rec.autos.simulators

by **Haqsa** » Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:53:23

My trusty 2 year old 32 meg DDR Radeon just isn't cutting it anymore -
it still can do 1024x768x32 without breaking a sweat, but there is not
enough memory for texture heavy games, and not enough horsepower for
FSAA. In a flyer for a local store they are advertising a 128 meg
GeForce 3 Ti200 for $160 (US). Probably going to head down there
tomorrow to make sure that isn't a typo. Assuming it's legit, what
would I be losing by getting this instead of a GF4 or a Radeon 8500? I
primarily play F1 2002, GPL, NR2002, Dungeon Siege, Jedi Outcast, and
various Half-Life mods. I also need good 2D for various modelling and
painting programs. I would like to be able to turn on FSAA,
particularly in the racing games, and run everything at full detail. I
also would like to not have to buy another card next year. Currently
using a Celeron at 950 mhz, but will probably be upgrading mb, ram, and
cpu later this year. Opinions?

by **Uncle Feste** » Mon, 01 Jul 2002 11:04:47

> My trusty 2 year old 32 meg DDR Radeon just isn't cutting it anymore -
> it still can do 1024x768x32 without breaking a sweat, but there is not
> enough memory for texture heavy games, and not enough horsepower for
> FSAA. In a flyer for a local store they are advertising a 128 meg
> GeForce 3 Ti200 for $160 (US).

Don't do it man. This week's BestBuy ad has a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 for
$179.99. Same card I have, BTW. Much more card for only another 20-spot.

--

Fester

by **Bob** » Mon, 01 Jul 2002 12:16:19

Here's a GF4, 128 meg for $167 delivered, possibly no sales tax depending on
where you live.

http://www.fticomputer.com/cgis/detail.cgi?product=VB-A-GT20-GF4-4200...
f7f56db9a65bf5c7815095e3795491&cat=VB

by **Jone Tytlandsvi** » Mon, 01 Jul 2002 22:31:25

I've just replaced my Radeon AIW, and done a little bit of research
beforehand.
A bit of what I found out:
Most gamers seems to go for the Geforce cards, but if 2D performance is
important, the ATI cards will give a more clear and crisp image. The ATI
built cards are also better at this then the "powered by ATI" cards.
All Geforce cards gives a very dark 3D image.
The ATI fans thinks the Geforce cards has serious problems with bad drivers,
and the Geforce fans thinks the same about ATI. I have read several post
saying things like "never again, I've bought my last Nvidia card".

I ended up with Hercules 8500LE 128Mb. About $165 ex VAT.
The 8500LE is not clocked quite as fast as the 8500, and it has no second
RAMDAC, so you can't attach a second CRT display to the DVI output like you
can with the 8500.

Jone.

by **The Other Larr** » Mon, 01 Jul 2002 22:54:08

If you are running a Celeron 950, I question whether a new Video Card is
really going to be that helpful.

NR2002, and most other later games, require just as much CPU performance as
they do Video Card performance.

I think you need more of an upgrade overall than just the card.

If you want to keep costs down, I'd look to something like a 1.4Ghz T-Bird
(well under $100 now), a new MB, and at least 256MB of RAM. You might also
need to update your Power Supply.

You should be able to do that for around $300.

I think you need to address the system before the Video Card.

-Larry

by **Haqsa** » Mon, 01 Jul 2002 23:20:11

Has ATI ever fixed the 16 bit color issue? This is one of the few
disappointments I had with my Radeon. When I bought it, I assumed I
would be able to play everything in 32 bit color and therefore wasn't
concerned about the poor speed and image quality in 16 bit color. Then
I found that there were a number of games I wanted that did not support
32 bit color. Also, with games released in the last year, racing games
in particular, I have to choose between 16 bit color and high texture
detail or 32 bit color and low texture detail. I prefer the high
texture detail, since it affects the sensation of speed. But 16 bit
color on a Radeon is no faster than 32 bit, and there are lots of
dithering artifacts. I am not going to buy another Radeon unless I am
sure that they have addressed this.

I agree with you about the drivers btw. I have owned nVidia cards also,
they are no better from a driver standpoint. They just update more
often, and that seems to make people feel better about it.
Unfortunately it also increases people's confusion. How many posts have
you seen in this newsgroup from nVidia owners asking which driver they
need to use to get game X to work?

> > would I be losing by getting this instead of a GF4 or a Radeon 8500?
I

> I've just replaced my Radeon AIW, and done a little bit of research
> beforehand.
> A bit of what I found out:
> Most gamers seems to go for the Geforce cards, but if 2D performance
is
> important, the ATI cards will give a more clear and crisp image. The
ATI
> built cards are also better at this then the "powered by ATI" cards.
> All Geforce cards gives a very dark 3D image.
> The ATI fans thinks the Geforce cards has serious problems with bad
drivers,
> and the Geforce fans thinks the same about ATI. I have read several
post
> saying things like "never again, I've bought my last Nvidia card".

> I ended up with Hercules 8500LE 128Mb. About $165 ex VAT.
> The 8500LE is not clocked quite as fast as the 8500, and it has no
second
> RAMDAC, so you can't attach a second CRT display to the DVI output
like you
> can with the 8500.

