Re: F1 2001: GeForce3 or Radeon 8500? Anyone know what's best?

This might help: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1544 Ken "Warlock!" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I'm in the final stages of putting a new computer blueprint together, > and I'm lookin' for input on which video card I should go with. Other > considerations are GPL which will *always* be on my system, and the > latest, greatest, shoot-em-up, Unreal/Quake-type games. Any experiences > would be helpful... > > Warlock!

I'm in the final stages of putting a new computer blueprint together, and I'm lookin' for input on which video card I should go with. Other considerations are GPL which will *always* be on my system, and the latest, greatest, shoot-em-up, Unreal/Quake-type games. Any experiences would be helpful... Warlock!

The Radeon has the ability to out run the GF3, but until ATI learns how to write a driver it will never happen. Which is sad because IMO ATI has a better image quality than Nvidia. I have also heard that ATI card is having troubles with AMD based systems. You would have thought that they would have learned after all the problems with the first Radeon cards. I also have heard that the their new version of FSAA is not even enabled in the release drivers. *sigh* MadDAWG

I'vw got both cards, and on a Tbird 1600 with all options maxed in f1:2001, the GF3 is TWICE as fast in XP as the Radeon. This is a driver issue I am sure, and both are extremely playable but I average 80FPS at Monaco with the GF3, and only 40 with the Radeon. This is at 1024x768 16bit no FSAA. Hope this helps. I'm sticking with the Radeon, hoping the drivers will fix the problems.... "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The Radeon has the ability to out run the GF3, but until ATI learns how to > write a driver it will never happen. Which is sad because IMO ATI has a > better image quality than Nvidia. I have also heard that ATI card ishaving > troubles with AMD based systems. You would have thought that they wouldhave > learned after all the problems with the first Radeon cards. I also have > heard that the their new version of FSAA is not even enabled in therelease > drivers. *sigh* > > MadDAWG > >

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:43:25 GMT, "tsrf900r" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I'vw got both cards, and on a Tbird 1600 with all options maxed in f1:2001, >the GF3 is TWICE as fast in XP as the Radeon. This is a driver issue I am >sure, and both are extremely playable but I average 80FPS at Monaco with the >GF3, and only 40 with the Radeon. This is at 1024x768 16bit no FSAA. > >Hope this helps. I'm sticking with the Radeon, hoping the drivers will fix >the problems....

Why stick with the Radeon when the GF3 already gives you the frame rate that you want? How does the Trueform look?

Trueform looks ok, but until a game is specificaly made for it, it'll always have glitches, like ballooning guns etc...I turn trueform off right now...I'm sticking with the 8500 for a couple of reasons, first I think it will be better than the GF3 in a couple of months with drivers etc. 2nd because I like the dual monitor support that the GF3 doesn't have... If the GF3 had dual monitor support, I would have probrably stuck with it.... "Dave Ryerson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:43:25 GMT, "tsrf900r" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >I'vw got both cards, and on a Tbird 1600 with all options maxed inf1:2001, > >the GF3 is TWICE as fast in XP as the Radeon. This is a driver issue Iam > >sure, and both are extremely playable but I average 80FPS at Monaco withthe > >GF3, and only 40 with the Radeon. This is at 1024x768 16bit no FSAA. > > > >Hope this helps. I'm sticking with the Radeon, hoping the drivers willfix > >the problems.... > > Why stick with the Radeon when the GF3 already gives you the frame > rate that you want? How does the Trueform look?