Which video card?

For racing sims what would be the better video card, a Geforce2 Ultra or a ATI Radeon-8500? New system will be a P4 1.7 and WIN-XP. I race all of the sims discussed here with N4, F12002, GP3, GPL and F1RC being the favorites. I've read that the Radeon-8500 is faster and looks better than the Geforce2. Thank you, Sal

If you compare Ati 8500 to GeForce2, Ati runs circles around GeForce. GeForce3 is another story. Especially the new Ti500 cards are very fast but expensive. "Salvie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:drcF7.178580$[email hidden]... > For racing sims what would be the better video card, a Geforce2 Ultra or a > ATI Radeon-8500? New system will be a P4 1.7 and WIN-XP. I race all of the > sims discussed here with N4, F12002, GP3, GPL and F1RC being thefavorites. > I've read that the Radeon-8500 is faster and looks better than theGeforce2. > > Thank you, > > Sal > >

JT... I don't know that I would agree with your analysis that the ATI would "run circles" around the GF.....he specifically said a GF2 ULTRA....and while the ATI might have a "performance edge" against the ULTRA....that would be about it. Also, "expensive" is a relative term, is it not? Is an extra $100 really expensive when you already have invested a couple thousand in a high-end mobo, cpu gaming platform.......not to mention the high-end peripherals that are often attached to a gaming system like this (surround sound speakers, race controllers, large-screen monitors, etc.)? I doubt it very much, considering the substantial performance increase and graphic quality improvement a GF3 TI card would provide this system.....for that extra $100. Today, the video card (and drivers it uses) are at the core of the performance spectrum for gaming computers. Cutting costs in either the mobo, cpu or video card....is just foolish (IMHO). That....is my idea of being "expensive." Also, one must consider system stability and performance of the drivers used (mobo chipset drivers, DirectX, video card drivers and the operating system) in the primary core hardware. All of them must work well together and manufacturers and game developers have their hands full at the moment, doing that for current technology hardware. They certainly don't have time to backward compatiblize to older hardware (they will get around to that when the current hardware is stable and operating smoothly). So, putting an old technology video card in a new technology processing platform......is very counterproductive....at the moment, it seems to me. Tom "J.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9s3kk2$2p4$[email hidden]... > If you compare Ati 8500 to GeForce2, Ati runs circles around GeForce. > GeForce3 is another story. Especially the new Ti500 cards are very fastbut > expensive. > > > "Salvie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:drcF7.178580$[email hidden]... > > For racing sims what would be the better video card, a Geforce2 Ultra ora > > ATI Radeon-8500? New system will be a P4 1.7 and WIN-XP. I race all ofthe

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > sims discussed here with N4, F12002, GP3, GPL and F1RC being the > favorites. > > I've read that the Radeon-8500 is faster and looks better than the > Geforce2. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Sal > > > > > >

On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 16:55:29 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote: >JT... > >I don't know that I would agree with your analysis that the ATI would "run >circles" around the GF.....he specifically said a GF2 ULTRA....and while the >ATI might have a "performance edge" against the ULTRA....that would be about >it. From the benchmarks I've seen, the ATI 8500 beats all GF2's by a reasonable way. The 7500 is about the equal of the GF2's. An 8500 is comparable to a GF3 ti 200, maybe a GF3 original. The ti 500 is a reasonable whack faster. The problem with the Radeon is that the drivers are holding back it's performance by a lot. If you can get the 8500 at a good price, it's performance should increase a fair bit over the next few months of driver releases. If it's not too much more than the GF2, go for the ATI board. Your other choice is a GF3 ti 200 and o'clock it to ti 500 specs...:D Rafe Mc

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 05:15:04 -0500, "STP" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Did you hear about ATI shipping drivers that detect if you have Quake3A on >your system and then changes the texture options in Q3A so the frame rate >will be higher? >No? Well they did and it's a very underhanded and cheap trick to try and >make people think they are getting their bang for the buck. Screw ATI. A >GFTi 200 (overclocked you can get a card that performs slightly faster than >a standard GF3) or a GF3 Ti 500 (if you've got the bucks) are the only real >worthy cards to get today if you are looking for a fast gaming card with >good drivers. I don't care how good the 8500 is, with crap drivers it's a >non-contender.

You could also say that nVidia pulled the same kind of underhand trick by sitting on drivers that increased GeF3 performance by up to 30%, waiting til ATI sent out some preview boards to the community. Corporations don't always behave nicely. Business rules. As someone in here said recently, if there is a way to cheat, someone will. Well, that goes even more for a company than it does a person. In Formula 1 they call it 'pushing the rules to their limits' or 'racing in a red car' ;-) -- Spadge Fromley ''collect your rubbsih and in my belly it will go ...''

