Radeon 64 MB DDR kills GeForce2 GTS

Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon' started by Red Harvest, May 20, 2001.

  1. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest Guest

    I just replaced my GeForce2 GTS with a Radeon 64 MB DDR "Retail". Man, what an improvement. The machine cold boots now (didn't with the GeForce2)! Graphics are noticeably better and I'm having none of the game incompatibility problems like I had with the GeForce2. (I had to run beta drivers in the GeForce2 to get several games working.) One buggy game that crashed frequently with the GeForce2 never crashes anymore--still has plenty of bugs though. <br>
    <br>
    Here is something cool. The stock "Retail" install came up at 198 MHz on my PC. It was supposed to be 183. Perhaps they have improved the clock on these babies. Anyway, it overclocked smooth as could be to 235 MHz. Started getting graphics anomalies at 240 in 3DMark2000. 3DMark2000 shows a speed edge for the GeForce2 before overclocking, but nothing worth getting excited over (with all of the GeForce2's other problems.) <br>
    <br>
    Also noticed some old games where the Radeon ran both faster and at a higher resolution than the GeForce2 GTS.<br>
    <br>
    This baby wins, hands down. <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <br>
     
  2. Dave

    Dave Don Fredo Corleone

    Messages:
    8,377
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great to hear from a happy card owner. You should register, stick around and spread the word.
     
  3. The Joker

    The Joker Guest

    i hope its as good as you say 'cause im getting it today <IMG SRC="smileys/sticktongue.gif">
     
  4. 9-Bar

    9-Bar Guest

    i have both an ati radeon 64mb ddr in one pc and a gf2 ultra in my pc, and i must say the radeon does have better image quality than the gf2, but does not compare speed wise, i think the gf2 still looks ok, one thing though, i've tried many games on my gf2 and not had one prob with any of them , i had more probs with the radeon sometimes, with the radeon its just a case of one registry setting that will make the game work, if it doesnt already, <br>
    <br>
    i have a radeon tweaker supplied by humus, which i think is very good, overclocking abilitys aswell as profiles for different games and a host of other options too to tweak the card, go to tweakfiles.com and search for raid-on tweaker by humus, i think this is the best one to use IMO.. <IMG SRC="smileys/approve.gif">
     

  5. The Joker

    The Joker Guest

    well i got the card tonight, haven't installed it yet cause im crazy, but i'll install it tommorow and let ppl know what i think
     
  6. Lucky

    Lucky Guest

    i'm not so sure about that image quality thing anymore. All gf cards now have an option to force 8-tap anisotropic filtering, and this means any game at all.
     
  7. bendsley

    bendsley Guest

    ok? are you stoned or stupid? nVidia made a GPU, plain and simple. ATi cannot compete with this whatsoever. I play Quake 3 professionally, yes, like for money and prizes. I had a GeForce II GTS Pro 64mb video card. It died one day just out of the blue. I have had several different video cards go out before, not just Guillemot ones. So, I RMA'd the card back to where i got it from and went to my local Best Buy and bought an ATi Radeon 64mb VIVO card. ITS SUCKS ASS. My FPS dropped DRAMATICALLY from my GeForce card. I went today and bought a Hercules KyroII 4500 64mb video card and while still not what the GTS Pro was, it is MUCH better than the radeon. I like the radeon so little, that i decided to put it in my webserver.....imagine that, a webpage and mail server that has a 64mb video card. PLAIN AND SIMPLE, I THINK ATi SUCKS GOATS AND WILL NOT BUY A CARD FROM THEM ANYTIME IN THE NEAR OR DISTANT FUTURE!!!!
     
