|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
11-15-2002, 01:40 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 102
 |
GF4 vs radeon
hi guys ...
i need any information i can get about gf4 vs radeon. radeon for example has been developing their newest Radeon9700, but before that, an example of 8500, 8500LE and 9000 or 9000Pro has confused me  AFAIK, the newest NV30 has been delayed for some unknown reason. Nvidia is still using their GF4Ti4600 to run for AGP 8X please advice! |
|
|
|
11-15-2002, 02:47 PM
|
#2 |
|
Forum Administrator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Joplin MO
Posts: 37,772
|
The only Radeon that's potentially better for games than a GF4 Ti is the 9700. The 8500 is a good card but not as fast for games as the Ti. The 9000 is a budget series (kinda like a GF MX), the 8500 is a faster card.
|
|
|
|
11-15-2002, 04:16 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 102
|
confusing
 but i got the picture you've given me ... so 8500 is equal to gf3ti500,cmiiw and the GF4MX equal to R9000, what about the 9000pro? |
|
|
|
|
11-16-2002, 01:50 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bridgeport, CT USA!
Posts: 404
 |
The 9000 pro competes with the GF4mx yes, but the 9000pro is a better card. It is based on the 8500 so it has dx8 features and such. You are just confused as to there markets. The mx and 9000 have always been budget. The 8500 was ATi's flagship. Since it came out after, it has a small edge on even the GF3Ti500.
Budget-GF4Mx<9000pro Flagships(Past or present)GF3Ti < 8500 < GF4Ti < 9700 Alternating product cycles. |
|
|
|
|
11-16-2002, 02:13 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 102
|
so you're saying it's better to have an 8500 to compete w/ gf3Ti? interesting ... i wonder how can it be like this? has ATi given a perfect solution to market, which like me, is only confused all the time :P
Last edited by reeve; 11-16-2002 at 02:15 PM. |
|
|
|
|
11-16-2002, 04:27 PM
|
#6 |
|
Mondsreitersmann
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Skingrad
Posts: 8,781
|
The 8500 is slower than the GF in raw gaming and frame rates. However it has a better picture quality.
__________________
Darum still, füg' ich mich, wie Gott es will. Nun, so will ich wacker streiten, und sollt' ich den Tod erleiden, stirbt ein braver Reitersmann. |
|
|
|
|
11-17-2002, 09:46 AM
|
#7 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Brooklyn Park,Minn.
Posts: 1,864
|
hi
i have a 9700, to many problems playing games with it. went back to my g4 4400 and rarely have problems when i play games. how many times do you see a g4 card having any problems compared to the 9700? when playing games  wolfie |
|
|
|
|
11-17-2002, 12:59 PM
|
#8 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 102
|
hahahaha,
a friend of mine just stucked by R9700 on ASUS P4PE 8XAGP card ... i850 if imnot mistaken ... a R9700 seems to be an exclusive card which required a lot of technical skill which not everyone has ... some of the 8x boards need to have the newest BIOS. May be some of gygabyte user can spend a moment to talk about it ... regards Reeve |
|
|
|
|
11-17-2002, 01:14 PM
|
#9 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,576
|
I've done a few 9700's now on the latest ASUS boards, and with the exception of the P4S8X, haven't had any issues.
If you are having issues with a 9700, take note, the Catalyst 2.4 drivers were just released.
__________________
-At Ford, quality is job #1, job #2 is making them explode. ~Norm MacDonald, SNL News -Switching to Glide..Balancing in my head..inside of me... taking the glide path instead. |
|
|
|
|
11-17-2002, 01:17 PM
|
#10 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 102
|
really? ... :?
but it just couln't detect the R9700, as usual the monitor went blind
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