"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > From the benchmarks I've seen, the ATI 8500 beats all GF2's by a > reasonable way. Did you hear about ATI shipping drivers that detect if you have Quake3A on your system and then changes the texture options in Q3A so the frame rate will be higher? No? Well they did and it's a very underhanded and cheap trick to try and make people think they are getting their bang for the buck. Screw ATI. A GFTi 200 (overclocked you can get a card that performs slightly faster than a standard GF3) or a GF3 Ti 500 (if you've got the bucks) are the only real worthy cards to get today if you are looking for a fast gaming card with good drivers. I don't care how good the 8500 is, with crap drivers it's a non-contender.

"STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_EtF7.440$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > From the benchmarks I've seen, the ATI 8500 beats all GF2's by a > > reasonable way. > > Did you hear about ATI shipping drivers that detect if you have Quake3A on > your system and then changes the texture options in Q3A so the frame rate > will be higher? > No? Well they did and it's a very underhanded and cheap trick to try and > make people think they are getting their bang for the buck. Screw ATI.

That almost sounds like hidden surface removal...a gizmo 3dfx was looking at just before they died. Are they actually replacing high quality textures with lower ones? Or are they just removing textures not seen? And don't the new GF3's have a similar trick with their gpu? dave henrie

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_EtF7.440$[email hidden]... > >>"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:[email hidden]... >> >>>From the benchmarks I've seen, the ATI 8500 beats all GF2's by a >>>reasonable way. >>> >>Did you hear about ATI shipping drivers that detect if you have Quake3A on >>your system and then changes the texture options in Q3A so the frame rate >>will be higher? >>No? Well they did and it's a very underhanded and cheap trick to try and >>make people think they are getting their bang for the buck. Screw ATI. >> > > That almost sounds like hidden surface removal...a gizmo 3dfx was looking > at just before they died.

Sounds like you are talking about the T-buffer - which is just another graphics technique. 3dfx would have needed developers to intentionally use it through new DirectX support or custom 3dfx-specific ports. > Are they actually replacing high quality textures > with lower ones? IIRC, ATI's drivers specifically searched for the string 'quake3' in some places and if found, would turn down the texture quality to improve rendering performance. It affected no other applications, and was 'proven' to exist by renaming bits and pieces of Quake3 to see a performance drop. In other words, they were intentionally bypassing the OpenGL standards for just Quake3. To their defense, the difference was very small, and if Quake3 performance were still an important topic, would have been appreciated by Q3ers. But yes, they were cheating a benchmark to get better scores - it wasn't the first and won't be the last. > Or are they just removing textures not seen? And don't > the new GF3's have a similar trick with their gpu? No. nVidia's drivers are fully conforming to the OpenGL spec. DirectX is much more open, but all hardware providers must squeeze their technologies through that standard. Dave > dave henrie > > >

Thanks for the clarification... dh "David Geesaman> No. nVidia's drivers are fully conforming to the OpenGL spec. DirectX > is much more open, but all hardware providers must squeeze their > technologies through that standard. > > Dave

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Did you hear about ATI shipping drivers that detect if you have Quake3A on >your system and then changes the texture options in Q3A so the frame rate >will be higher? >No? Well they did and it's a very underhanded and cheap trick to try and >make people think they are getting their bang for the buck. Screw ATI. A >GFTi 200 (overclocked you can get a card that performs slightly faster than >a standard GF3) or a GF3 Ti 500 (if you've got the bucks) are the only real >worthy cards to get today if you are looking for a fast gaming card with >good drivers. I don't care how good the 8500 is, with crap drivers it's a >non-contender. >

Agreed, that's a dodgy point from ATI, but as has been said, it's been done by graphics card and CPU makers for a long time. I wouldn't consider going by Q3a anymore anyway, it proves little. But the other 8 or 9 games that I've seen benchmarked with it have shown it to be around the GF3 ti 200 mark. This is WITH the under-performing drivers. With good drivers, you could expect it to be at GF3 ti 500 mark and even higher. It just needs better support to achieve this. So I don't think you can say its a non-contender, it's just not performing at its optimum. Nvidia has had it's own driver problems (look at f1 2001 for instance) and always seems to need different drivers for different games. So ATI are not alone. A couple of years ago it was 3DFX users bagging Nvidia stuff for shitty drivers, now it's a different story. Rafe Mc

