Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
<B><font color="lightyellow" size = "1">A BIG BAD
Joined
·
5,568 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I was just wondering if anybody had the experience of upgrading from a Geforce 2 GTS Pro DDR (or any GTS) to a Geforce 3 Ti 500 (or GF3 if you like). Was the upgrade worth it? And I'm really not interested in theoretical benchmarks, im more interested in a user standpoint.. I'm considering getting a Ti 500 this Christmas..

My Current System:
Athlon 1.4Ghz
ASUS Geforce 2 GTS Pro DDR 64MB
512 MB DDR RAM.

So you guys think the upgrade is worth it? Or should I just save the money for a later upgrade. Currently, I don't really have any complaints with the way my current system is running, but who knows.. you guys tell me..

Thanks IAV. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Definitely worth it. Not only is it way faster, it has all sorts of features that will make future games look spectacular (or might even become standard, making it necessary). It's a good investment.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,283 Posts
You may want to consider the Radeon 8500 from ATI,it beats the Ti 500 in pretty much every test and it's cheaper.
Or you can still wait a bit more for Nvidia's next chip.
 

·
<B><font color="lightyellow" size = "1">A BIG BAD
Joined
·
5,568 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
well yeah im aware of that, plus the image quality of fsaa on the radeon is better too. Although my line of thinking right now is kinda like this: 'If I can run anything with my current system without any hitch, is it wise to go for an upgrade at all?' i guess that's more or less what I'm trying to find out. :)
 

·
king Kong Never Dies!
Joined
·
2,057 Posts
I dont encourage u to buy a new card now since ur card can handle almost every games well. I will suggest to wait until a new card come out.

Well, buy a new card unless u want to have atleast 1024x768x32bit res with 4XFSAA on and put every setting to the highest ( like texture quality) and still want the frame rate to stay at atleast at 60 fps constant.. ( something ur current card cant do )..
 

·
Scourge of the Seven Seas
Joined
·
2,412 Posts
Originally posted by Xeven
well yeah im aware of that, plus the image quality of fsaa on the radeon is better too.
Actually, the quality of the Radeon's fsaa is actually worse than the Ti500. On Anandtech it showed the diff . . . fsaa was not only better on the GeForce, the Radeon's 4x fsaa cut the frame rate almost in half! :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,808 Posts
What you mean definately worth ???
It not worth at all...........
Let see the fact when you play game speed is no.1
you don't care about specical features for make that game look more pretty..........
Ex.In my case
I buy matrox G400 because they said it best quality card in that time.
Yep but I have to lost speed.G400 isn't fast than TNT2 (Maybe slower)
I going to my friend and see he play same game as me.
He using TNT2 and quality overall look same as I got.
Even in mutiplayer game (Online games).You don't care at picture quality at all.Onlt thing you want just "s p e e d" and hope no lag for you.
I would said your Ge2 now can handle any games fine.
Instead buy Ge3 buy something else like gamecube or keep money for something else.
 

·
&-)---|--<
Joined
·
8,586 Posts
Originally posted by EfrainMan
Actually, the quality of the Radeon's fsaa is actually worse than the Ti500. On Anandtech it showed the diff . . . fsaa was not only better on the GeForce, the Radeon's 4x fsaa cut the frame rate almost in half! :eek:
Maybe on pc games.. but check out some of Psyches radeon shots with FSAA and compare that to your Geforce's fSAA.. In the screenshots section.. Radeon's FSAA looks a little better in epsxe..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,853 Posts
If I have the choice between Radeon 8500 and GeForce3, I'll have to go with the GF3 now... why?
1. Comparable FSAA Quality. Yes, if you compare 4xFSAA on Radeon 8500 and 4xFSAA on GF3, the Radeon wins flat.... however, if you enable 4xFSAA + *anisotropic filtering* on the GF3, they're pretty much on par in terms of quality... *and* the GF3 doesn't suffer from that much performance penalty.
2. Radeon 8500 does *NOT* use a multisampling algorithm.... it uses supersampling, which explains the crispness of the FSAA images and the performance penalty you get when enabling FSAA (GeForce2, anyone?)
 

·
8+ Years
Joined
·
2,796 Posts
I dunno...I been loving 3dfx and since its dead now I been going for ATI video cards. My next card is a Radeon 8500. I dont like geforce 3 because first its from nvidia. And 2nd I have bad memories of using a geforce 2. I always had problems with nvidia. Just think like this. ATI is like Athlon and Nvidia is like Pentium. :) :D
 

·
Scourge of the Seven Seas
Joined
·
2,412 Posts
Hey, um, what mobo do you have Tom_E? I had a Radeon 8500 for 'bout 2 weeks then got a GeForce 'cause it was incompatible with my mobo. Just lookin' out ;)
 

·
8+ Years
Joined
·
2,796 Posts
I have a MSI K7T266 PRO-2
 

·
Scourge of the Seven Seas
Joined
·
2,412 Posts
Ah. Yeh, should be fine, mine's a Slot A Abit KA7-100, which is pretty old. If you have probs, you can always go to Rage3D ;).
 

·
これはバタスです
Joined
·
6,338 Posts
Originally posted by Raziel
You may want to consider the Radeon 8500 from ATI,it beats the Ti 500 in pretty much every test and it's cheaper.
Or you can still wait a bit more for Nvidia's next chip.
The Radeon 8500 is slower than the GeForce 3 Ti 500 in everything but the synthetic tests. The Radeon's faster texel processing speed allows it to win those tests but in real gaming situations the GF3 wins hands down.

And I think the FSAA quality is better in GF3 as well (as long as anisotropic filtering is on) and the Radeon 8500 suffers horrendous slowdowns with 4XFSAA. Even ATI's SmoothVision multi-sample FSAA isn't a match for the quality and speed of the GF3.

The 2D quality of Nvidia cards isn't so great though. ATI has much better features in that category. As a videocard the Radeon 8500 is pretty good, but as a 3D card the GeForce 3 is better.

Originally posted by ToM_E
I dunno...I been loving 3dfx and since its dead now I been going for ATI video cards.
Yes, 3dfx had superior texture quality compared to Nvidia. Most old Glide-optimized games run horribly on Nvidia cards using Direct3D (Need for Speed 3/4, Unreal Tournament, etc.). ATI's made quite a comeback in the 3D graphics scene but they're still pretty new at it and they've made some mistakes with the Radeon 8500 (unfinished drivers).
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top