Worth to Buy

Louis · 11-19-2001, 07:41 PM

Anybody had owned the ATI 8500 & Geforce 3 TI200 ??

1. Is ATI 8500 worth to buy ??

2. Can it run older games Normally without any patch file ?? (8500)
Also the Jim's aquarium!!!!

3. If you can only buy one of them, which one do you prefer ??

Coelacanth · 11-20-2001, 09:00 PM

I don't have either board and wouldn't know how to compare them if I had just one, but the word from magazines like Maximum PC, PC Gamer, and a few online sites is this:

1. ATI 8500 is faster than even a GeForce Ti 500 in certain things, and slower in other things. Overall, it's pretty much a wash.

2. ATI's drivers are currently unstable. Both Maximum PC and PC Magazine had issues with the drivers. Maximum PC figured that ATI will get their act together on that and didn't knock down their perfect 10 rating, but PC Gamer gave it an 84% while giving the GeForce boards all 90-something ratings. Say what you will about nVidia's driver frenzy/confusion (most of which is caused by "leaked" versions and not by nVidia's "official" drivers) -- they are more stable than ATI's at the moment.

3. ATI has better pixel shaders. IIRC, it can do 12 effects on each pixel while the GeForce3 can do only...um...4 I think. Someone can correct me on that, maybe. But anyway, ATI can do more. The downside is that their pixel-shading technology is completely different than nVidia's. Guess what? That means developers have to code two different versions if they want to support pixel-shading effects on both chipsets. I hate these sorts of situations, because now it's a "wait and see what, if anything, becomes the standard." And then in 6 months, the next gen of chips will come out and probably there will be yet ANOTHER standard for this. Such is life in cutting-edge graphics chips.

I don't know about older games, but I assume that anything DirectX or OpenGL ought to work fine. I think as long as it's not doing something strange like a hardware-specific call, it should be OK. If you're talking DOS games, that's another story.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Socrates · 11-21-2001, 03:27 AM

Thorughout the years, I have had more trouble with ATI boards than other other "major" brand.

I've had relatively few problems with Nvidia.

I've dealt with a lot of machines running a variety of graphics apps and that's just been my experience.

So my gut is to always avoid ATI when I am given a choice. Of course, mileage varies and there will certainly be someone who has experienced the opposite.

11-19-2001, 07:41 PM	#1
Louis Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 35	Worth to Buy Anybody had owned the ATI 8500 & Geforce 3 TI200 ?? 1. Is ATI 8500 worth to buy ?? 2. Can it run older games Normally without any patch file ?? (8500) Also the Jim's aquarium!!!! 3. If you can only buy one of them, which one do you prefer ??

11-21-2001, 03:27 AM	#3
Socrates Sage Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: West Hills, CA Posts: 1,529	Thorughout the years, I have had more trouble with ATI boards than other other "major" brand. I've had relatively few problems with Nvidia. I've dealt with a lot of machines running a variety of graphics apps and that's just been my experience. So my gut is to always avoid ATI when I am given a choice. Of course, mileage varies and there will certainly be someone who has experienced the opposite. Bat rays? We don't need no stinking bat rays!

11-20-2001, 09:00 PM	#2
Coelacanth Thought to be Extinct Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: My Watery Abode Posts: 180	I don't have either board and wouldn't know how to compare them if I had just one, but the word from magazines like Maximum PC, PC Gamer, and a few online sites is this: 1. ATI 8500 is faster than even a GeForce Ti 500 in certain things, and slower in other things. Overall, it's pretty much a wash. 2. ATI's drivers are currently unstable. Both Maximum PC and PC Magazine had issues with the drivers. Maximum PC figured that ATI will get their act together on that and didn't knock down their perfect 10 rating, but PC Gamer gave it an 84% while giving the GeForce boards all 90-something ratings. Say what you will about nVidia's driver frenzy/confusion (most of which is caused by "leaked" versions and not by nVidia's "official" drivers) -- they are more stable than ATI's at the moment. 3. ATI has better pixel shaders. IIRC, it can do 12 effects on each pixel while the GeForce3 can do only...um...4 I think. Someone can correct me on that, maybe. But anyway, ATI can do more. The downside is that their pixel-shading technology is completely different than nVidia's. Guess what? That means developers have to code two different versions if they want to support pixel-shading effects on both chipsets. I hate these sorts of situations, because now it's a "wait and see what, if anything, becomes the standard." And then in 6 months, the next gen of chips will come out and probably there will be yet ANOTHER standard for this. Such is life in cutting-edge graphics chips. I don't know about older games, but I assume that anything DirectX or OpenGL ought to work fine. I think as long as it's not doing something strange like a hardware-specific call, it should be OK. If you're talking DOS games, that's another story. Hope this helps somewhat.