rec.autos.simulators

> >Hmm, I guess I gotta qualify that statement.  3D image quality is
> >definitely better than the Radeon, but it's still not as good in 2D.  I
> >just ran a few apps that do 2D charting and graphics, and text and fine
> >lines were much more clear on the Radeon.  Six of one, half a dozen of
> >the other - F1 2002 is nearly photo-realistic on the GF4, whereas on the
> >Radeon it looked flat and pixellated.  This was not just a matter of
> >detail level, the lighting simply wasn't as good with the Radeon.  But I
> >think the old advice still applies - if you want the best *** card,
> >go for the GF4, but if you want an all purpose card and don't mind
> >giving up a bit of speed in ***, the Radeon is still a better bet.  I
> >won't be returning the GF4, but in fairness I have to say the Radeon
> >still has the edge in 2D graphics.

> You're not talking about the Radeon 8500 obviously because it supports
> all the graphics features the GF4 does and a bit more to boot - like
> Trueform.

> >The GF4 just does it a lot faster :)

> >-Larry

> Jedi Night 2
> GF4 4200 = 125.0 FPS
> R8500 = 123.5

> RTCW
> GF4 4200 = 152.5
> R8500 = 146.1

> UT 2003 w/anisotropic filtering
> (let's just say *they* had to drop the 4200 benchmarks for a reason and
> only post 4600 benchmarks)

> GF4 4600 = 45.1
> R8500 = 44.2

> Now take into account the R8500 is a direct competitor of the GF3 and
> not the GF4 and I think it's safe to say that your comment above is
> mostly just misinformed bollocks.

> >Hmmmmmmmm... OK, I don't have a Radeon card, & I don't have a GF4, either, so
> >this is probably just "mis-informed bollocks", too.   OTOH, you didn't say
> >(write, post,?) where you got the above marks, so I'll assume ;) that you
aren't
> >describing personal experience (*they*, above).  I'll again assume that these
#s
> >are from one of the many *unbiased* websites out there.

> >At least 2 people here that post regularly, & have used both cards, have
stated
> >that the GF4 cards are much better in the (wait a sec, lemme look... yeppers,
we
> >are posting on REC.AUTO.SIMS) games that they use.  For someone like me, who
is
> >looking to upgrade his vid card soon, information on a newsgroup about the
games
> >that interest me is much preferable to the "informed bollocks" that you seem
to
> >prefer.

> >Thanks go to the *other* posters on this thread, the info you have given is
> >helpful.

> >Brian

> I get well over 100fps in N2002 on an R8500, just how many FPS do you
> think you need to get smooth animation? I've owned both a GF3 and a
> Radeon 8500, but have not used a GF4. It would be rather dim of me to
> switch to a card that gives a small improvemnt now when there are
> faster cards just around the corner. And I only switched to the R8500
> because the GF3 gave me the infamous "infinite loop error" under WinXP
> on my mb. Buy whatever card you like (I would probably buy  a GF4 4200
> if I was buying today), I'm just correcting the previous poster's
> misinformed comment about the R8500. In  many games the R8500 beats a
> GF4 4600 with anisiotropic filtering on and does it at a higher
> quality too. GF4 will beat an R8500 at FSAA easily. You weigh out the
> odds and choose your poison. Just don't post BS or I will come around
> and make corrrections that need to be made. Even a Voodoo5 can hold
> it's own in certain games and at certain settings.

> And *** you and your sarcastic attitude ***.

> >The GF4 just does it a lot faster :)

> >-Larry

> Jedi Night 2
> GF4 4200 = 125.0 FPS
> R8500 = 123.5

> RTCW
> GF4 4200 = 152.5
> R8500 = 146.1

> UT 2003 w/anisotropic filtering
> (let's just say they had to drop the 4200 benchmarks for a reason and
> only post 4600 benchmarks)

> GF4 4600 = 45.1
> R8500 = 44.2

> Now take into account the R8500 is a direct competitor of the GF3 and
> not the GF4 and I think it's safe to say that your comment above is
> mostly just misinformed bollocks.

> >Very selective list of games there :)  I guess you read the massive
> >Anandtech article to come up with it ?

> >-Larry

> That, and every other one available. Perhaps you would like me to post
> links showing how well an R8500 performs when usng anisio compared to
> a GF4 4600 and with magnified images showing it is using a higher
> quality anisio too? Tom's Hardware is so aware of this that he
> negelcted to use the R8500 in the anisio tests comparing the Parhelia
> and GF4 but used it in the othert tests. Very suspect that. I'm not
> saying the GF4 is not faster overall, but to say it is way faster is
> not correct.

> That, and every other one available. Perhaps you would like me to post
> links showing how well an R8500 performs when usng anisio compared to
> a GF4 4600 and with magnified images showing it is using a higher
> quality anisio too? Tom's Hardware is so aware of this that he
> negelcted to use the R8500 in the anisio tests comparing the Parhelia
> and GF4 but used it in the othert tests. Very suspect that. I'm not
> saying the GF4 is not faster overall, but to say it is way faster is
> not correct.

> >No need.  I've evaluated both myself.  I know where they stand :)

> >Thanks, though!

> >-Larry

> Do you play anything besides racing sims? I know this is R.A.S., but
> surely I am talking to well rounded gamers here, no? Personally, I am
> considering downgrading to an MSI GF3 Ti 200 128mb just so I can get
> 2D/3D acceleration in Linux. Can't get that with an R8500 or GF4 yet
> and a few FPS here or there is no big deal to me. A *lot* of games I
> play are 2D only, but I suppose you are not interested in wargames and
> strat games so 3D is all that matters to you. It's all about choices,
> and no one card is the best at everything.

> You're not talking about the Radeon 8500 obviously because it supports
> all the graphics features the GF4 does and a bit more to boot - like
> Trueform.

> choices...

> <vbg>

> --
> Tim White
> INTRAC Motorsports
> www.birds-i-view.com/intrac

> > Basically, at 1024x762x32 with quincunx AA., my framerates are about the
> > same as I was getting in 1280x964x32 with no AA.
> > Now I am uncertain of which I like better,  higher resolutions with no
AA
> or
> > lower resolutions with quincunx AA. At this moment I am leaning towards
> the
> > lower resolution with AA.

> > Don Burnette