What is the Best Gaming Card?

[Brian R.]

Today, 7/18/00, what is the best graphics card you can buy for under $500? Going to build a gaming machine for UT and Q3. Have a PIII 800 (@950) and SB Live.

Arguments are probably appropriate.

(I don't feel every computer in my house has to have a Matrox G400 ).

[HedsSpaz]

Well, up until yesterday I would have grudgeingly admitted that for flat out eat your heart out 3D gaming speed that some flavor of the GeForce 2 was the best.

Fortunately I don't have to admit that anymore. As you may have noticed(or may not have), ATI yesterday officially announced that they were SHIPPING their Radeon cards. The reviews that said cards have been getting so far are nothing short of phenomenal! ATI has come out of nowhere and pulled a fast one on nVidia and 3dfx.

Go take a look at some of the various reviews(they aren't hard to find). The best one in my opinion is at <a href="http://firingsquad.gamers.com">Thresh's Firing Squad</a>.

For a gaming rig that kicks some serious a$$ I think this card might be the way to go.
(disclaimer: This of course will all be moot when M's next big card comes out )

Ian

[Brian R.]

I've seen these reviews and that's one of the reasons I posted. It is not clear to me that the Radeon is superior to either the GForce 2 or the V5. The quality of the FSAA is a strong argument for the V5. I think the overall performance favors the G2. I just don't know what to think about the first generation Radio cards (just copywrited this name BTW).

[HedsSpaz]

I think the overall performance favors the G2

I'll have to disagree with you on that one, in a sense that is. I think the strongest point behind the Radeon is that at higher res and particularly 32bit color it outperforms the GeForce2 quite handily. And as drivers mature I expect that it will probably do so by an even greater margine.

I for one don't care how fast a card can go a 640x480x16. If I can get playable framerates out of a card at 1280x1024x32 then that is what I am going to compare ALL cards at because that is what I would want to play at. The Radeon beats the GeForce2 at that res, and thats what matters to me.

This is of course all IMO.

Ian

[Brian R.]

Yes, you're right, but I was just looking at it from an overall perspective. I don't see a significant difference between 16-bit and 32-bit gaming. I just like higher resolutions and framerates. Maybe I'll get to like 32-bit color better once I'm able to use it with some speed, but I'm seriously considering buying a 64-MB Prophet ($335). Not a fan, however. I probably don't want to wait for ATI to develop adequate drivers. I want the next generation Matrox card and it may come before the good ATI drivers.

[Snake-Eyes]

Dunno what games you plan to play, HedsSpaz, but the GTS cards are more than playable in nearly everything I've tried to date at 1280. And of those games I've ran at higher resolutions, most are playable further up the scales, even in 32bit color. Of the few that aren't, a couple get control lag (something with the game code), and the others, well, they're just a little too slow. Those are rare.

Given that the sweet spot for most of us is probably between 1024 and 1280 at most (unless we're using a graphics workstation, in which case we need to keep the G400 in there), the GeForces are more than capable of handling anything as well, or too close to tell without looking at framerate info posted by the game). Top it off, if it's still not FAST enough, drop into 16 bit mode.(not that I would advocate that, but it's there)

The ATI's are only showing any real difference that may be noticable at 1600x1200x32bit resolutions over the GTS cards right now, and with the sad state of ATI's drivers (argue with me all you want here, hehe) compared to the much more mature and stable nVidia drivers, I would still have to go with the GTS if I was buying right now. By the time ATI gets those drivers working with no bugs, and with all features enabled (if ever), the next generation of products will be ready.

Nuff said.

------------------
Ace

[hoppergrass]

GeForce2 Baby! If nothing else, go nVidia for the simple fact of mature drivers. I've had my share of frustrations with S3 stinking drivers and a little with Matrox (not as bad as S3 though). The Matrox G400 I'm using now is my wife's soon to be card. I bought it when I killed my Creative Labs TNT2 Value 16MB upgrading the BIOS. Man I miss that card. But anyway, even when I was using the CL Value, OpenGL was extremely fast (overclocked state) and D3D games were smoother than Matrox. I'm a man with 4 kids and priorities. I'm jumping on the a GeForce2 MX next week instead of it's big brothers.

[sandvic]

ATI Radeon made me drool for 10 minutes after checking the reviews , in fact I preordered one at EBworld

[Dr. Matrox]

Hello Brian!
I'm intresting on buy the p3 800 (100fsb)
And i saw you have it and you overclocked it
with what mobo are u using and what cooling do you use?

[Brian R.]

Doc - See below. I usually run it at 950 (1.70 V). 992 is not stable for more than 30 minutes or so and then I get a spontaneous reboot. Won't run UT at 992 either. Tried an Alpha 3125 cooler. No difference. I use the Tennmax because it's quieter than the Alpha. Also, the Tennmax mounts to the MB with the standard hold-downs. The Alpha doesn't. I need to attach it specially. Not convenient.

------------------
800e PIII @ 992 MHz (1.75 V) w/Tennmax P3 TF heatsink, ABIT BE6, 256 MB Mushkin PC133 (Mosel REV2 PC133 222) + G400 MAX, CL SB Live, IBM Deskstar 34GXP (13 GB, 7200 rpm ATA66) HD, Adaptec AHA2940 w/uw SCSI, IBM Ultrastar 9ZX 9.1GB 10K UW SCSI HD, WD Enterprise 4360 4.3GB 7.2k UW SCSI HD, Pioneer 303s SCSI DVD, Plexwriter 8/4/32A, Win2K all in a modified Supermicro SC750A case, also Sennheiser HD-600 headphones, Sennheiser DSP360 Dolby processor, and a Shure FP22 headphone amplifier.

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 19 July 2000).]

[rei]

i am saving my money to invest in sure-fire dotcoms and buying a geforce2 mx for only $100US.

[DJ WATTS!]

Geeee Force 2 GTS 64 BABY!

Just bought one of these cards myself and it really moves some!

Had to strap the thing down though as it keeps taking off!

UT @ 61.2 fps avg @ 1280x1024 32
Hercules Prophet 2 GTS 64
5.22 drivers
P3 450 @504mhz
128meg PC100 SDRAM
Windows 98
Direct X7.a
8.4gig HD IBM
Soundblaster Live Platinum!
Unreal Tournament v4.20
+Texture compression

DJ WATTS
---------------------------------------------


Its better to burn out than to fade away!

[This message has been edited by DJ WATTS! (edited 23 July 2000).]

[Calorno]

Yeah, just got my Geforce 2 on Friday to replace my 16mb G400 S/H. This thing is very very fast.

Q3 post 70 fps @ 1024 maxed out (matrox struggled to get that at fastest settings)

The drivers are very stable and mature. Mainly because Geforce cards have their roots in TNT (1) cores.

T & L does work....Matrox 77 fps fastest (low geometric no lightmap etc), Geforce 2 89 fps @ 640 16bit high geometric and lightmap) This is on a lowly Celerobn 1 @ 567 though.

Image quality i'm dissapointed to say is not as good as the matrox, esp in windows/2d work at above 1024, even at lower res's the colours are not as nice.

FSAA is IMO a bit of a fad. Ive not seen the V5500 in action but nVidia's method was not impressive to me. Performance hit is 2 great esp 32 bit colour as well. Higher res's look much better than lower res's FSAA.

In other works Geforce 2 is an awesome gaming card combining features, performance and drivers....

Matrox still rocks for image quality and 2d windows work.

Chris Thompson

[blades]

are the gts 2 "mx" slower than the normal one? i think its a yes cause its way more cheaper than the gts 2's so is it?

[DJ WATTS!]

Yep sure is