for skinning compared to the Geforce2?s ability to handle ONLY 2. What this means for future games that take advantage of the Radeon, are skinning techniques on in-game characters and models that move and behave in a much more life-like manner. **This is a distinct advantage to the RADEON.


>> Keyframe Interpolation (Vertex Mapping) <<

This feature works by interpolating successive keyframes in an animation sequence, and automatically fills in the gaps between frames, resulting in a much smoother animation. This technology can scale as necessary so you can have more or less animation depending on the performance level the developer wishes to achieve. **The GeForce2 is simply NOT capable of doing this.


>> 3 Texturing Units <<

Having three texture units as opposed to most graphic cards having only two gives the Radeon an advantage. It can perform multi-texturing in a single pass when rendering anywhere from 1 Bilinear to 3 Bilinear Textures per pixel. This greatly enhances the overall performance of the card by not having to take more clock cycles to perform this rendering. ** The argument that GeForce has more pipelines is simply not the issue here. Games now only utilize 2 T.U.s, but many developers have already begun designing games to take advantage of the 3rd T.U. of the RADEON. The GeForce2 (regardless of the # of pipelines) can only do 2 textures in a pass, and WILL suffer from a large performance drop if it has to make another pass to render the 3rd texture.


>> 3D Textures <<

3D texturing gives the Radeon the ability to add various kinds of maps onto the texture, giving it a much more enhanced ?3D? look. This makes a very significant difference in the overall quality of the 3D objects, and 3D graphics in general. **The GeForce2 simply does NOT do this.


Couple these things with Advanced DirectX-8 support, and the Radeon is clearly the superior card, especially for longevity and future games. Not to mention excellent hardware-assisted DVD playback that rivals even the best home DVD players. That's just icing on the cake.
______________________________________________________________________


Ok, so when you realize that the Radeon with the VERY FIRST drivers was already beating the GeForce2 with MANY updates, it really is amazing that it took ANOTHER update for the GeForce2 to catch up and pass by. This is a HUGE compliment to the RADEON. Like many others have said, the Radeon's launch performance far surpassed the GeForce2's launch performance, so to boast that that the GeForce2 is now faster again because of ANOTHER update, is only confirming that the Radeon is the more powerful card because it took so many updates for the GeForce2 to equal the performance of the very first drivers for Radeon. Just think what this baby will do when it reaches the same muturity, and has a chance to stretch it's legs too.

And of course, speed is only one part of the issue anyway. Both the cards have plenty of speed, but the Radeon has soooooooooo much more going for it, and is definately the card that will last the longest, and the best purchase for the future.

I have recently upgraded to a 64MB Radeon, and the card is absolutely beautiful. Amazing performance, speed to play my favorite games at super high resolutions, best image qulaity I have ever seen, and all this-right out of the box, with the very first drivers. Beautiful is all I can say. This is one of the best purchases I have ever made, and I laugh like a school-boy every night when I am playing. It's really exciting, and it's only just begun with this kick-ass card.

On a personal note to BEN SKYWALKER- I have been a member for a pretty good while now, and I don't post very often. I used to think you were an jerk, and your views seemed to be very biased towards anybody except Nvidia. I can tell from your recent comments though, that you are actually a reasonably fair person. The fact that you even said the Radeon is the best all-around card, makes me now think that you give credit where credit is due. I respect that a lot. By the way BEN, I couldn't agree more! The GeForce always has been, is, and always will be, a great card, but the Radeon is a more balanced card, and offers significant advances for the future games. I realize I am stating things that have been said before by other people, but so often people speak with emotion instead of calmness, it's easy to overlook the point they are trying to make. I thought these things were worth mentioning again in a more relaxed fashion.

I only wish people like TegSkywalker and DoomGuy would lighten up. Saying that any card &quot;Rapes&quot; another, or that certain features are &quot;useless&quot; is not only completely false, but makes them look very silly. They obviously ignore the facts that have been shown, and just focus on whatever one thing they can temporarily feel superior at. Get a life guys! Just because the Radeon is more advanced technology, and a better all-around card, shouldn't make you enjoy your GeForce any less. The GeForce's are still excellent cards too. Enough already, Geez!

