Need a new Video Card...

[Byock]

OK, guys, I think I need a new video card. $$ is an issue, so would you get the ATI 8500 for $85 (oem), or get the GF4 Ti4200 for $130?

I know, I would love to have a parhelia, but can't justify the expense.


What do ya think? I use my pc for games, and Videos...(have dish hooked to WinTV card.)

[dZeus]

8500 has better price/performance ratio, the GF4 has better drivers...

I guess it comes down to how demanding you are regarding drivers

[ZokesPro]

Or how much you want to pay!

[BuddMan]

Actually drivers with the 8500 isn't an issue anymore. So I wouldn't let that be a deciding factor. Personally I'd go with the 8500 as it compares very well to the GF4.

[RC Agent]

I was in the same situation, I opted for the ATI 8500.

[K6-III]

The superior aniso on the R8500 is reason enough....

[Indiana]

Originally posted by dZeus
8500 has better price/performance ratio, the GF4 has better drivers...

That about sums it up. But still even knowing that, I would chose the R8500 over the GF4Ti4200 at the same price-tag as I've had one for quite some time and it nearly never gave me driver problems.
The Radeons "for free" anisotropic filtering is a major reason here just after the better TVOut/DVD/multimedia capabilities (O.K., and a general dislike for NVidia after having had a terrible TNT card - hardwarewise terrible, but with great drivers, especially OGL.....)

In a short version:
- overall the GF4 Ti4200 will be slightly (measurable, not really perceptible) faster
- if you are the average kiddy that must have every leaked prerelease game version running flawlessly, get the GF.
- if you care about anisotropic filtering, get the Radeon, as the GF will give desolate framerates with aniso turned on.
- if you care about TV-Out and /or DVD get the Radeon.
- if you care about AA, get the GF, as the Radeon will give desolate framerates with AA turned on.
- if you care about both, aniostropic and FSAA, then get the Radeon9700 as both, the GF4Ti4200 and The R8500 are simply too slow for this (maybe the 9500 is a good price/performance choice here as well - future benchmarks will tell)

[WyWyWyWy]

Hey you said money is an issue, why not 9000?

[BuddMan]

I wouldn't get the 9000. 8500 would be a better deal.

[K6-III]

....the upcoming Radeon 9100, on the other hand....

[Kastuvas]

9100 ? hmm I only heard of 9500, 9500pro, 9700 to be released.
I think 9500pro will be very reasonable price performance ratio.

[Nuno]

The superior aniso on the R8500 is reason enough....

You´ll find that a combination of bilinear+adaptative anisotropic+agressive LOD isn´t the best image-quality wise. Of course, it´ll perform better than a GF4, but you´ll never get the same anisotropic image quality.

ATI did a fine job with the 9700, though. You´re able to choose between "performance aniso" (the old bilinear/aniso) and the true thing.

[103er-Fan]

Indiana said about everything that needs to be said.
The Radeon offers enough speed at a good price, especially the AF speed/performance is great there (had the card till april this year). Also I think that the image quality and multimedia quality might be better on the ATI card.
The only "pro" I see for the GeForce would be the much faster FSAA, with the Radeon 8500 you basicly can't use FSAA at all (at least 6 months ago on a 1GHz CPU it wasn't possible), because it's just too slow on newer games, it works and looks well on older games though.

Also I wouldn't get a Radeon 9000, it is slower than the 8500 and not much cheaper from what I read. About the drivers I can say that it was a problem about a year ago when I bought an 8500 card, but that changed and last time I used it, the drivers have been ok, so I wouldn't worry about that.

It depends on your needs:
If you really want FSAA, then get the GeForce, if FSAA isn't important for you, then I would go for the Radeon.


Edit:

Originally posted by Nuno


You´ll find that a combination of bilinear+adaptative anisotropic+agressive LOD isn´t the best image-quality wise. Of course, it´ll perform better than a GF4, but you´ll never get the same anisotropic image quality.

Well, I found that it wasn't a real problem, the AF quality is good in the most situations, actually I never thought it wasn't good.

[Indiana]

Originally posted by 103er-Fan

The only "pro" I see for the GeForce would be the much faster FSAA, with the Radeon 8500 you basicly can't use FSAA at all (at least 6 months ago on a 1GHz CPU it wasn't possible), because it's just too slow on newer games, it works and looks well on older games though.

FSAA was unusable slow here (at least the very good looking 4x Quality) in nearly everything even with my Radeon8500 @300/300 and an AthlonXP 1800+ @2100+ speed.

But then the Supersampling 4x quality setting of the R8500 really gave VERY good results, imo even better than the R9700Pro. I really think it's a pity that ATI does not allow the optional use of Supersampling in their 9700 drivers - as Supersampling in combination with anisotropic filtering does wonders for old games with bad textures and I think the R9700 really has performance to burn.

[K6-III]

Originally posted by Kastuvas
9100 ? hmm I only heard of 9500, 9500pro, 9700 to be released.
I think 9500pro will be very reasonable price performance ratio.

Read this: http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/news.asp?nid=749