Looking for a "No Problem" video card

[SnapperOne 0]

I'm upgrading from Win98SE to Win2KPro in about 2-3 weeks, and thought I'd upgrade my video card from a SBLiv3-16 to (?). The balance of the system is: PIII-667, 128M Rdram, 30G HD, CD-RW, etc.........

 

The system, while used with some games (East Front, West Front, Rally, Recoil, Wings, etc), it primary use will be for business.

 

That's the info part,......the following should start a war!

 

Can anyone suggest a 2D-3D video card that works, without exception (i.e...absolutely no problems) under Win2KPro.

[OLEerror 0]

I haven't had any problems with the ATI Radeon. You'll need to download the latest drivers in order to take advantage of DirectX 8. It is a very solid card. And the 2D support is much better than the NVidia cards. The 3D support is comparable.

[DosFreak 2]

"Looking for a "No Problem" video card"

 

No such thing...

 

I've got an old ISA Trident 1m vram but you'll still have problems with it.....

 

 

Wait a sec. The "Video card" on a PDA should be just right....

[Xiven 0]

I'd have to say go for a Matrox. For business use (unless your business is writing 3d games ), they are absolutely superb. Their driver support for Windows 2000 is very good too.

 

[edit]

Oops, didn't read your post properly Since you will be playing some games on it, the choice of Matrox probably isn't the best.

An ATI Radeon might be the better choice for you. I've never had any problems with my GeForce2 but others have, so you'll probably want to avoid that. On the other hand though I had heard that the Win2k drivers for the Radeon weren't so good. I may have misread though....

[/edit]

 

--

Xiven

 

[This message has been edited by Xiven (edited 11 April 2001).]

[Bursar 0]

I've also read in a number of places that the ATi drivers for Windows 2000 are really bad.

 

They are miles behind the Win98 drivers in terms of performance.

 

The card you mention (SBLiv3-16) sounds like it should read SB Live, in which case, that is your sound card, not your video card.

 

As a rule, Matrox have stunning 2D, but 3D performance is currently lacking in the G450 series.

 

ATi cards have decent 2D and good 3D but are generally let down by drivers.

 

nVidia based cards probably have the worst 2D apperance (but to be honest, it isn't *that* bad, unless you do lots of graphics stuff) and stunning 3D. Drivers can be hit or miss though.

 

The Kyro II cards have great 3D, but I don't know about their 2D quality or their drivers yet.

 

At the end of the day it depends where your priorities lie.

 

Your more likely to find that some the games will give you more trouble running under Windows 2000 than the graphics card (not slating the 2K game performance, as it is my sole OS, just don't know if the listed games will run or not though).

[OLEerror 0]

ATI has had much better driver support for the Radeon than for previous products. I'm running the newest beta drivers and have had no issues. I don't have anything that takes advantage of DirectX 8 yet, but it runs Black & White (which uses DirectX 7)exceptionally well. I also get fairly high 3Dmark scores without any tweaking or turning off apps and processes.

[oldspice 0]

i have a 3d blaster Annihilator 2 MX and have had zero trouble with it and i play everything and anything from games to apps and the card is cheap.I would have recommended 3dfx until they went out of business, as well as Aureal for their sound cards until they went out of business(continuous support from both).Creative sucks for support tho', if you were to ever need it.."don't call us, and we won't call you either", but luckily the video card i bought works flawlessly with intel and via chipsets under win2k and 98 and whatever else.

[Vampyr 0]

Seeing as though its main purpose is business I recommend using an ATI radeon. It has decent 3D performance while at the same time it awesome great 2D image quality (no more eye fatigure from staring at grainy/blurry images).

[Brian Frank 0]

If good looks are the primary concern, by all means, go with the Radeon. I have found though, for serious gaming the Radeon is not my cup of tea. However, it does have stellar 32-bit gaming performance and DVD playback.

However, the drivers for the Radeon under Win2k are less than ideal, ATI needs to get up to par with nVidia. But those games probably wont push you too much. You probably should consider a Matrox card if those games wont be graphics intesive. I understand that Matrox has, hands down, the best 2d image quality. And Matrox was the first to get drivers out for Win2k.

 

On the GeForce 2 family, the word of warning that I can pass along is stay away from Leadtek GeForce cards, both GF1's and GF2's.

I have a Hercules Prophet II MX and am very happy with it. GeForce 2 MX cards can be had for ~$100 USD.

 

If the games wont be very graphics intesive, go for the Matrox card. If you want some heavier 3d artillery, the Radeon should do pretty good, although when I tried one out, I didnt like it. Love the Radeons DVD playback though.

[SnapperOne 0]

Bursar.........whoops, I had a senior moment when I was typing the first post. You are correct, I did list my sound card. My video card is a Diamond Viper V550.

 

Well the consensus seems to be: Scuttle anything nVidia-based; Learn more about Matrox; Consider a 3D Blaster Annihilator; but, look very closely at a Radeon.

 

Thanks for the input!

[JoosMan 0]

Brian Frank: "the word of warning that I can pass along is stay away from Leadtek GeForce cards"

Just wondering what you meant by this....i have a leadtek gts 64mb card and have problems at times with some games...what problems have you heard of? I asked this question in the forum before but got no replies...so thought id take a stab since you posted that.

[Down8 0]

Um, the Annihilator is an nVidia based card.

 

I have a "no-problem" video card - the StealthIII S540. 32MB of pure S3 Savage4 Pro+ love. Kind of old, but it works fine without the updated Win2K drivers [but you should get the latest drivers for anything you have], and is OK in 3D [getting a bit old though]. Luckily, this card will be handed down in exchange for either a Radeon, or a KyroII.

