For those trying to figure 7500 or G2 Ti200 or Ultra read on it says it all ..

[Cisco Kid]

Well I see there alot of people trying to figure which card to buy the 7500 or a G2 Ti200 or Ultra. Hers is info showing the 7500 is flat out the better buy over a G2 Ti200

First the Ultra is way overpriced for what you get so that really is not a good pick cause for what it costs you are in territory for a nice G3 Ti200 or an OEM 8500.

Here is a recent article on the 7500 vs the G2 Ti200 which it really competes against as the G3 Ti200 smokes it!!

Bottom line is pretty much all articles show the 7500 beating the G2 Ti200 in 3 D Mark 2K 1 and gaming fps. Top article is the newest going down to older articles

http://www.slcentral.com/reviews/hardware/video/ati/radeon7500/index.php

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/radeon7500/index.html

http://www.sharkeyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/932821

So for all looking I think it is a pretty simple conclusion to say the 7500 is the better buy over the G2 Ti200 for what you can now find em online in OEM form from ATI with clk/mem same as a retail one at 290/230 (460 ddr)

Cisco Kid

:cool:

[Cisco Kid]

BTW don't forget the extra features the 7500 gives you as well
1)great dvd hardware support
2) great 2 d video and 3D clarity /quality
3) TV OUt at 1024x768 HDTV support
4) dual monitor support
5) no driver issues as some have with the 8500
6) priced at $91-96US for an ATI OEM model with same clk/mem settings but no software bundle
Powermagic at $119US retail version

Cisco Kid:)

[rogue1979]

Cisco Kid, I just don't get it! Maybe I'm missing something? All three links you are posting are clearly showing the Geforce Ultra and Geforce2 Ti beating the Radeon 7500 in all gaming benchmarks. Even with the Radeon 7500 heavily overclocked, it was still beat in most of the benchmarks against a stock speed Ultra. I'm not gonna trash the Radeon 7500 because I like it and it is a good deal, but even though the Ultra is ridiculously priced the Geforce 2 Ti is cheaper than a Radeon 7500. Current price on pricewatch, Radeon 7500 $104 shipped, Geforce 2 Ti 32MB $89 shipped, 64MB version $96 shipped.

[RainMaQer]

Originally posted by rogue1979
Cisco Kid, I just don't get it! Maybe I'm missing something? All three links you are posting are clearly showing the Geforce Ultra and Geforce2 Ti beating the Radeon 7500 in all gaming benchmarks. Even with the Radeon 7500 heavily overclocked, it was still beat in most of the benchmarks against a stock speed Ultra. I'm not gonna trash the Radeon 7500 because I like it and it is a good deal, but even though the Ultra is ridiculously priced the Geforce 2 Ti is cheaper than a Radeon 7500. Current price on pricewatch, Radeon 7500 $104 shipped, Geforce 2 Ti 32MB $89 shipped, 64MB version $96 shipped.

Are you sure you're looking at those charts right? I see that the GF3 ti200 beats the 7500 but the GF2 TI and Ultra are beaten (except a couple where the ultra takes the lead) But on every test the 7500 beats the GF2 TI... Make sure you look at the GF2 TI and not the GF3 TI200.

[rogue1979]

Yes, I am sure. In the first link the Geforce 2 suffered a defeat in Quake 3 at 1600 x 1200 by 1.4fps and in Evolva. Again this was against a Geforce 2 Ti with the memory clocked at 400MHz, I am sure an Ultra with 460MHz memory speed would have scored much better since the Geforce 2 chipset is memory bandwidth hungry. All Geforce Ti's come with 5ns, 4.5ns or 4ns DDR ram, the slowest seems to be reaching the Ultra default speed. All other gaming benchmarks in all three links showed the Radeon beaten everytime. It did better in 3DMark 2001 probably because it was allowed to score in all benchtests, were the Geforce 2 chipset in penalized and not allowed to finish certain tests (nature scene even though it runs the demo fine).
http://www.overclockers.co.nz/ocnz/vga/ati7500vevsleadtekti200/1.shtml
At this site the Radeon lost in all benchmarks, even 3DMark 2001.