> Jone.

by **Haqsa** » Mon, 01 Jul 2002 23:26:19

You are correct, but I am not ready to upgrade CPU yet. I will probably
do that later this year or early next year though, so whatever video
card I get should be one that will scale with processor. The Radeon is
actually capable of good frame rates, but the reason I am looking at a
new vid card is because right now I have to run many games at low
texture detail levels, due to only having 32 meg on the card. I also
cannot run FSAA because the Radeon just isn't that good at it. So I am
not expecting faster frame rates from a new card, what I am looking for
is to crank up the detail level and run FSAA, both of which are things
that are not affected by CPU. Then later this year when I do get the
new CPU, if I get a card that scales well, I will get the faster frame
rates at that point.

> If you are running a Celeron 950, I question whether a new Video Card
is
> really going to be that helpful.

> NR2002, and most other later games, require just as much CPU
performance as
> they do Video Card performance.

> I think you need more of an upgrade overall than just the card.

> If you want to keep costs down, I'd look to something like a 1.4Ghz
T-Bird
> (well under $100 now), a new MB, and at least 256MB of RAM. You might
also
> need to update your Power Supply.

> You should be able to do that for around $300.

> I think you need to address the system before the Video Card.

> -Larry

by **Haqsa** » Mon, 01 Jul 2002 23:38:56

I appreciate your advice, and I definitely agree about the GF3, I did
not realize that GF4 prices had come down so much. However, when I
bought the 32 meg card I have now, I decided not to spend the extra
money for 64 meg, which was quite expensive at the time, because I
didn't think any games really needed it. It only took a few months
before that was no longer true. I don't want to make the same mistake
again, I really want to get a 128 meg card this time. Fast ram is nice,
but if you don't have enough of it you are just going to get texture
thrashing anyway, and all that internal bandwidth is going to waste.
Besides, aren't the 128 meg versions overclockable also? What exactly
is the difference in clock speed?

by **The Other Larr** » Tue, 02 Jul 2002 00:25:50

My point is that I think you will be disappointed in what you improvement
you get with the new Video Card, and you won't be able to appreciate it
until the rest of the system is upgraded.

Just be ready for this.

-Larry

> You are correct, but I am not ready to upgrade CPU yet. I will probably
> do that later this year or early next year though, so whatever video
> card I get should be one that will scale with processor. The Radeon is
> actually capable of good frame rates, but the reason I am looking at a
> new vid card is because right now I have to run many games at low
> texture detail levels, due to only having 32 meg on the card. I also
> cannot run FSAA because the Radeon just isn't that good at it. So I am
> not expecting faster frame rates from a new card, what I am looking for
> is to crank up the detail level and run FSAA, both of which are things
> that are not affected by CPU. Then later this year when I do get the
> new CPU, if I get a card that scales well, I will get the faster frame
> rates at that point.

> > If you are running a Celeron 950, I question whether a new Video Card
> is
> > really going to be that helpful.

> > NR2002, and most other later games, require just as much CPU
> performance as
> > they do Video Card performance.

> > I think you need more of an upgrade overall than just the card.

> > If you want to keep costs down, I'd look to something like a 1.4Ghz
> T-Bird
> > (well under $100 now), a new MB, and at least 256MB of RAM. You might
> also
> > need to update your Power Supply.

> > You should be able to do that for around $300.

> > I think you need to address the system before the Video Card.

> > -Larry

by **Dav** » Tue, 02 Jul 2002 00:59:24

>In a flyer for a local store they are advertising a 128 meg
>GeForce 3 Ti200 for $160 (US).

That doesn't sound like such a hot price. Have you checked pricewatch.com?
Prices start at about $90 for 64MB, $130 for 128MB. BestBuy lists their
$130 64MB card as having a $30 manf rebate, I believe ending today? Does this
rebate apply to the bulk/oem priced boards that populate the low-end prices at
pricewatch?

by **na_bike** » Tue, 02 Jul 2002 03:25:50

The 64M have 500MHz mem clock, the 128M 444MHz. However, look out for
mfgs. that put on 4ns RAM or faster even on the 128M, which means safe
overclocking. Gainward even guarantees 250/520 MHz speeds with their
card.

I'd go(and did) with the 128 megger just for the reasons you stated.
Jedi Knight 2 already pushed over the texture limits with 64M cards,
even with texture compression. With upcoming games, UT2003, Unreal2
and Doom3 probably even more so, ...or not. But I'm not betting
against it! I had an 8M Voodoo2, I know texture thrashing! ;-)

by **Jone Tytlandsvi** » Tue, 02 Jul 2002 05:11:47

This test shows that the Radeon 7500 is a bit faster in 16 bit than 32 bit.
It must be the same for the 8500.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/pmradeon2/

by **Haqsa** » Tue, 02 Jul 2002 06:06:07

I definitely am going to go with a 128 meg card. This review is pretty
convincing:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1643&p=3

by **Haqsa** » Tue, 02 Jul 2002 06:10:08

Whoops, that was actually a link to the second page. Here is a link to
the first page:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1643

by **Haqsa** » Tue, 02 Jul 2002 10:41:03

Thanks for the tip. I checked the local store and they were out of
stock, but the notice on the shelf said that the sale is good through
July 16. I'll be checking regularly.

rec.autos.simulators

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards

OT: Video Cards