 

[PinkFloyd]

Nice post Tim-Tim. Very well spoken. I agree with you and Ben Skywalker and the other guys 100 percent. The Geforce2 is good but the Radeon for sure is a better card,and has better qualities,and will last longer. It even took Geforce2 a bunch of driver revisions to catch up. That pretty much says it all.

The sad part is I can't afford one right now because I just bought a new mainboard and processor ,but next month I am definately buying a Radeon for sure.

 

[Doomguy]

Catch up? ATi is WAY behind in non win9x support you can barely play games in win2k with the radeon drivers. Also NVidia has better compatiblity than the Radeon.

 

[TegSkywalker]

I think I may get THIS CARD Some lady is buying me stuff for a web project, and I said this card was essential (hehe)

I heard the Leadtek is the fastest GeForce 2 GTS 64 MB card.

 

[PinkFloyd]

Doomguy--haha,now it's &quot;non&quot; win98 support. What's next? &quot;Yes, Radeon is better at everything else,but it doesn't work when I am playing upside down in the bathtub under water, so that means it sucks.&quot;

Obviously we are all referring to Win98 since that is what most people (especially gamers) use. Win2k is not a good OS for gaming anyway. Win2k will only be important to a very small number of people.

Besides, the Win2k drivers were just released recently,so yes they are brand new and need to mature, but that's normal. The whole damn card is brand new. You are missing the whole point.

Like the other guys have said, compare the first Radeon drivers to the first Geforce drivers, and in both performance and compatability the Radeon is very far ahead of where the Geforce was when it first came out. When the Geforce launched, it had the worst compatability in the history of video cards. Like they said, compare apples to apples, and consider the future.

I don't think anybody said the Geforce wasn't a good card man, they just said the Radeon is better. You seem to have some need to try and put down other cards in your posts, and ignore the facts. That's just weird.

Nuff said.

Hey Teg, like alot of these guys I prefer the Radeon, but I would agree that if you are going to get a GeForce card, the Leadtek is the best choice. It's a great card, and my brother has one, and he likes it.

 

[BFG10K]

&quot;Isn't it funny how it seems like nvidia zealots always talk about framerates in Quake3 or 3dMark2000 when someone asks for a gaming board&quot;

Well what other games would you like? Perhaps games based on the Unreal engine? I rest my case.

So first you say T&amp;L is useless and then you say that T&amp;L benchmarks are unfair. Why are they unfair if T&amp;L is &quot;useless&quot;? It shouldn't make a difference if it's useless, right?

Ok, so when you realize that the Radeon with the VERY FIRST drivers was already beating the GeForce2 with MANY updates, it really is amazing that it took ANOTHER update for the GeForce2 to catch up and pass by.

Well the only time the 32 MB GF2 was beaten was when the frame rates were unplayably low anyway. So if the difference between 36 fps and 38 fps justifies you buying a Radeon over a 32 MB GF2, go for it. nVidia's new drivers changed this anyway.

Secondly lets not forget the 64 MB GF2 was never beaten by the Radeon, and this is the fair test since the Radeon also has 64 MB of VRAM.

Thirdly the Radeon is never able to provide high raw framerates, it just manages to do high quality settings without such a big hit. This point is moot anyway because if you have the GF2 going from very high to medium while the Radeon goes from high to medium, the GF2 started off faster so of course it takes a bigger hit. But the GF2 is obviously better given its average fps over the settings is much higher than the Radeon, as well as beating it in every test.

Q3 demo1, HQ, 1024 to 1600

Radeon 64 MB: 79, 64, 50.8, 36.1, average = 57.48 fps
GF2 32 MB: 95, 71, 54.7, 36.7, average = 64.35 fps

Remember, this is with a 32 MB GF2 going against a 64 MB Radeon.

The fourth point is that gamers who want high raw fps for online play will lower the detail settings on the Radeon and find even the GF2 MX is able to deliver higher framerates at 640 * 480 and 800 * 600. The Radeon is unable to deliver raw fps and is also beaten across the board with the new drivers.

