Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Hardware potential is there, drivers may not be., February 28, 2001
Given that most people who look for a video card that can run their 3D games, I was surprised that the Radeon would be able to run up to par with the Nvidia's GeForce2 (of course, not beating it all the time). Though, 3D is not everything. The ATI Radeon has superb 2D quality, which can only be topped by Matrox. Their DVD playback/decoder is one of the best in the industry. So for overall performance, the ATI Radeon is a card that can satisfy you in all areas.Though, there is only one nagging thing about this video card. In history, ATI has a lot of trouble releasing good performing drivers. This may be important since we are going to have different OS's every two years or so. Though, the hardware potential is there. If ATI would get their driver development straight, I would have given this card 5 stars. So, if you are looking for speed for your 3D games, buy another 3D card. If you want the whole package, this is the card for you.
|
|
|
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Best Image Quality to Date!, July 16, 2001
The ATI Radeon may not be the fastest video card on the market compared to the GeForce3 but this video card, which is a generation behind has superior image quality be it 2D or 3D. Colors are vibrant on the card and it displays the sharpest text. The beta drivers have problems but the public 7075 drivers make the card run beautifully. Image quality is much better than the GeForce3 and the card is fast enough to play the most demanding game to date at even 1024X768 @ 32-bit. Keep in mind though, the Radeon was optimized for 32-bit and shouldn't be run in 16-bit.An added bonus, the Radeons have an integrated hardware DVD decoder. It only takes 20% CPU utilization.
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The older the radeon gets, the better it displays !!!, September 13, 2001
I really mean it what I say, "The older the radeon gets, the better it displays !!!". Let us start from the begining. When ATI released the Radeon, it was a excellent piece of hardware comparable to the best in the industry, BUT with very bad software support. The software support was so bad that it moved the product value from Excellent to Average-. The hardware was forced to perform several notches below its capabilities.Over the last year, ATI's drivers have matured like wine. Now finally with the latest drivers, the Hardware is being used to the max and gives out excellent results. Performance in games under both Win98/ME and Win2K is excellent. The Radeon has always had excellent 2D to back it up and gives beautifull colour saturation. The same photograps on the Radeon look so very beautifull when I compare it to my original Gerforce. On the negative side, the drawback is apparent. While the drivers have taken their own sweet time to mature, the product has gone down in the frame comparisons when rated with the Geforce 3 and Geforce 2 Ultras. But then I firmly believe that the Video in/out capability and excellent 2D anyday overweighs a few less frames in any game. Parting shot: People talk of the Radeon giving lesser frames per second in Quake 3. Tell me, how many of you can differentiate between 75 frames/sec and 85 frames/sec ? If you think you cannot, and if you think 2D is important too as is video in/out, just go out and buy the Radeon. But do decide if you want the 32MB DDR or the 64MD DDR based on your needs and usage.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
