[deboerjo]

Benchmarks, benchmarks, benchmarks. Why do reviews never cover the important stuff?

Can anybody comment on the GeForce 4TI/FX vs Radeon 8000/9000 series in terms of driver stability, Quicktime playback performance, and 3d rendering correctness?

-Jon

[Arkham_c]

I have not heard any complaints about driver stability or rendering correctness on either type of hardware. If there were common problems you would have heard about them reading here.

As to Quicktime playback, any modern chip can do that easily. My old iBook/600 can do full screen Quicktime playback with no issues. A G5 with any card will handle that without issue.

[xylon]

Hmm, I've always wondered about this. What are the respective benefits of either manufacturer? Is one of them the industry standard or are they both recognized as the best? Just wondering.

[rhogue islander]

My feeling is that my Ati card (a 9800 pro) has sharper 2d output to a CRT at 1600x1200.

I used a geforce4ti and a 9800 pro on my dual 1ghz quicksilver.

[Leonard]

ATI and Nvidia are the graphic video card/chip leaders. Generally ATI and Nvidia leapfrog one another in performance and features. At this moment ATI seems to have the advantage in performance and features. Just like the many PC companies there are many graphic chip/card companies.

I haven't heard any major problems currently with driver stability or 3D rendering correctness. There's the odd problem with one game or another which usually seems to be fixed by the game developer, or the rare problem which seems to be specific to one or two users.

[joe]

I've owned several Radeon and GeForce cards over the last few years - never had problems with either. The drivers have always seemed stable, performance was top notch for the generation of product. Quicktime and video rendering (DV to MPEG1/2) was always perfect.

I agree with Leonard. The 2 manufacturers tend to leapfrog one another in terms of performance. But this is more noticable in 3D games than Quicktime or rendering apps. Up until recently NVidia had bragging rights. But right now ATI has taken top gaming honors with the Radeon 9800. If you're a serious gamer the Radeon 9800 is the way to go. Otherwise, any current video card will do......joe

[Langdon]

Can anyone recommend or discourage in getting a GeForce 4mx as an upgrade over a stock 16mg RAGE instead of any other card. The cost vs. performance aspect is the thing I am most curious about.

[derbs]

My DP800 came with a geforce2mx, that i upgraded to a 4mx that was going spare from work.

It sucked. I got LESS performance in every 3d game i played!

Even so, a 2mx/4mx is way better than a Rage. I wouldn't pay much for it though

[MindFad]

ATI is the way to go currently. Like some mentioned, they leapfrog each other. Tomorrow it will be nVidia. Personally, I like ATI's cards. Valve like 'em, too. And M$. And Nintendo. I want to replace my GF3 with a 9800, but I ain't payin' 400 beans for a graphics card right now. Rather get a new monitor.

[deboerjo]

Yeah, in terms of 3d performance, I'm pretty knowledgeable about the cards, and yes, Radeon 9500+ is definitly the way to go for games. I'm most unimpressed with the GeForceFX, though the GeForce4Ti 4200 makes a great alternative to the Radeon 8500/9000/9200; I wish they were still making them. I don't use my Mac for gaming much, all I'm really concerned with is 2d applications. I just wanted to avoid any gotchyas. It was some years ago I swapped out a Rage128 for a flashed Voodoo3 for better 3d performance only to discover that quicktime playback was total crap.

-Jon

[tooki]

ATI has always had a slight edge in terms of rendering quality, both in 3D and video. (The difference in QuickTime playback between ATI cards -- even ancient ATI models -- and the earlier nVidia models that work on Macs is striking: the nVidia cards render zoomed QuickTime video very blocky. ATI renders them smooth. Both maintain perfect frame rates.)

tooki