Wobble
Jan 19 2002, 20:54
OK I got my Ti today and decided to test it against my radeon..
first is installation under XP..
I have a question... at the Nvidia page there are 2 driver options:
Dentonator for XP/2000
and
Dentonator for XP 64 bit..
which do I use?
anywway Im kinda miffed about the Ti as far as tweakability.. there are no display tabs like Direct3d/open Gl with all the adjustments like with the Radeon.. al there is is "Adapter"
FRAMERATE..
for FR tests I used Aces High.. becuase it works really well..
test one with the Radeon showed 24-25 fps..
test two with the Readon showed 37fps
test one with the GF2Ti showed 34fps
Test two with the GF2Ti showed 45fps
as for image quality.. yup the radeon looks better.. not by a very large margine.. but enough to where a nitpicker would be annoyed..
all in all I would say if you have a REALLY fast PC get the radeon because you wont need the extra fps the Gf2 gives and the image quality is nice... if you have a 1.2ghz or less.. go with the Ti..
first is installation under XP..
I have a question... at the Nvidia page there are 2 driver options:
Dentonator for XP/2000
and
Dentonator for XP 64 bit..
which do I use?
anywway Im kinda miffed about the Ti as far as tweakability.. there are no display tabs like Direct3d/open Gl with all the adjustments like with the Radeon.. al there is is "Adapter"
FRAMERATE..
for FR tests I used Aces High.. becuase it works really well..
test one with the Radeon showed 24-25 fps..
test two with the Readon showed 37fps
test one with the GF2Ti showed 34fps
Test two with the GF2Ti showed 45fps
as for image quality.. yup the radeon looks better.. not by a very large margine.. but enough to where a nitpicker would be annoyed..
all in all I would say if you have a REALLY fast PC get the radeon because you wont need the extra fps the Gf2 gives and the image quality is nice... if you have a 1.2ghz or less.. go with the Ti..