Luca
2004-05-16, 14:16
Which do you prefer, ATI or nVidia? See, I have both a GeForce 3 and a Radeon 8500, and while they're both good at some things, the differences between the two on some games is simply staggering.
Basically, some games run well with the nVidia and are shit on the ATI, and some are the other way around. Command And Conquer is nearly unplayable on the Radeon, but it's smooth and fast with the nVidia. Same goes for Halo. UT2004 is equal on both, and seems to rely more on the CPU than the graphics card for good performance. Quake III based games, like Medal Of Honor, are insanely better on the ATI. I can run MoH:AA at 1280x1024 with every setting at its highest with my 8500 and get perfect framerates, while the GeForce 3 can only run it at about 800x600 and medium settings if I want a decent framerate.
I'm thinking that Call Of Duty (which I really want to get) will run much better on the ATI than on the nVidia, since it's based on the Quake III engine like MoH. I guess I just have to decide which games I like more and would want to be able to play at a high framerate. On the one hand, I never play RTS games, so C&C isn't a concern, and even though I like Halo, I've played it a million and one times. But on the other hand, the Quake III engine is getting really old, and if it's the only thing this ATI card does well, then I'm not sure if I really want to stick with the Radeon.
There are some other differences outside of performance. Overall, the Radeon is better. It supports dual monitors and S-video out, which the PC-flashed GeForce 3 doesn't support. Also, the GeForce 3 will cause flickering at too-high refresh rates, so I have to set my refresh rate lower than the maximum when I use it. It still works out fine since lower-than-normal on my monitor is still higher than most monitors can go.
I reposted this here, now that the regular forums are up and in public view.
Basically, some games run well with the nVidia and are shit on the ATI, and some are the other way around. Command And Conquer is nearly unplayable on the Radeon, but it's smooth and fast with the nVidia. Same goes for Halo. UT2004 is equal on both, and seems to rely more on the CPU than the graphics card for good performance. Quake III based games, like Medal Of Honor, are insanely better on the ATI. I can run MoH:AA at 1280x1024 with every setting at its highest with my 8500 and get perfect framerates, while the GeForce 3 can only run it at about 800x600 and medium settings if I want a decent framerate.
I'm thinking that Call Of Duty (which I really want to get) will run much better on the ATI than on the nVidia, since it's based on the Quake III engine like MoH. I guess I just have to decide which games I like more and would want to be able to play at a high framerate. On the one hand, I never play RTS games, so C&C isn't a concern, and even though I like Halo, I've played it a million and one times. But on the other hand, the Quake III engine is getting really old, and if it's the only thing this ATI card does well, then I'm not sure if I really want to stick with the Radeon.
There are some other differences outside of performance. Overall, the Radeon is better. It supports dual monitors and S-video out, which the PC-flashed GeForce 3 doesn't support. Also, the GeForce 3 will cause flickering at too-high refresh rates, so I have to set my refresh rate lower than the maximum when I use it. It still works out fine since lower-than-normal on my monitor is still higher than most monitors can go.
I reposted this here, now that the regular forums are up and in public view.