Is The 64mb DDR Radeon better or worse then the geforce 2 ultra ?

I am debating on either buying a Geforce 2 ultra or the ati radeon 64mb ddr....the radeon is half the price of the geforce2 ultra...but is the ultra woth the 150$ more ?

[Evi]

The Radeon is better, man... They have a 64MB GeForce 3 now, but that\'s probably a little bit too expensive for ya...

Skillzmasta is a ******. He i the WORST Counter-Strike player and he can\'t knife for ****!

He also forgot to come online and play Tribes 2 with me tonite!!!

[Evi]

Originally posted by FackinKubuss
Skillzmasta is a ******. He i the WORST Counter-Strike player and he can\'t knife for ****!

He also forgot to come online and play Tribes 2 with me tonite!!!

What does that have to do with his question?

Lol... He is my friend and I was just tryin to get him mad.

He really does suck at CS though, that was no lie...

When we get our. new computer, I hope I can get a Geforce 3 ultra for it... that would definatly be the ****...

PS2 Should come out with a graphics enhancer...

[nO-One]

Interms of shear horspower the GF.2 ULTRA get\'s the upper hand, but since most manufacturers use bad RF filters the 2d quality is horrid.

ATi, isn\'t as fast in terms of horsepower, but it keeps competitive by using techniques such as HyperZ to save bandwidth (lack of bandwidth is a HUGE problem with G-Force\'s). And the Radeon\'s 2d quality slaughters most GF2 cards,if you get a GF I\'d go with Elsa or Asus.

Another thing to consider is that ATi produces horrid drivers, especially when running NT/2k/XP.They are a little better with 9x/ME.

Radeon\'s have also had some problems with some games (the smoke effect in CS was bad if I remember correctly)

[Evi]

Originally posted by nO-One
Interms of shear horspower the GF.2 ULTRA get\'s the upper hand, but since most manufacturers use bad RF filters the 2d quality is horrid.

ATi, isn\'t as fast in terms of horsepower, but it keeps competitive by using techniques such as HyperZ to save bandwidth (lack of bandwidth is a HUGE problem with G-Force\'s). And the Radeon\'s 2d quality slaughters most GF2 cards,if you get a GF I\'d go with Elsa or Asus.

Another thing to consider is that ATi produces horrid drivers, especially when running NT/2k/XP.They are a little better with 9x/ME.

Radeon\'s have also had some problems with some games (the smoke effect in CS was bad if I remember correctly)

Apparently you know more about this than anyone else in here...

I concur with nO-One.  The Radeon simply cannot match a gf2 ultra with numbers & tech specs.  I spoke with guys that own the 64mb Radeon and while they love the card, they also state that it\'s not as powerful as a gf2 gts, especially with the detonator drivers.

I still want the Radeon vidcap version though.

[nO-One]

The GF.2 U\'s are right now performing very well,doing well against GF.3\'s.And since nVidia has their unified drivers you won\'t have alot of driver problems,and nVidia\'s drivers are very good.

While ATi constantly promises better drivers they always fail to deliver,and that is the biggest drawback of the Radeon, while it\'s specs are lower than GF.2 specs it is more sophisticated,and has alot of potential if only ATi would unlock those potential trough better drivers).

Another thing to consider is that the Radeon doesn\'t get as much a performance hit in 32bit mode as the GF.2 get\'s.And image quality tends to be better than GF\'s (especially in 2d,where the only one that outperforms them in 2d is Matrox,which is un-surpassed in 2d)