ATI Radeon64MB DDR Image Quality Beter than Geforce3?

Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon' started by blount2k1, Aug 19, 2001.

  1. blount2k1

    blount2k1 Guest

    As some may know, I am looking for a very good video card but at a pretty low price. But now I hear people telling me to get Geforce3 and it'll be worth it and I won't be dissapointed. And I hear that Geforce3 Image Quality is way better than the ATI Radeon 64MB DDR because it's a newer chipset, and a whole different one than the Geforce2. I was wondering all your opinions and facts. Is this TRUE? That the Geforce3 Image Quality can totally beat the ATI Radeon 64MB DDR?
     
  2. You and all those Nvidiots (your not an Nvidiot) have it ALL wrong. Just because the GF3 is a newer chip does NOT mean it has better image quality. What a load!!!!!!!! The Radeon has better image quality and better features. Keep your current video card and wait for the Radeon II. Or you can buy the 64MB DDR VIVO version. But wait until the radeon II is OFFICIALLY released (around september: not TOO long of a wait <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> ) The price of the Radeon will drop when the radeon II is released.
     
  3. OZ

    OZ Guest

    ATI are the kings of 3d, my vivo does the job gr8. and the geforce3 just can't compare in terms of quailty. but it does have the edge in speed. if your system is a middle of the range 800-1000mhz. then buy the G3, if u have the extra power go ATI u will love them forever.
     
  4. Dave

    Dave Don Fredo Corleone

    Messages:
    8,377
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dare you to see for yourself, compare a new ati card to a geforce 3, in games/image quality/and driver support.<br>
    I'd bet my geforce 3 the nvidia wins out.
     

  5. What if ATI learnt how to tune thier drivers (or maybe they do but waiting to release them when the Radeon 2 get out) Then Radeon 2 8500 would crush GF3
     
  6. tweaker....whatever your smoking give me some! the Radeon having better features than the GeForce 3? hahahaha and i suppose you'll get a better performance from a 20 year old ford than a brand new Ferrari F50 right? <IMG SRC="smileys/knock.gif">
     
  7. Nowadays...which bit would you want to play in: 16 or 32?<br>
    <br>
    GF: 16<br>
    <br>
    Radeon/Radeon II: 32<br>
    <br>
    Personally, I want to play in 32-bit.<br>
    <br>
    Also, can you card do Hyper Z, Heir. Z and FastZClear +...yes PLUS have excellent DVD HARDWARE (I said HARDWARE) playback.<br>
    <br>
    GF can only do software.<br>
    <br>
    Plus, the Radeon can do 256X Anisortrophic filtering in OpenGL. 256X!!!!!!!!<br>
    <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif">
     
  8. Alexdude99

    Alexdude99 Guest

    Funny I've been running 1280x1024@32bit@85hz to 1600x1200@32bit@85hz since I got my Geforce2 GTS.<br>
    <br>
    Oh have you try winDVD 2000 which supports Hardware acceleration Motion compensation and Alpha filtering. Also AsusDvd is winDVD but custom to Asus look. The DVD picture look very good. <br>
     
  9. Alexdude99

    Alexdude99 Guest

    lol, if you did the quake LOD test the 256x on the parts of the image where it looks sharp thats because radeon isn't even using anistropic filtering or any filtering at all. <br>
    <br>
    You can get better result on a Geforce2 GTS in Direct X by disabling user mipmap. That would cause it not to use any filtering at all. Which should sound right considering if the texture are very detailed you don't need to blend it or blur its realism.
     
  10. rcf84

    rcf84 Guest

    Well now its my turn.<br>
    <br>
    Lets here. <br>
    <br>
    2d desktop hmmm.... Radeon has a very nice 2d its better then the Geforce 3 and the Matrox G450. Photoshop users love the radeon for this 2d image quality making there Pic's much better looking at high res. <br>
    <br>
    Also the Radeon 8500 has a mother f*cking 400mhz RAMDAC.
     

  11. OleKaiwalker

    OleKaiwalker Active Member

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    400 RAMDAC that would give one hell of a picture in 1600*1200*32 <IMG SRC="smileys/wink.gif"> <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    The Radeon 2 have so good performance when the drivers are complete and tuned and with that image quality the GF3 dosn't stand a chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  12. rcf84

    rcf84 Guest

    yup...<br>
    <br>
    1600x1200x32bitx120hz would look nice.
     
  13. Yea, but no monitor can do that currently...not even a Sony!
     
  14. rcf84

    rcf84 Guest

    Well there this can get 1600x1200x95hz<br>
    <br> <A HREF="http://www.viewsonic.com/products/crt_gs815_o.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.viewsonic.com/products/crt_gs815_o.htm</A>
     

Share This Page