SuperCheetah
Posts: 704 +1
Here is a big review comparing all the GeForce 4 series cards and the ATI 8500 and 7500 series cards.
Seems the GeForce series outperforms the ATI's in about all the benchmarks.
by Scott Wasson — April 4, 2001
http://tech-report.com/reviews/2002q2/ati-nvidia/index.x?pg=15
I've been around 3D graphics on the PC since the beginning, and it's hard not to like what we're seeing here, from top to bottom. Even the slowest card of the bunch, the $75 Radeon 7500, is breakneck fast at mid-level screen resolutions.
The Radeon 7500 and GF4 MX can't always cut it when all of the next-gen graphics features are turned up. Then again, they performed pretty well in the Comanche 4 demo, so maybe vertex and pixel shaders won't be as necessary as we had once thought. I wouldn't bank on that, though. If you can afford it, move up to a card with real vertex and pixel shaders.
One of the most striking results of our tests is how much performance NVIDIA is able to wring out of a given hardware spec. The GeForce4 MX card has a lower clock speed and slower RAM than the Radeon 7500, but it outperforms the 7500 more often than not, especially in fill rate-limited scenarios like high resolutions. You'd think that with faster RAM, the Radeon 7500 would be faster in such situations. Similarly, the GF4 Ti 4400 matches the Radeon 8500 clock-for-clock, but the Ti 4400 is faster nearly across the board.
Obviously, NVIDIA's bandwidth conservation methods—like the GF4 line's crossbar memory controller and occlusion detection abilities—are much more effective than ATI's. The GeForce3 has the same basic set of bandwidth-saving features as the GF4 line, but those features are greatly improved in the GeForce4 Ti. The progress is most evident when antialiasing is in use. The GeForce4 Ti cards are practically magic when it comes to antialiasing. I thought the line about turning on 2X AA and not seeing any performance drop was just a marketing spiel. Turns out that spiel is mighty close to the truth.
The GeForce4 Ti series doesn't bring a whole lot of new 3D technology to the scene, but the refinements since the GeForce3 deliver gobs of real-world performance. VisionTek's Ti 4600 card pretty much blew away everything else in our tests. It's really no contest. If you want the fastest card on the planet, get a Ti 4600.
That said, ATI has some very solid products in the Radeon 8500 series. Right now, there's a gaping hole in the middle of NVIDIA's product lineup, because the GF4 MX 460 is apparently stillborn (I challenge you to find a GF4 MX 460 for sale anywhere). Its apparent replacement, the GF4 Ti 4200 isn't quite here yet. ATI forced NVIDIA's hand with the Radeon 8500LE 128MB, which is a bargain at $199 or less. Even after the Ti 4200 cards arrive, the Radeon 8500LE 128MB will be an attractive card for the price. The extra RAM makes the Radeon 8500LE 128MB perform about like a Radeon 8500 64MB, despite 25MHz the clock speed gap. ATI has made notable progress on its drivers, and the Radeon 8500 GPU is still more advanced, in some ways, than even the GeForce4. I'm finding myself recommending ATI cards to friends and readers who want a good all-around card at a decent price.
As for the GF4 Ti 4200, it should hit store shelves near the end of April. The cards will come in two basic configurations: a 250MHz core and 64MB of DDR memory at 500MHz for around $179, and a 250MHz core paired with 128MB DDR memory at 444MHz (don't ask) for about $199. Once those cards arrive, the Radeon 8500LE will have some real competition. I expect the prices of both the LE and the Ti 4200 to drop pretty quickly.
Seems the GeForce series outperforms the ATI's in about all the benchmarks.
