Geforce or Radeon?

[Thoran]

Doom III uses DX9, and the GeforceFX 5900 Ultra has a significant performance advantage over the Radeon in Doom III (which is what I'd expect given the updated design of the 5900)... however, the new ATI chipset should be out within a month, and I'll expect it to handily outperform the 5900 (nv35 chipset). I've used several radeon versions, and I did have problems with early drivers... but for quite a while their drivers have been very reliable in my experience (comperable to the Detonator drivers).

BTW - Half Life 2 looks nothing short of stunning... the 25 minute game video had me drooling like a teenager for the game to be released. Doom III had better kick the gameplay up a notch if they're going to compete.

[ 07-28-2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Xen: quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: . NO GAME YET offers fully blown DX9 effects. So it's like buying a car that can fly, but the skyway isn't built yet.

Just wait to Half Life 2 and Doom 3. [/QUOTE]Yep! But that is 2 games. I can't WAIT to see them! Elite Force II has some awesome effects as well..


I wish they would build a damn renderer for 3D Max that would run in real-time rendering with the effects you see in DOOM or Elite Force II... I they can have realtime rendering and such detail, then their damn 3D Modeling renderer should be able to do this. ugh. Maybe in a few more years.

Erm, GForce? Oh, you're talking about video cards. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Then I'd still recommend GeForce because I've had problems with Radeons. Seems some games are not compatible with Radeon yet with GForce, er, GeForce, most games were made with that card.

[/)eathKiller]

Radeon Vs. GeForce 4

Ex. A: Close up animated textures
Radeon Geforce 4

Ex. B: Distance Rendering
Radeon Geforce 4

Ex. C: Transparency Close-Up Detail
Radeon Geforce 4

Ex. D: Character+World Detail
Radeon Geforce 4


Problems with Ex. A: The differince isn't very clear, framerate is very similar, the only problem is that the fluxuating red lights in the textures on the upper right aren't even visible in a still screenshot on the ATI...

Problems with Ex. B: No brainer here, the further things get away the blockier and less rendered, the same is applied to textures, smoothness etc. on the ATI chip. Also there's some loss in color with the ATI.

Problems with Ex. C: The leaf isn't nearly as crisp and clear with the ATI, but from a distance who really cares right? If you want a chip that can get to the nitty-gritty without any slow down the GeForce 4's for you...

Problems with Ex. D: The character isn't too diferint looking, in the game, however the master cheif appears less anti-allaised and more pixilated around the corners. Colors between the master cheif and the background arent even noticable with the GeForce 4 running, everything is blended together nice and smoothley, not allowing alot of pixilation, even the background and its textures seem more detailed, and both run at the same framerate.


I leave you to decide now...

[Thoran]

Lies, Damn Lies, and screenshots... don't necessarily conclude based on screenshots which is better (unless you're the one personally doing the comparing)

Here's an article comparing the two newest cards from both vendors:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcy

Theres a ton of side by side screenshots in this article and the Radeon is much better in almost every one.

[Paladin2000]

Originally posted by Thoran: Lies, Damn Lies, and screenshots... don't necessarily conclude based on screenshots which is better (unless you're the one personally doing the comparing) Here's an article comparing the two newest cards from both vendors: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcy Theres a ton of side by side screenshots in this article and the Radeon is much better in almost every one.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...it does not matter what each of us preferred. Each of the cards has its own merits and drawback. If you like GeforceX, go for it. On the other hand, if you are a hardcore Redeon user, nobody is going to stop you from using it.

Anyway, most of us are quite happy with nVidia Geforce and you know humans...we can be very stubborn sometimes. Since I have yet to encounter any graphic glitches or any compatibility problems since I started using my old Geforce 2MX, I will continue to support nVidia in the future.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Paladin2000: Tsk, tsk, tsk...it does not matter what each of us preferred. Each of the cards has its own merits and drawback. If you like GeforceX, go for it. On the other hand, if you are a hardcore Redeon user, nobody is going to stop you from using it. Anyway, most of us are quite happy with nVidia Geforce and you know humans...we can be very stubborn sometimes. Since I have yet to encounter any graphic glitches or any compatibility problems since I started using my old Geforce 2MX, I will continue to support nVidia in the future.

Don't get me wrong... I've used NVidia since the origonal Geforce came out up to and including a Geforce 3 I still use. I've also bought ATI/Radeon and they've worked fine for me. I'm just playing the devils advocate since at this point there's some real competition between some very good cards at the top end of the market. IMO between the 9800 Pro 256 and 5900 Ultra I'd pick the one I can get a better deal on if I were buying today, they're that close in performance.

[RoSs_bg2_rox]

So do u guys think that 64mb is enough? I think there is not much point in buying a 64mb now when il be needin at least a 128 fo doom 3 and HL2.

[andrewas]

Correct in theory, doom3 and the like will want a 128Mb card to run at their best. I do wonder how much benefit you will actualy see though, keep in mind they are action games and you wont be stopping to admire the scenery all that often. And how much difference with the DX9 shaders actualy make? A little less than the hype would suggest methinks.

But yeah, get a 128. Cheap enough these day.

[Thoran]

I seem to recall reading that the key to DoomIII's insane graphics quality is the effective use of bump mapping... not super high polygon counts and high res. textures (although I imagine the texture resolution is higher than past engines)... bump mapping is reportedly what takes it over the top.