 

If I was to 'vote' for a solution for you, I'd look into the Radeons.

 

-bZj

[Brian Frank 0]

One tech guy Ive talked to said stay away from those ones, and Ive seen a few problems with Leadtek cards around the forum, specifically with image quality, and in one extreme case someone had to underclock their Leadtek just to fix the problem. In fact, their the only video card maker that people have complained about with GeForce/GeForce2 cards.

 

[This message has been edited by Brian Frank (edited 12 April 2001).]

[HarU 0]

You wanta no problem vid card that is just decent and good for your money?

 

get a voodoo 3 3000.

 

Simple, yet less problematic than any card ive ever owned. (which is a lot due to the amount of extra money i have to burn on computer components.)

 

3dfx's driver support for win2k is absolutely stellar compared to the competition. Funny that im saying this, cuz i am currently using a Geforce 2 ddr 64 meg.

 

Anyway, this is a fact. And even though it isn't the best gaming card by far, it sounds like it will suit your needs perfectly.

[OLEerror 0]

If you can find a Voodoo 3 for an extremely low price, it might not be a bad choice. The problems with it are:

 

1.) 3Dfx is no more.

2.) If you want support for future games or graphics programs, you'll probably want one with more memory. Many newer games are recommending 16 meg cards which is what the Voodoo 3 has. You may want to spend a little more and get a card with at least 32 meg.

3.) Finding one has become a bit difficult. Most of the retailers have been unloading their 3Dfx products at deeply cut prices. So they've gone fast.

[Brian Frank 0]

Yeah, a cheap Voodoo3 3000. I will not give up mine, until it dies. It is old, yes, but one of the greatest cards made, and it works with everything Ive tried. Yes, its not really anything in comparison with a GF3, however, it runs with Win2k right out of the box w/o drivers, but if you're gonna play games you will have to get some though. Also, if you plan on running Linux, 3dfx cards at least right now are the best way to go. I havent had to get drivers for it, and it works right out of the box.

It is still a very capable card today, so dont count it out. Even though 3dfx is gone pretty much.

[SnapperOne 0]

(From an earlier reply: Well the

consensus seems to be: Scuttle anything

nVidia-based; Learn more about Matrox;

Consider a 3D Blaster Annihilator; but,

look very closely at a Radeon.

 

Thanks for the input!)

 

Ok......drop the Annihilator, because it's nVidia-based. Add anything VooDoo3 3000-based, if I can find one!

 

To tell the truth guys, sounds like someone could make a lot of money selling a card that's geared for Win2000Pro.

 

It's disappointing to hear, so far, that the only trouble-free video card, for use under Win2000Pro as a primarily 2D with some 3D needs, is no longer made......Voodoo 3 3000

 

Guess I'll just keep looking.

 

 

[This message has been edited by SnapperOne (edited 14 April 2001).]

[Kyosho46vr 0]

Buy a Radeon and Smile, besides you won't have to buy glasses to fix 2D blurr any-more.

I have had mine running in W2k since its release, been through driver updates and motherboard changes-all has worked great. In fact when I ordered my card the local Computer shop warned me. After looking at my system they brought in ATi and now there are hundreds of happy ATi people here.

 

Ned

[sapiens74 0]

Hey if I had my choice get a Geforce2

 

 

Most problems with it are VIA based anyway which your running an INTEL chip. The Radeon Does have Win2000 issues, ATI has poor driver record and at least with a NVIDIA chip you'll find a set of drivers that work

 

Just my 2 Cents

 

Laterz

[OLEerror 0]

Sapien, what issues does the Radeon have in Windows 2000? And the reason for suggesting a Radeon over a Geforce2 is due to its superior 2D support. NVidia has always had a problem with their 2D being blurry.

[sapiens74 0]

I'm referring to My own experience, had trouble with Direct 3d Apps crashing in 2000 even with the DX8 drivers. IN WinME or 98 I'd say Radeon for sure, it does look a hella lot sharper than my Geforce, but on an INTEL PLatform with W2K I'd go NVIDIA, doens't get more stable than that.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Laterz

[euankirkhope 0]

I have to say the Radeon is Rock Solid in win2k, except for the DVD player, and that the driver rumour mongering is just the nvidiots stiring.

[Brian Frank 0]

I have to disagree with you on that one,euankirkhope, at least from a personal basis. The Radeon drivers suck, and that is the biggest and probably only problem behind an otherwise great card. Nvidia has much better drivers, even the beta's. My voodoo 4 that I had performed better in some areas than the Radeon. Not saying ATI doesnt work at their drivers, but for me the Radeon didnt cut it, where as the GeForce 2MX did.

IMO the Radeon has some driver issues that need to be fixed soon, or ATI could be eating Nvidia dust.

 

I do think that Nvidia is getting full of themselfs though, seeing as how they bashed the Kyro II chipset for features that the current GeForce lineup, excluding the GF3, doesnt support anyway. I dont want another section of the hardware industry ted by one force, like the sound card biz is with creative.

[OLEerror 0]

ATI's current drivers are actually really good. I'm getting scores of 3015 - 3025 on 3Dmark2001 without turning off any features or unloading software (anti-virus, firewall, etc.) And the performance in games like Black & White is excellent.

 

Also, the 7.1 version of the DVD player is out. You can download it from ATI.

[Brian Frank 0]

Hmm...not bad. What bit depth--16 or 32?

 

Well, to everyone his own...

 

[ 18 April 2001: Message edited by: Brian Frank ]