Thanks for the info
--
Edward
Commissioner
MARA Middle-Aged Racers Association
Heck Ed, (that's the old University of Washington Basketball arena lol)
If me an Eldred make the race this Saturday, you already are good enough...
Going from a geforce 2 mx to a higher card like the Radeon will give you
some increase in fps. But I think it won't be a HUGE amount. What you will
see is that your current system can move up a screen resolution or two and
still maintain or slightly improve your past fps. Remember the MX is the
value portion of the Nvidia product line...try to avoid them especially if
you look at the Geforce 4 video cards.
Now hopefully a Radeon user or two can comment on the compatibility of the
card with the sims you mentioned.
dave henrie
All benchmarks I have seen have the 8500 quite a bit faster. And as an all
around card I prefer it. Have used both and the 2D quality of the Radeon is
much much better. And can be found quite cheap now. ATI has a new card due
in the fall I believe.
Bill
I am watching with great enthusiasm the new Matrox Parhelia. If it is as
good in reality as it is on paper, it may very well be my next card. I like
nVidia cards for 3D ***, but as I age I find I'm no longer willing to
give up 2D quality to get it. I'll take a few FPS less to get 1st-class 2D
in the same package.
And if nothing else, Matrox has got 2D video quality _nailed_ like no other
manufacturer. ATI comes in second.
-Larry
> > Before I would get a Radeon 8500, I would look seriously at the gfIII ti
> > 200. I just got one, the price is good. Course I haven't looked at any
> > comparison benchmarks between it and the radeon.
> All benchmarks I have seen have the 8500 quite a bit faster. And as an all
> around card I prefer it. Have used both and the 2D quality of the Radeon
is
> much much better. And can be found quite cheap now. ATI has a new card due
> in the fall I believe.
> Bill
That they do, unfortunately never, until this card hopefully, had the 3D
quality. The ATI frivers are rock solid now. And the 8500 is definitely the
best balance between 2D and 3D available right now IMHO
Bill
* Well I dont know if its age but I have always felt that way. I am
also waiting for the Parhelia and I am a gamer who is still using my
G400TV since I refuse to give up 2d. Until recently I could stay
quite competitive with my G400 but in the last batch of shooters I had
to finally say Uncle. I was looking at a GF3 until I saw the
announcement by Matrox, so I guess I keep the G400 for a bit longer =)
Scott
But, ATI had such a bad history regarding this, I decided to play it safe
even though I knew the 2D would not be as good.
Next time around, I think a change is in order.
Though I don't use the video-out on my Ti500, I hear this is another area
where nVidia is week compared to ATI.
-Larry
> > Yeah, one thing nvidia is not really good at is 2D quality, which is
> > unfortunate. When I bought my Ti500, I considered the Radeon 8500, but
at
> > that time the Radeon was going through the typical ATI 'tough-period'
with
> > drivers. They always do with new cards.
> > I am watching with great enthusiasm the new Matrox Parhelia. If it is
as
> > good in reality as it is on paper, it may very well be my next card. I
> like
> > nVidia cards for 3D ***, but as I age I find I'm no longer willing to
> > give up 2D quality to get it. I'll take a few FPS less to get 1st-class
> 2D
> > in the same package.
> > And if nothing else, Matrox has got 2D video quality _nailed_ like no
> other
> > manufacturer. ATI comes in second.
> That they do, unfortunately never, until this card hopefully, had the 3D
> quality. The ATI frivers are rock solid now. And the 8500 is definitely
the
> best balance between 2D and 3D available right now IMHO
> Bill
