Which Card should I take for free?

BanjoK · Post by **BanjoK** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:47 am

Hello!

I currently have a geforce DDR 32 MB video card. My brother just got a new video card and he wants to give me one of his old ones. Choices are:

Geforce 2 GTS 64 annil pro

Radeon 64 DDR (vivo?)

I play a little quake 2, but I am now getting seriously into digital photography and I was wondering which card is better for viewing photos? I remember reading a long time ago when the geforce 2 came out that there was a hugh improvement in the windows graphics.

Thanks!

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:48 am

radeon has better visual quality. and will be faster as well. Welcome.

Greg

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:09 pm

Take the Geforce! No! No! Take what's behind door number 2!!!!

Seriously, the GF2 is my vote. If desktop 2D image quality and vivo functions are more important to you then take the Radeon.

GF2 does look better than a GF1. The Radeon is the really pretty one.

3D performance is going to be roughly comparable in most games on both cards IMO. I disagree with Nexus on the Radeon outperforming the GF2 - but we sit on either side of the fence and toss friendly snowballs at each other

Either one will be a nice little performance improvement over your current GF1 DDR.

If you're already used to the idiosyncrasies of Geforce drivers, you might be more comfortable tweaking the GF2.

Keep in mind that your CPU could be a bottleneck. If you have anything less than an Intel P3 generation or AMD K7 generation CPU then you'll likely see not improvement in performance.

BanjoK · Post by **BanjoK** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:32 pm

Thanks guys!

FP... I have a p3 650 with 192 ram.

I just bought a nice digital camera, so I guess I will go with the Radeon.

Post by **sbp** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:43 pm

The Radeon has better visual quality and is more feature rich than the GTS. The GeForce 2 GTS will be faster than the Radeon. Both are good cards.

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:11 pm

The radeon all the way! Nvidia blah!

Post by **sbp** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:43 pm

"Radeon rules joo!," said the dipsh1t fanATic on Rage3d's forums. <img src="http://www.pcabusers.net/forums/images/icons/lol.gif">

Jethro Bodine · Post by **Jethro Bodine** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 8:41 am

FP:
"3D performance is going to be roughly comparable in most games on both cards IMO."

What's up with you and all the misinformation lately? A Radeon VIVO is nowhere near as fast for gaming as a GF2 Pro. Besides the fact that I've had both cards and know, take a look:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=8
29 vs 44fps

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=9
47 vs 56fps

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=10
87 vs 127fps

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=11
89 vs 112fps

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=12
66 vs 98fps

All 10X7X32, 4/5 Radeon VIVO is smacked. You're thinking of 7500.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:03 am

Jethro, in my experience you're right - I've NEVER got my Radeon DDR to run any faster than my old GF1 DDR which is why I sold it.

However whenever I bring that up, I've been lambasted by plenty of Radeon owners whose opinion I respect that I had performance issues on my end and that performance should be close to a GF2 (not a Pro I grant you).

I'm trying to be as fair as I can, but thanks for posting the comparison charts. I think they speak for themselves.

Seems I'm always getting my foot in my mouth lately when recommending cards....

BanjoK · Post by **BanjoK** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 4:17 pm

Thanks guys!

Lately I am not so concerned about gaming.

Would you all agree that the Radeon has better 2d graphics? Especially for digital photography?

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 4:30 pm

By far and as far as those Bannandtech bench's go they seem off to me... I've used my ViVo on most of those games with eye candy maxed and it was pullin' higher FPS than their scores... its all a bunch of BS anyways the naked eye can't see any change after about 40-50 fps anyways and those who think they can see a change are full of shit cause you can't... If the card will do 60fps in everything you play and look good there's no need for a faster card as it don't benefit anything other than you ego... Oh and don't forgot that the new cards have new technology that won't be in use for a min of at least another year... by then 2 generations of cards will have come and gone... I love the video card market... I just got a Radeon 8500 as they are headed out and the next gen is soon to come in prices fell out the floor cause of it... 135 bucks shipped when they first came out 299.00... that couldn't have been more than 6 months ago... Only reason i got it was cause of hte price i couldn't pass it up!

NOL1M1TMAN · Post by **NOL1M1TMAN** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 1:32 pm

I love my Radeon 64 DDR VIVO. I had a Geforce2 PRO and it hated me so I despise Nvidia ANYTHING

Post by **sbp** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:35 pm

Actually PreDatoR the max amount of frames the human eye can "see" is definitely higher than 40-50 fps. It varies from person to person.

If you don't think so do this test: run a game at a certain resolution at 45 frames per second. Then run the same game at the same resolution at 100 frames per second. See if you see the difference in smoothness and the accuracy of your movements.

popeye · Post by **popeye** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 8:43 pm

I think you should pay your friend for the video card. That was a very nice gesture. At least by his family dinner and a show! He sounds like a nice guy/friend.