And finally lets not forget the spanking the Radeon gets with the GF2 Ultra, driver updates or not.

But yes I'll admit the Radeon is a far better card than the V5 and it is my second choice for a video card.

 

[Weyoun]

it's all well and good to have a video card with lots of potential, but whether a company utilises this potential, it's about as good as an expensive paperweight...

Sure the Radeon is a fantastic card, and it's drivers have a *long* way to go, whether ATI will get the most out the drivers is an entirely different kettle of fish...

nVidia have themselves some of the most talented programmers on this planet working on their drivers, and i would say their track record with drivers is almost stainless. ATI on the other hand, although it keeps updating it's drivers, just may find it an impossible task to keep up with the nVidia engineers.

I dont think ANY of us anticipated the boost in performance that nVidia cards would recieve for free just from drivers. Who knows just how far they can keep going...

Just my $0.02

Weyoun

 

[PinkFloyd]

Hey BFG10K, you are completely wrong.

In fact you are so wrong it's ridiculous. You obviously have not been researching video cards very long. The 64MB Geforce2 WAS beat by the RADEON. Hello??? Where have you been???

Try going here:

Gamers Depot 64MB Radeon vs 64MB Geforce2

It's a direct test between the Radeon and the 64MB hello??? *ahem* 64MB GeForce2. It clearly shows the Radeon winning at 32bit high resolution, and in fact the owner of the site got rid of his GeForce2, and replaced it with a Radeon. Maybe you should skip on by there and have a peek-a-boo. Read the whole thing, and have some aspirin handy. hehe

Like the guys said here before, this was the very first Radeon drivers compared to the next to last Geforce 2 drivers. But then, if you had really looked around, you would see that everybody came to the same conclusion. Not only the websites but the big magazines as well, PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, etc.

Just like Doomguy, you miss the main point anyway. Apples to Apples. What exactly about that is hard for you to comprehend? Not only does the Radeon's 1st driver performance obliterate the GeForce2's first driver performance, it even stands up to it after the Geforce2 has had several updates.

So not only did the Radeon equal and in some cases beat the Geforce2, but it did it with the very first drivers. That is most impressive.

If you had looked around you would have also seen that everybody has addressed the 16 bit-color issue, and pointed out that ANY good card can perform good enough in 16 bit color, and anything more is overkill. 32 bit-color High Resolution is what the focus is these days, and that's what area needed to be improved, and that's exactly what the Radeon's focus is.

To sum this up... The Radeon with the very first drivers matched, and in many cases even beat the 64MB Geforce2 that had several updates already before the latest Nvidia drivers. Do you understand what that means?? Hello?? Is there anybody in there??

So actually, not only does the Radeon win the apples to apples, 1st drivers to 1st drivers contest, it does even better by beating the Geforce2 untill the very latest drivers. It also wins in every single other category as well.

Have you not read the reviews, or the comments by TimTim or BenSkywalker? Those guys seem to agree with the majority of the world.

Do the damn math buddy. It started out WAY MORE powerful than the Geforce2 started, it has WAY MORE features, it has better EVERYTHING else, and it hasn't even got warmed up yet.

Does your mind allow you to comprehend things like this? Let me try something else.

If Bodybuilder-A has been working out for 4 months, and has a certain level of muscles, but Bodybuilder-B has only been working out for 1 month, but because of better genes and superior overall structure, already has more muscles than Bodybuilder-A had at 3 months, then obviously B is way ahead and has a better natural physique. Do you understand that???

I'm not sure how else to explain this. Don't you get it?

THE FACT THAT THE RADEON WITH THE VERY FIRST DRIVERS COULD EVEN CLOSE TO THE GEFORCE 2 WITH SEVERAL UPDATES IS AMAZING AND PROVES WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT THE CARD IS MORE POWERFUL.