Personally, I'd go for a GeForce 3 Ti500. If you are considering the Radeon 8500, you're only $50 away... -Larry "Salvie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:drcF7.178580$[email hidden]... > For racing sims what would be the better video card, a Geforce2 Ultra or a > ATI Radeon-8500? New system will be a P4 1.7 and WIN-XP. I race all of the > sims discussed here with N4, F12002, GP3, GPL and F1RC being thefavorites. > I've read that the Radeon-8500 is faster and looks better than theGeforce2. > > Thank you, > > Sal > >

You know, we go through this with ATI cards EVERY time. I think I'll faint the day they actually release a card that has properly working drivers, from the start! -Larry "Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 16:55:29 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >JT... > > > >I don't know that I would agree with your analysis that the ATI would"run > >circles" around the GF.....he specifically said a GF2 ULTRA....and whilethe > >ATI might have a "performance edge" against the ULTRA....that would beabout

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >it. > > From the benchmarks I've seen, the ATI 8500 beats all GF2's by a > reasonable way. The 7500 is about the equal of the GF2's. > > An 8500 is comparable to a GF3 ti 200, maybe a GF3 original. The ti > 500 is a reasonable whack faster. > > The problem with the Radeon is that the drivers are holding back it's > performance by a lot. If you can get the 8500 at a good price, it's > performance should increase a fair bit over the next few months of > driver releases. > > If it's not too much more than the GF2, go for the ATI board. Your > other choice is a GF3 ti 200 and o'clock it to ti 500 specs...:D > > Rafe Mc >

"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Agreed, that's a dodgy point from ATI, but as has been said, it's been > done by graphics card and CPU makers for a long time. Not on shipping drivers to the consumer. Sure on drivers they give to pre-release sites doing reviews, but never this low and underhanded. Fuck ATI, I'll never buy their shit because of this. > Nvidia has had it's own driver problems (look at f1 2001 for instance) > and always seems to need different drivers for different games. So ATI > are not alone. A couple of years ago it was 3DFX users bagging Nvidia > stuff for shitty drivers, now it's a different story. Yea, and at that time I used 3DFX cards.

>Yea, and at that time I used 3DFX cards. >Me as well, but it goes to show that nVidia had a quality product with blazing speed but poor driver support. People stuck with them, and now they are the dominant player in graphics cards. Maybe ATI has the same future. That said, 3DFX were very complacent as the market leader with Glide support behind them and they contributed to their own downfall with their design choices. Rafe Mc Oh, and I agree with you about shipping drivers which alter texture choices, etc., not the best marketing decision there was it?

"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > >Yea, and at that time I used 3DFX cards. > > > Me as well, but it goes to show that nVidia had a quality product with > blazing speed but poor driver support. People stuck with them, and now > they are the dominant player in graphics cards. Maybe ATI has the same > future. > > That said, 3DFX were very complacent as the market leader with Glide > support behind them and they contributed to their own downfall with > their design choices. > > Rafe Mc > > Oh, and I agree with you about shipping drivers which alter texture > choices, etc., not the best marketing decision there was it?

Go to Fring Squad and read the article on the state of video cards. It's written by an ATI fanboy and he's even predicting ATI won't cut it because of this latest fiasco with their drivers and Nvidia will be the only player in town when it comes to 3D gaming.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:20:49 -0500, "STP" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Go to Fring Squad and read the article on the state of video cards. It's >written by an ATI fanboy and he's even predicting ATI won't cut it because >of this latest fiasco with their drivers and Nvidia will be the only player >in town when it comes to 3D gaming. Why, does that mean Kyro are going to die too? -- Spadge Fromley ''collect your rubbsih and in my belly it will go ...''

"Spadge Fromley" > Why, does that mean Kyro are going to die too? My feeling about the Kyro is...it's too different to ever suceed. Since it's speed comes from a programming method that doesn't mesh with current big name cards...so programmers will not allocate much time & money to get the full benefit of the Kyro. It sounds promising, but like the betamax vcr and other superior products the best idea doesn't always win. dave henrie

"Spadge Fromley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:20:49 -0500, "STP" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Why, does that mean Kyro are going to die too? > They are small change in the big scheme of things so far. Maybe KyroII, but I see no compelling reason to buy a Kyro unless you are on a budget. I'm actually interested in the Radeon 8500 because it looks to me that when you run games with things like FSAA, 32bit on that the 8500 outperforms the GF3. Just needs good drivers.