  8. xENCLAVEx

    xENCLAVEx Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by 9-Bar:<br>
    <b>i have both an ati radeon 64mb ddr in one pc and a gf2 ultra in my pc, and i must say the radeon does have better image quality than the gf2, but does not compare speed wise, i think the gf2 still looks ok, one thing though, i've tried many games on my gf2 and not had one prob with any of them , i had more probs with the radeon sometimes, with the radeon its just a case of one registry setting that will make the game work, if it doesnt already, <br>
    i have a radeon tweaker supplied by humus, which i think is very good, overclocking abilitys aswell as profiles for different games and a host of other options too to tweak the card, go to tweakfiles.com and search for raid-on tweaker by humus, i think this is the best one to use IMO.. <IMG SRC="smileys/approve.gif"></b><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br>
    <br>
    You are comparing a $350+ card to a $150 card. You pay the extra money for the extra speed, but bang for buck the ATI radeon is a better deal. I bought my radeon LE, overclocked it to 185/185mhz, enabled hyperZ and I love the card. I only payed $85 for it too. I almost made the mistake of purchasing a Geforce2MX and now that I have seen the comparisons (Radeon runs circles around MX and competes on par with GTS) I would have been kicking myself in the back of the head.<br>
    <br>
     
  9. marxist

    marxist Guest

    As of the latest XP beta test, it was found that Nvidia's XP drivers allow for on-par performance with earlier Windows OS. The Radeon however experienced anywhere for 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in framerates, but supported more games. Radeon doesn't have XP specific drivers out yet though, I don't think. And the GTS solidly beats the Radeon in most every game benchmark. Apparently Radeon quality is better, but what good is that chugging along in a game? Besides forget the GTS. The Pro, Ultra, and Geforce 3 are a lot faster than the Radeon.
     
  10. DD

    DD Guest

    At a local store, I can get a GeForce 64mb for 85$
     

  11. Ice Cold

    Ice Cold Guru of 3D Bartender

    Messages:
    6,187
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Abit GeForce 3
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bendsley:<br>
    <b>ok? are you stoned or stupid? nVidia made a GPU, plain and simple. ATi cannot compete with this whatsoever. I play Quake 3 professionally, yes, like for money and prizes. I had a GeForce II GTS Pro 64mb video card. It died one day just out of the blue. I have had several different video cards go out before, not just Guillemot ones. So, I RMA'd the card back to where i got it from and went to my local Best Buy and bought an ATi Radeon 64mb VIVO card. ITS SUCKS ASS. My FPS dropped DRAMATICALLY from my GeForce card. I went today and bought a Hercules KyroII 4500 64mb video card and while still not what the GTS Pro was, it is MUCH better than the radeon. I like the radeon so little, that i decided to put it in my webserver.....imagine that, a webpage and mail server that has a 64mb video card. PLAIN AND SIMPLE, I THINK ATi SUCKS GOATS AND WILL NOT BUY A CARD FROM THEM ANYTIME IN THE NEAR OR DISTANT FUTURE!!!!</b><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br>
    can you like WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE
     
  12. marxist

    marxist Guest

    Why are all the unregistered guys cows? I thought you had to register to talk.
     
  13. The Tweaker

    The Tweaker Guest

    Let me end this debate against Geforce 2 GTS vs. Radeon. First of all, the GTS DOES beats out the Radeon in speed at resolutions of 800x600 and 1024x768; but the Radeon beats the GTS out in resolutions higher then that (ie 1600x1200). One of the reasons is GeForce cards are "speed-freaks." The card's main purpose is speed (Sounds similar to 3DFX...)The Radeon's purpose is image quality (sounds similar to NVIDIA in NVIDIA vs. 3DFX war). The reason the Radeon beats the GTS in higher resolutions (and this means that the card wins) is that ATI addressed the problem of the memory bottleneck by implementing features such as FastZClear (by erasing the z-buffer instead of writing zeros across and taking a write cycle), Hyper Z and Hierarical (sp?) Z. Also the reason why the Radeon is not good at 16-bit is because that ATI concentrated on 32-Bit image quality and implementing the Z-buffer features to reduce the memory bottleneck. They sacrificed 16-bit quality to implement better 32-bit quality. Also, if a person has a card like the Radeon and GeForce 2 Ultra, he/she should be playing in 32-bit color. If you want to play in 16-bit color, keep your Voodoo 3/4/5 or Rage128/MAXX/Fury or Riva TNT/2/Ultra
     