BUT IT NOT ONLY CAME CLOSE, IT EQUALED AND BEAT IT. NOBODY DISPUTES THAT THE RADEON HAS STARTED OUT MORE POWERFUL THAN THE GEFORCE STARTED OUT ........NOBODY..... IT IS A FACT THAT CAN'T BE DISPUTED. TELL ME AGAIN WHAT PART OF THIS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

DON'T YOU SEE? WHEN YOU SAY &quot;The Geforce2 with the new Detonator 3's is faster again&quot;......Yes you are right BUT that is a actually a compliment to the Radeon, not the Geforce2. The Geforce2 has had many updates, but the Radeon is using the first drivers.

Man, everybody AND I MEAN EVERY RESPECTABLE SOURCE IN THE INDUSTRY agrees the Radeon is a superior card and superior piece of technology that hasn't even got warmed up yet. It's not only great now, but it has so many things that are going to make it even better in the new games. You won't even be around running your mouth when the Radeon has a few months under it's belt, like the Geforce 2 has already had. End of story.

And the Ultra? It's going to be $500 and doesn't add any new features or any improved image quality, or any of the special rendering techniques of the Radeon. Will it be faster? Yes, but then the Radeon Maxx will come along and not only be even faster, but still have all the other improvements and features to boot.

Besides, the last several posts have been about the Radeon vs Geforce2, not Ultra vs Maxx. We were comparing the cards that most people can afford, not $500 Ultra's or Maxx's, or $600 Voodoo 6000's. That will be a whole different thing, and NONE of those cards are out yet.

 

[RoboTECH]

<< &quot;Isn't it funny how it seems like nvidia zealots always talk about framerates in Quake3 or 3dMark2000 when someone asks for a gaming board&quot;

Well what other games would you like? Perhaps games based on the Unreal engine? I rest my case. >>



If I play UT and I don't play Q3, then please explain what relevence Q3 scores are to me.



<<
So first you say T&amp;L is useless and then you say that T&amp;L benchmarks are unfair. Why are they unfair if T&amp;L is &quot;useless&quot;? It shouldn't make a difference if it's useless, right? >>



3dMark2000 is *supposed* to be a test of D3d performance.

Please tell me how many D3d games w/T&amp;L optimizations you play.

T&amp;L will certainly be BIG early next year, but right now, there just isn't any compelling reason to live and die with T&amp;L support. MDK2 is pretty good, but it's framerate needs aren't all that great.




<<
Q3 demo1, HQ, 1024 to 1600

Radeon 64 MB: 79, 64, 50.8, 36.1, average = 57.48 fps
GF2 32 MB: 95, 71, 54.7, 36.7, average = 64.35 fps

Remember, this is with a 32 MB GF2 going against a 64 MB Radeon >>



Yes. That is with TC enabled. The GF2 has the ugliest excuse for TC going. I have a GTS 64MB and the TC is sorry-ass. I turn it off, so those benchmarks mean NOTHING to me.

Also, I'm pretty sure those are with the 6.18 driver set. Myself, along with hordes of others, have noticed nothing but massive problems with the 6.18 driver set, so there is a 2nd reason those benchmarks are irrelevant. As it stands, in 32-bit color, a Radeon waxes a GTS using *playable* settings (i.e. turn that stank-cheez TC off on the GTS, and gimme the stable 5.32 drivers), and the GTS is only marginally faster than even a 5500 (and I'm comparing *on my system* the 64MB GTS @ 200/400 and the 5500 I had @ 190/190)



<<
The fourth point is that gamers who want high raw fps for online play will lower the detail settings on the Radeon and find even the GF2 MX is able to deliver higher framerates at 640 * 480 and 800 * 600. The Radeon is unable to deliver raw fps and is also beaten across the board with the new drivers. >>



agreed, but then why not just buy a SDR and be done with it? If you're gonna play 640x480xUGLY, save some $$$.



<< And finally lets not forget the spanking the Radeon gets with the GF2 Ultra, driver updates or not. >>



for an extra $200, it damn sure better.

 

[Techno]

BFG10K

Um.... what??...... My Radeon 64 ViVo has DDR SDRAM... not VRAM.

Where did you see that?

