PDA

View Full Version : GeForce or Radeon? advise pls


The Time Serpent
01-07-2003, 04:57 PM
well im thinkin of an upgrade but im a bit confused, cuz im a bit short on money i cant afford anything better than those so plz advise (oh yeah i work with Maya, if thats of any importance)

DeathCarrot
01-07-2003, 05:38 PM
even though i prefer nvidia, i have to admit that the radeon 9000 pro 128mb is the quickest of the bunch...

GregHess
01-07-2003, 06:17 PM
You left out the Geforce 4 ti 4200. If that was added to the poll, it would get the most votes out of all the remaining choices.

Gyan
01-07-2003, 06:22 PM
Where's None of the Above ?

The Time Serpent
01-07-2003, 06:56 PM
as i said, im short on money so i cant afford anything better than those four

GregHess
01-07-2003, 06:57 PM
Then I'd just figure out a way to deal with what you currently have, until you get a bit more cash. The ti 4200's are only around 130-140 USD.

HapZungLam
01-07-2003, 09:20 PM
i just got ti4200 for $245CAN tax inc. at futureshop the boxing day. i heard a lot of negative things from ATI doesn't compatable with some 3D appz

elvis
01-07-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by HapZungLam
ATI doesn't compatable with some 3D appz
ATi "does compatable" (:p) with most 3D applications, it's just that the performance is much better from the geforce4ti line of cards.

MadMax
01-08-2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by HapZungLam
ATI doesn't compatable with some 3D appz


Generally I agree with this.

ATI is good for somethings, but reliability in 3D apps isn't one of them.

Over on one of the Lightwave forums, there was a big thread of complaints recently over the drivers in the newest Radeons. None of it was good.

I had to ditch my last ATI card due to irregualr performance in Maya and Lightwave to include visual errors in preview modes, texture irregularities and causing apps to just blink out back to the desktop.

The problem persisted, even through attempts at installing and un installing various revisions of drivers with no luck.,

Once I put a GeForce 4 Ti4600 in, the problems stopped immediately.

ATI doesn't fully support all aspects of OpenGL beyond that which would be used for games.

CgFX
01-08-2003, 06:44 PM
Quadro4 380 XGL.

-Should be about $150.
-Certified and supported for all pro 3D apps.
-Quadro features (AA line perf, multi window, hw overlay, etc.)
-Should beat any GeForce/Radeon in pro 3D app perf.
-Has S-Video out for doing DCC work.
-Has two display channels.
-Faster than a Quadro2 Pro (once $1000) if I remember right.

http://www.spec.org/gpc/apc.data/specapc_3dsm42_summary.html

elvis
01-09-2003, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by CgFX
Quadro4 380 XGL.
do you know which chipset this is based on (as in the geforce equivalent)?

according to the PDF on nvidia's website, the 380 will be faster than the 550, which to me indicates the 380 is gf4ti based like the 750, 900 and 980.

[EDIT] the PNY website indicates that it has both a programmable vertex and pixel shader, which again indicates it to be ti based rather than MX based. at US$150 that's damn cheap!

CgFX
01-09-2003, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by elvis
do you know which chipset this is based on (as in the geforce equivalent)?

according to the PDF on nvidia's website, the 380 will be faster than the 550, which to me indicates the 380 is gf4ti based like the 750, 900 and 980.

[EDIT] the PNY website indicates that it has both a programmable vertex and pixel shader, which again indicates it to be ti based rather than MX based. at US$150 that's damn cheap!

It is NV18GL based so it is a superset of the the GeForce4 MX AGP 8x architecture.

This means it is not programmable and it should not be faster than the 580 XGL (also AGP 8x). It will be faster than a 550 XGL when doing some HD or intense video work and any host-limited things. It should also take advantage of any AGP 8x specific driver tuning.

There are also some postings from OEMs on www.spec.org which show rough performance comparisons (not all the system specs are the same though).

The 380 XGL and 580 XGL use the same NV18GL chip with AGP 8x but the 380 XGL runs with slower GPU and memory clocks. The 380 XGL has S-Video out while the 580 XGL does not. The 380 is full height while the 580 is small form factor (low profile). The 580 supports dual DVI out (or dual VGA or one of each) while the 380 is hardwired with one DVI and one DB15/VGA port.

Looking at NVIDIA's website in the Quadro4 section it shows that the 380 XGL is a little slower than the 580 XGL with SPECviewperf and indeed a bit faster than the 550 xgl on some stuff. Looking at the XGL PDF it shows the 380 xgl as a bit faster than the 550 XGL with the three listed Viewperf components (due to AGP 8x optimizations I would assume). I don't see anything that suggests they are saying it is faster than a 7x0 XGL or above and I would expect that to not be the case.

Looking at PNY's site, I do not see where they say the 380 XGL is programmable (which it is not, although NVIDIA's drivers would emulate vertex/pixel programs on the CPU with this board).

The 380 XGL should be the board for anyone that is thinking of doing the SoftQuadro thing and they don't need the HW programmability of the NV25gl/NV28gl chips, IMHO.

It is cheap ($150-160), certified, supported, and the 380 xgl will prove to be faster than most if not all of the GeForce Ti 4x00 products on pro 3D apps thanks to its quadro HW features, AGP 8x, and quadro SW features.

GregHess
01-09-2003, 01:26 PM
If it is at all based on the MX chipset (the NV18GL) its in no way superior to the Geforce4 Ti series. I won't recommend any Geforce4 MX card's, even if its got quadro slapped on the end of it. They're inferior cards, and to be avoided at all costs.

Even nvidia has admitted to this fact.

elvis
01-09-2003, 09:38 PM
from the PNY site, this page:
http://www.pny.com/quadro/products/Prodtemplate.cfm?prodType=380

says "Microsoft DirectX 8.1, OpenGL 1.4 Optimizations and Support (with vertex and pixel programmability)"

from the nvidia website, on this page:
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=quadro4xgl

there is a pdf:
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/lo/1624/SUPP/PO_Quadro4_XGL_11-02.pdf

on the second page it has benchmarks from specviewperf 7.0 which indicate the 380 is faster than the 550 (but still slower than the 580, 750 and up).

all a bit misleading. classic case of the marketdroids stepping in and making a mess of things, it seems. :)

the question is: at that price, would the quadro4-380XGL outperform a geforce4ti 4200? i'd love to see a direct comparison on identical hardware and software of these two chips.

GregHess
01-11-2003, 05:54 PM
Thats the most impossible statement I've ever heard. I've tested MX cards before. Their crap. Utter and complete crap. In some situations their not even able to finish tests, cause they don't have the bandwidth necessary to performance the selected operations. One of the original tests I ran when benchmarking some cards included some mx tests at 1600x1200...the estimated time to complete a single viewport animation playback was over 4 hours....which mind you, the card couldn't even complete because the passive cooling caused it to overheat and lockup about every 15-20 minutes.

I can't stress enough the inferiority of these cards in the upper res ranges.

Claiming that the ti 4200 is giving you similar performance to the mx440 would only occur if....

1) You were running at a low res... 800x600 or lower.

2) You have an older, much slower system. Something below a 1.5 P4, 1.4 P3, or 1.333 Tbird.

3) There is some critical flaw in your system setup which is limiting the performance of the video card. Either memory, cpu, or disk performance.

4) Your not running any applications or games which have come out in the past 2 years.

CGTalk Moderation
01-14-2006, 03:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.