[Grey Wolf]

I'm upgrading my computer, and I'm not sure which card to get. The prices are equal, so I want to know which tends to work better in your opinion.

[Vertigo1]

Personally, I'd go for the GF3.  While it is slower than the ATI, its driverbase is quite strong.  ATI has a bad reputation when it comes to properly written drivers, but it is improving as of late.  As much as I don't like ATI products, I do have to give them credit there.  They finally got a clue and are putting more effort into getting them right.

[Fineus]

If you can afford it - go for a GF4 Ti 4200... it'll be more money than the GF3 but you do get a few nifty new tricks and can heavily overclock the sucker...

[Gortef]

I would take the R9000, then again it also depends what are you going to do with the new GFX card (play... watch DVD's... do graphics... all of them... some of them)

I have Hercules Radeon 8500DV All in Wonder myself and well... it haven't let me down yet

[Nico]

same here, my radeon works great, plus the latest drivers, well, impressed me: in the max viewport, the difference was well noticeable: on a scene with 500 000 polys, it went from about 5/10 frames per second to perfect fluidity, was great.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Thunder
If you can afford it - go for a GF4 Ti 4200... it'll be more money than the GF3 but you do get a few nifty new tricks and can heavily overclock the sucker...

That's what i'm going for come me Christmas pay....  probably a Gainward card.  'bout £120-150 depending where you look.

[mikhael]

Personally, I'd firebomb ATI's fabs if I could, just to prevent other people from having to put up with their crap.

Their older cards don't multihead well, but at least they work. On the other hand, the two Radeons I've had, both lockup, reboot, blue screen or otherwise crash every computer I put them in. Even under BSD/Linux they tend to cause kernel panics.

Here's my hardware philosophy: if it doesn't work on a clean install, return it and get a replacement. If the replacement doesn't work, avoid that company like the plague ever after. This is why I didn't touch a 3dfx card after the Voodoo1 and its why I'll never put an ATI card in one my machines again.

[YodaSean]

strange...mine's worked fine ever since I got it

and the new drivers are awesome, btw

[Ulundel]

Go for Radeon 9000 or if you can afford, take Radeon 9700. I've seen it and it's

[CP5670]

How much money do you want to spend? Also, one thing to keep in mind is that the new line of graphics processors (NV30, etc.) will probably be coming out soon, so that would that drop all the current prices.

[vyper]

If you aren't going to wait for the NV30 then the Radeon is definately the one to get out of those two. From what I've seen the Radeon cards are smooth and come with lots of bells and whistles. However, personally I'd get the Parhelia (sp?!) or wait for the NV30.

[Kazashi]

Originally posted by mikhael
Personally, I'd firebomb ATI's fabs if I could, just to prevent other people from having to put up with their crap.

Their older cards don't multihead well, but at least they work. On the other hand, the two Radeons I've had, both lockup, reboot, blue screen or otherwise crash every computer I put them in. Even under BSD/Linux they tend to cause kernel panics.

Here's my hardware philosophy: if it doesn't work on a clean install, return it and get a replacement. If the replacement doesn't work, avoid that company like the plague ever after. This is why I didn't touch a 3dfx card after the Voodoo1 and its why I'll never put an ATI card in one my machines again.

Be thankful you didn't use an NV1*, otherwise you'd have no choice but to use Matrox cards....

ATi's drivers are slowly getting better, to the point where there shouldn't be an excessive amount of tweaking required to get the card running to its potential. So the R9000 is worth considering over the GF3 Ti200, as the performance won't always be hampered by driver issues like once upon a time. But if you want to be assured of trouble-free operation and don't want to go through any hassles of optimising stuff, then go for the GF3. Don't feel pressured into getting an R9700 or GF4 Ti unless you can absolutely afford it, it is a bit of a jump in price especially for the former.

If people want to wait until mid-January, then they'll be able to pick up a GeForceFX (NV30), if they don't mind taking out a loan.


Edit: quick mention that the Parhelia isn't a gamers card. If you're looking for high quality 2D imagery and the ability to run programs on 3 monitors, then give it a thought.


*assuming you never used an NV1 and can't turn around and say that it worked fine. Hell, I can't even remember if they were that bad. I'm sure one of their earlier cards had to be....

[vyper]

Originally posted by Kazashi
Edit: quick mention that the Parhelia isn't a gamers card. If you're looking for high quality 2D imagery and the ability to run programs on 3 monitors, then give it a thought.
 

Perhaps not a true gaming card, but neither was the G400 and it does the job damned well. In fact the only thing Matrox should watch is its DVD support. Also, for true 3D rendering (i.e. apps like 3DSMAX, Truespace, Lightwave etc) the Par. will be top notch.

[Hudzy]

Originally posted by Kazashi
If people want to wait until mid-January, then they'll be able to pick up a GeForceFX (NV30), if they don't mind taking out a loan.

Just out of interest, does anyone know roughly how much that one's going to cost?

[Ryx]

Originally posted by Hudzy


Just out of interest, does anyone know roughly how much that one's going to cost?

Around $399 probably.

Still I'm waiting for NV30. I just hope won't use Geforce in the name.

[aldo_14]

Is there a definite NV30 release date yet?  Because I'm waiting on it coming out before I get a new GFX card.  Seeing as my motherboard is 2/4x AGP only, there's no real point actually getting anything better than a GF4, so I'm waiting for them to take a price hit

[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by Kazashi
Edit: quick mention that the Parhelia isn't a gamers card. If you're looking for high quality 2D imagery and the ability to run programs on 3 monitors, then give it a thought.[/size]

Yeah, Matrox really screwed the pooch with that card.  The performance BLOWS in games, on every bench I've seen.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Vertigo1


Yeah, Matrox really screwed the pooch with that card.  The performance BLOWS in games, on every bench I've seen.

That's like saying 3d Labs screwed up with they made the Oxygen line of cards. Who cares if they rock your world for 3d workstation graphics. after all THEY SUCK IN GAMES SO THEY MUST HAVE SCREWED THE POOCH.

Love those priorities.

[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by mikhael
That's like saying 3d Labs screwed up with they made the Oxygen line of cards. Who cares if they rock your world for 3d workstation graphics. after all THEY SUCK IN GAMES SO THEY MUST HAVE SCREWED THE POOCH.

Love those priorities.

My point is that the card looked really nice on paper (gaming wise), but ultimately ended up blowing chunks.  Gamers make up the vast majority of the customers for such products, so naturally you cator to them FIRST.  They screwed themselves out of a massive chance for making a huge profit so yes, they screwed the pooch.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Vertigo1


My point is that the card looked really nice on paper (gaming wise), but ultimately ended up blowing chunks.  Gamers make up the vast majority of the customers for such products, so naturally you cator to them FIRST.  They screwed themselves out of a massive chance for making a huge profit so yes, they screwed the pooch.

No, you cater for gamers when you're making a gaming card. When you're building a card for PROFESSIONALS, you do something different. Matrox wasn't looking for a gaming card market with the Parahelia. They aimed that one straight at the low to medium side of the professional market and got a bullseye. It was gamers/gaming-site-reviewers who looked at the specs and soiled themselves assuming that big numbers==gaming bliss.