 

[PinkFloyd]

Excellent points RoboTECH and Techno. They go along beautifully with the points that TimTim, BenSywalker, and myself have already made. However, as you can see--BFG10K can't dispute the real facts, but instead he chooses to give half-truth's and ignore the overwhelming proof that is staring him in the face.

Most of us started out responding with facts and logic, and we never said the Geforce wasn't a good card too, but he and a couple others decided to make it a war. The facts speak for themselves, and the Radeon is a vastly superior piece of hardware.

And the driver issue.. Have you noticed the Radeon's first drivers, and starting performance is the best of any card ever launched......ever.....ever......EVER.

No card has ever launched with this much performance, and this little problems. How soon they forget the DISASTER start the Geforce had. The Radeon's launch is Sweet Love on a Bright Sunny Day compared to the Black Sunday start the Geforce got off to when it first launched.

Apples to apples baby, you know the deal.

Most of the other people have realized that the discussion is over and moved on, so I guess we should too. This argument is over.

Final score.....

The Radeon owners and supporters- 45

BFG10K, and other Nvidia trolls - 0

Toodles

 

[BFG10K]

In fact you are so wrong it's ridiculous. You obviously have not been researching video cards very long. The 64MB Geforce2 WAS beat by the RADEON. Hello??? Where have you been???

OK, I admit I am wrong about this. My mistake.

Just like Doomguy, you miss the main point anyway. Apples to Apples. What exactly about that is hard for you to comprehend? Not only does the Radeon's 1st driver performance obliterate the GeForce2's first driver performance, it even stands up to it after the Geforce2 has had several updates.

Sorry but when I look at buying video cards I look at the performance now. Perhaps you purchase items on the basis on &quot;what could be&quot; but I don't. RIGHT NOW I SEE NOTHING THAT CAN TOUCH A GF2, LET ALONE A GF2 ULTRA.

32 bit-color High Resolution is what the focus is these days, and that's what area needed to be improved, and that's exactly what the Radeon's focus is.

Really, well the GF2/GF2 Ultra also excell in 32 bit colour too and kill the Radeon. Guess that flushes your theory down the toilet.

To sum this up... The Radeon with the very first drivers matched, and in many cases even beat the 64MB Geforce2 that had several updates already before the latest Nvidia drivers. Do you understand what that means??

I understand the GF2/GF2 Ultra is currently beating everything else and I see no reason why this should change.

What kind of driver tweaks are you expecting from ATI? Do you seriously think their next driver releases will put their boards on par with a GF2 based on their track record? You must be joking!

And get this: nVidia updates their drivers too! Yes I know it's a shocking revelation but you're just going to have to live with it.

It started out WAY MORE powerful than the Geforce2 started, it has WAY MORE features, it has better EVERYTHING else, and it hasn't even got warmed up yet.

It did not. Driver updates or not, you cannot deny that even a GF2 MX is able to achieve higher fps in low resolutions which the Radeon can't. Even if the Radeon did still beat the GF2 in high res/32 bit colour, it could certainly never deliver the raw framerates that hard core gamers crave. Of course, now the Radeon dies in high res/32 bit as well.

If Bodybuilder-A has been working out for 4 months, and has a certain level of muscles, but Bodybuilder-B has only been working out for 1 month, but because of better genes and superior overall structure, already has more muscles than Bodybuilder-A had at 3 months, then obviously B is way ahead and has a better natural physique. Do you understand that???

What if body builder B struggles with small weights? This means body builder A is able to enter the heavy weight and the light weight sections and do better overall than body builder B who is only able to stick with heavy weights.

All body builder A needs is some vitamin tablets (driver updates) and he can get better with heavy weights and contend anywhere, while no amount of vitamin tablets (driver updates) will help body builder A lift small weights. There is just something lacking in A's physique (raw fillrate) which means he can never fix his problem.

So even without vitamins, body builder A is a better athlete overall. With vitamin tablets B demolishes A.

Alright finished with the Radeon, back to the Voodoo arguments now.

If I play UT and I don't play Q3, then please explain what relevence Q3 scores are to me.

How about because they show realistic benchmarks?

Please tell me how many D3d games w/T&amp;L optimizations you play.