  14. Red_Harvest

    Red_Harvest Guest

    Been off in Southeast Asia for awhile.<br>
    <br>
    I'm laughing over the guy that is a professional Quake player... <IMG SRC="smileys/bounce.gif"> He really cracks me up. A total frame nut. Wouldn't care if he had stick figures for the video game if the frames were fast enough. <IMG SRC="smileys/knock.gif"> Impatient wrist flickers. <br>
    <br>
    Doubt he had one of the new 200 MHz Radeons. I can't speak for a cludgy OS like Win2K, but in Win98SE it runs very well. At higher resolutions and/or 32 bit it does whip the GTS I compared it to. In 1024x768 16 bit with my typical 230 MHz overclock it ties the stock GTS in 3DMark2000 and runs flawlessly. Some games run faster with the Radeon and the games are more enjoyable/playable because the graphics show me what the heck is going on--unlike the GTS which had contrast problems and poor color. The GTS had trouble running some games: Shogun, Red Baron 3D, etc. except with the 10.x drivers. Even then the video would reset several times during launch indicating it was having trouble finding a compatible mode.<br>
    <br>
    First and foremost, a vid card is to provide good graphics. Next in priority is frame rate. Some might reverse it, but these are the same folks who rate a restaurant by quantity rather than taste--you'll see them picking their noses in an old T-shirt at the buffet line.<br>
    <br>
    Anyway, I'm glad I sent the cludgy GF2 back. It certainly quenched my curiosity about NVidia. <br>
    <br>
    ROTFLMAO at Quake man.
     
  15. marxist

    marxist Guest

    Haha, red harvest wins this debate by sheer method of debate tactics. Hell I dont know who's right, I own a GTS Pro and with antrisopic filtering it looks good to me. Definitely faster than the radeon and for 150 that I got it, pretty cool, esp. since I can oc it to 240/480 now. Ah...how do I put on this 64-tap filtering&gt;?
     

  16. The Tweaker

    The Tweaker Guest

    Oh, you can't enable 64-tap Anisotrophic filtering? Well, my Radeon can do 128-tap Anisotrophic filtering, though either it is disabled in the drivers/card or it is not an actual feature, I can't tell the difference between it disabled and enabled. I'll check the FPS counter for a difference, but visually I can't tell. Maybe if I enable v-sync that will remove the jaggies also. Anyways, I was suppose to end this discussion by saying that because the Radeon can get higher FPS at higher resolutions then the GeForce 2 GTS (either thru overclocking or not), therefore the Radeon ultimately wins.
     
  17. omegaweapon

    omegaweapon Guest

    oh what about the comparsion between the Radoen VS. geforce 3????<br>
    <br>
    Bear that in your mind that Radeon II is coming out very very soon and would liely would be the top notch od all graphic card. But now Gefroce is the king of all realms in video cards. <IMG SRC="smileys/approve.gif"> <IMG SRC="smileys/hot.gif">
     
  18. David Deed

    David Deed Don Alfa Terga Inconiti

    Messages:
    2,240
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Geforce 6600
    In my benchmark(3dmark2001), i saw that a Radeon beat all the geforce2 cards except for the Geforce2 Ultra, and the GeForce3.<br>
    <br>
    Besides, ati's focus is quality cards. The radeon 2 isn't out yet, don't make judgements, only hope... hope to god its going to be worth it, and cheaper than a geforce3.
     
  19. marxist

    marxist Guest

    I don't know what you looked at Deed, but in my experience Radeon was pathetic. I ran 3dmark2001 personally and my Pro went 4% higher than an average Ultra. Only card above it was the GF3. The Radeon average accumulated score was WAY down there.
     
  20. marxist

    marxist Guest

    You must have been looking at the specs with AA enabled.
     

Share This Page