More than the $600 V5 6000 is going to run.

T&amp;L will certainly be BIG early next year, but right now, there just isn't any compelling reason to live and die with T&amp;L support.

Maximum lifespan of the V5 6000: 3 months. And you were saying nVidiots replace their hardware often? Sheesh!

Yes. That is with TC enabled. The GF2 has the ugliest excuse for TC going. I have a GTS 64MB and the TC is sorry-ass. I turn it off, so those benchmarks mean NOTHING to me.

True, but who is to say that driver updates won't fix this? I want raw fps anyway so I would play at low resolutions which will minimise the requirements of TC.

agreed, but then why not just buy a SDR and be done with it? If you're gonna play 640x480xUGLY, save some $$$.

SDR of what? GF? What are you talking about?

Um.... what??...... My Radeon 64 ViVo has DDR SDRAM... not VRAM.

That's Video RAM! I'd be surprised if the Radeon didn't have Video RAM!
I was just trying to mix the english up a bit.

BFG10K can't dispute the real facts, but instead he chooses to give half-truth's and ignore the overwhelming proof that is staring him in the face.

I can dispute anything you post at any time.

No card has ever launched with this much performance, and this little problems. How soon they forget the DISASTER start the Geforce had. The Radeon's launch is Sweet Love on a Bright Sunny Day compared to the Black Sunday start the Geforce got off to when it first launched.

Once again, I prefer to live in the present.

BTW, the title of the thread is GF2 Ultra versus Radeon. The guy wanted to know which was better and driver updates or not, nothing can touch the Ultra. So stick to the subject.

Also, the Voodoo has nothing to do with this thread either, so what are all you zombies doing here? Go home and play your FSAA games and leave the arguments about real video cards to someone else.

 

[Techno]

Uh.... yeah sure.... is that mixing up... or messing up??... By that sentence you made it sound like you were trying to say the Radeon had some kind of (vram) better memory then the Geforce2 and still couldn't compete.

Sorry if i don't take the time to look up how to do quotes and links. I'm not looking to add fuel to the fire, i am just going to say a fact.

BFG10K,

As to your Driver problem w/ ATI. Go to www.rage3d.com. They posted 2 leaked driver updates for Win98 and 1 Driver update for Win2K. Yes they are beta but so is just about every other driver from Nvidia week in and week out. Also on their forums, some people have reported a speed boost AND better image quality. Speed boost isn't anything to major, but a speed boost none the less w/ beta drivers and its with in the first month of the Radeon cards release. I've heard w/ the Detonator 3 drivers, some people are getting worse image quality but faster FPS just to beat the Radeon. The Geforce series of cards have been out since December 99. Thats 10 months of Nvidia driver updates to ATI's 1. Whats going to happen with Nvidia releases DET4 drivers? People: Oh wonderfull i am getting 500FPS on my Geforce Ultra!! Only small draw back is the graphics look worse then the NES from the 80's.... but who cares... still 500FPS baby... beat that mofo!!!

Also, looks like i am one of those guys that when buying a card, i look for the Potential of the card. See DX8 is coming out soon and the Radeon does 2 times more features then the Geforce Series cards can do in hardware. I mean yeah sure, Nvidia might come out w/ drivers to do every feature the Radeon can do just to be up there with it in terms of features, but it will be done with in software not hardware. Software is slower. Plus it will take a bunch of driver updates to get it right. I remember when FSAA first came out, Nvidia took like 5 or 6 driver updates just to get FSAA running ..... not running fast... just running.

And i don't like being the kind of person that has to upgrade every 6 months. I had the Geforce and there was not a single reason i could think of that would make me upgrade from my Geforce 1 to a Geforce 2. But there sure was a HUGE reason to upgrade to the Radeon 64 and i don't plan on getting a new card till next year. So with the speed and features it can do with DX7 and w/ the features it WILL do in DX8. I'm set. The Geforce GTS, Pro, and Ultra is just a higher clocked Geforce 1 *basicly*. Nivida will take 1 full year (or so) just to come out with a new card just to catch up in terms of features, by that time, who knows what ATI or even Matrox for that matter is cooking up.

Yes the question is &quot;Whats Better, GeForce 2 Ultra or new ATI Radeon?&quot;.

In terms of features, Radeon spanks the Ultra. In terms of speed, at the *moment* the Ultra wins (yet it isn't even out yet). But when DX8 comes out and Radeon takes advantage of all the other features none of the Geforce cards have or can do, your Ultra doesn't have a chance. All you will be doing is shelling out $500 for a card for the next 6 months just to have a few extra FPS untill Nvidia comes out w/ a card that can do it what the Radeon already does and that will cost you another $300-400.

Theres alot more i would like to say but its basicly already been covered by RoboTECH, TimTim, BenSywalker, and PinkFloyd

 

[BFG10K]

Uh.... yeah sure.... is that mixing up... or messing up??... By that sentince you made it sound like you were trying to say the Radeon had some kind of (vram) better memory then the Geforce2 and still couldn't compete.

Gosh you Radeon guys are so smart but you don't even know what synonyms are. OK I will go back to &quot;simple&quot; english.

BFG10K, As to your Driver problem w/ ATI.

I am not the least bit concerned about ATI's driver problems. You're right, you don't read my posts. Congratulations on wasting your time.

Only small draw back is the graphics look worse then the NES from the 80's.... but who cares... still 500FPS baby... beat that mofo!!!

I admit nVidia's boards have a texture compression problem but only in Q3.

You Radeon and Voodoo guys say that Q3 benches mean nothing since it's &quot;only&quot; one game. OK, the texture compression problem means nothing since it is only one game as well.

Also, looks like i am one of those guys that when buying a card, i look for the Potential of the card. See DX8 is coming out soon and the Radeon does 2 times more features then the Geforce Series cards can do in hardware.

Funny I remember reading that Microsoft are quite volatile with Direct X features and are often subject to change and swings. That means no company can truly predict how Direct X will turn out, even if they worked closely with Microsoft as ATI claims they have.

On the other hand I have seen game developers working closely with nVidia with the likes of Carmack and Sweeney getting right behind nVidia. Indeed Carmack's baseline system has a GF1 while Sweeney's team have the Unreal engine exclusinvely being tested on the GF based boards to set the standard for what graphics power is required.

Not to mention that nVidia are producing the video card for Microsoft's upcoming X-box. I would say that nVidia would have a better chance of predicting the future of Direct X than ATI since they are the exclusive graphic suppliers for the X-box, which is entirely produced by Microsoft.

Not to mention that nVidia must be the best otherwise Microsoft would have never picked them. If the Radeon is so &quot;integrated&quot; with Direct X 8 and nVidia has such &quot;poor&quot; quality, why on earth did Microsoft pick nVidia over ATI? You can say many things about Gates, but you can't say he's got poor business skills.

In terms of features, Radeon spanks the Ultra. In terms of speed, at the *moment* the Ultra wins (yet it isn't even out yet). But when DX8 comes out and Radeon takes advantage of all the other features none of the Geforce cards have or can do, your Ultra doesn't have a chance.

The Ultra doesn't have chance? You sound like the 3dfx zombies who proclaim nVidia's doom by forecasting armageddon with the release of the V5 6000. Get real dude.

All you will be doing is shelling out $500 for a card for the next 6 months just to have a few extra FPS untill Nvidia comes out w/ a card that can do it what the Radeon already does and that will cost you another $300-400.

I will be doing no such thing. I will be getting a GF2 MX for 1/2 - 1/3 the price of your board and outperforming your &quot;super&quot; Radeon at 640 * 480 and 800 * 600 resolutions. Then I'll be laughing even more at you FATI guys when Microsoft swings Direct X in a new direction.

I'll also be laughing at the zombies when the V5 6000 runs the its first T&amp;L benchamark and is beaten by the GF2 MX. Not to mention my wallet will still be very pleased.

 

[Techno]

Whatever.... Simple fact is you made that sentence sound like the Radeon had something that it doesn't. It wasn't a &quot;oh it was Video RAM&quot;... I had a bunch of my friends read that sentence and they all agreed you tried to make it sound like something else then &quot;oh mixing up the english to be cool and say video ram.&quot;

I am not a die hard Radeon fan. This is my first ATI card. If anything I am more of a Nvidia fan then anything, last cards i had before this Radeon was a TNT, TNT2 Ultra, then the Geforce. This card just simply beat the Geforce GTS in features as well as speed (when the DET2 drivers were all that were out)

Your post up above (unless you edit it out so that you can say you never said anything) talked about how it was a joke to think ATI could produce any driver updates with any tweaks. Well moron, i just told you they came out with 2 beta drivers that not only made the Radeon a little bit faster but, also made the image quality even BETTER. Sorry if your to stupid to figure out that is what is called a &quot;tweak&quot;. So you just wasted your own time telling me that i wasted mine.

As to your, &quot;I will be doing no such thing. I will be getting a GF2 MX for 1/2 - 1/3 the price of your board and outperforming your &quot;super&quot; Radeon at 640 * 480 and 800 * 600 resolutions.&quot; Sorry, but i don't want to waste my time looking up how to do quotes.

Well... My hat is off to you and your 640*480 and 800*600 G2MX. Oh yeah you will whip my Radeons butt (Techno stop laughing).... but, but, but wait... I don't play games at those resolutions. I play at 1280*1024 or at 1600*1200. And thats why (besides having better features) the Radeon was made in the first place. Not only for the user of 640x480 and 800x600 (ATI saw it was fast ENOUGH at those resolutions and moved on) but mostly for people that play at 1024x768 and UP in 32BIT.

As to the pricing. I wasn't talking about YOU.. i was talking in &quot;general&quot;. If a person goes out and buys a $500 card and then 4 months down the road they buy a game that uses a few features not on the Geforce2, and the person really wants to have those features, he has to buy a new card ($200-$325) and hope that someone is dumb enough to buy the $500 video card off him.

Yes i am getting real dude. Please put your glasses on and read above, there are features that the Geforce2 WON'T do. And when Nvidia trys to make a driver that *emulates* what the radeon does, it won't be as fast as the real thing in hardware. The only reason the geforce2 beats the radeon at the moment was because Geforce2 cards were getting spanked by the Radeon when it first came out and the Geforce2 only had DET2 drivers then. So Nvdia reacted by coming out w/ DET3. Do you really think Nvidia would have been in such a hurry to make the DET3 unless they saw a problem on the horizon (a competing card).

Also, i wasn't talking about Q3A alone. I had a Geforce, So i know exactly what games suffered from the &quot;text compression&quot; as you call it.

Also, this just shows your not with it. Yes, carmack and the other guy uses a Geforce... Yes... they are very good programmers.. but guess what hot shot? There NOT the only programmers in the world. They are 2 programmers in a pool of over 50,000 other people who work for other companys besides who carmack works for. So you cant say sh*t that NO ONE will EEEVVVEERRR use *this or that* feature all because carmack doesn't have that card in his computer. Why don't you walk into the 300+ other game companys around the world and just ask what they are doing.

EDIT.... Looks like ATI just came out with another beta driver update for Win2K. So... 2 for Win2K and 2 for Win9X. And still... with in 1 month of release.

Also.... big boy, as to your &quot;why didn't microsoft use ATI for there X-box if the Radeon was so much better&quot;, &quot;Microsoft changes so much on DX&quot; and to your implying that &quot;Microsoft is working closer w/ Nvidia then ATI on DX&quot;, looks like Microsoft is going to use the RADEON to show off DX8... You can go to Rage3D.com and see for your self.. but wait... i can just do a cut and paste.

From Rage3D.com: &quot;Microsoft selected ATI?s Radeon to show off of Direct X at Meltdown in Tokyo, Japan.&quot;

What???... huh???... They didn't use the exclusive NVIDIA CARD? The SAME Nvidia card that goes in the X-box? The SAME Nvidia that is working SSSOOOOO close with Microsoft? Oh my god!!!!!

Also for other people who have the Geforce2 MX. These comments are directed to 1 person, not any of you.