I am just trying to make the point that fps in games clearly shows the Geforce 2 Ti and Ultra to be faster, and now it is cheaper in price than the Radeon 7500. If 3DMark 2001 is your thing and you are not concerned with actual framerates in your favorite games, then the Radeon 7500 is the best choice.

[RainMaQer]

Dude... anytime you wanna smack me... feel free... you have my full permission:beer: You are right... I looked at the charts for the 3dmark scores first an misread the ones for the games... Only now did I even look at the scores for games on the first site... but anyway you are right... the 7500 sucks according to those tests... especially in games... Ok I take that back... it doesn't suck...190+ is still very nice... but who can argue that 250+ isn't better:p

[RainMaQer]

But on a second thought... the 7500 only did poorly in Opengl games... 3dmark (directx) is where it takes the lead... and most games seem to be utilizing this api more... Granted some of what I consider classics like the Quake trilogy are opengl... it still did better than a voodoo:D

Oh and that link you posted goes to a bench with a 7500VE... that's the same speed as an oem...

[funnyperson1]

the 32mb Ti is for 89$...i have heard that it is really a GTS with 250 core and 333 ram......imho the 7500 is a better deal...

[rogue1979]

The Inno3d G2 Ti is $89 shipped and comes with 5ns ram. It easily overclocks to 275/460 stock. The Inno3d has excellent 2D quality.

[slim_lim]

Are OEM 7500 really colcked the same as retail units? In the past ATI has always put inferior ram on oem cards and clocked them lower.
*edit* ok, I'm getting info that the core clock on the oem is the same 250mhz as the retail, HOWEVER the memory clock is only 182mhz vs. 230mhz retail reflecting 5.5ns ram vs 4ns retail (and we all know the memory is the chief bottleneck on current video cards). *info form a customer comment @ newegg* Therefore you can't directly compare 7500 to GF2 TI because the retail 7500s used for tests are about $40-50 more expensive, and the oems that drop into the price range of a gf2 ti are inferior.
I don't see a good reason to get a retail 7500 because for a few $ more you can have a much better gf3 ti200. We need a separate investigation into the oem version to see how it stacks up to a gf2 ti.
*edit* oops. according to sharkyextreme, retail 7500 are actually core clocked @ 290 (oem is 250). Strike two against ATI oems.

[Cisco Kid]

Originally posted by RainMaQer


Are you sure you're looking at those charts right? I see that the GF3 ti200 beats the 7500 but the GF2 TI and Ultra are beaten (except a couple where the ultra takes the lead) But on every test the 7500 beats the GF2 TI... Make sure you look at the GF2 TI and not the GF3 TI200.


Exactly , you see the charts right overall the 7500 beats the G2 Ti200 at 1024x768 32 bit in all the tests, yes it loses to the Ultra but by a slight margin

Cisco Kid:)

[rogue1979]

Cisco Kid!!!!!!!!!!!! What are you smoking? I just went through the benchmarks on all three of the original links you posted. In gaming fps 1024 x 768 x 32 the Radeon 7500 was beaten badly either by the Geforce2 Ti or the Ultra in every single test ! It did not get a single victory. However, in 3DMark 2001 it did much better and beat the Geforce2 Ti by a small margin. But I would glady knock my current 3DMark score of 5660 down several thousand points just to gain a few more fps were it really matters.

Another point to make is the Radeon 7500 comes clocked at 290/460 and overclocks well, but the Geforce2 Ti comes at 250/400 and overclocks a higher percentage over stock, which both cards were tested at. So for example the Radeon at 320/540 doesn't get as big of a boost as a Geforce2 Ti at 300/500.

Bottom line, the Geforce2 Ti is cheaper and faster in games!

[Cisco Kid]

Originally posted by rogue1979
Cisco Kid!!!!!!!!!!!! What are you smoking? I just went through the benchmarks on all three of the original links you posted. In gaming fps 1024 x 768 x 32 the Radeon 7500 was beaten badly either by the Geforce2 Ti or the Ultra in every single test ! It did not get a single victory. However, in 3DMark 2001 it did much better and beat the Geforce2 Ti by a small margin. But I would glady knock my current 3DMark score of 5660 down several thousand points just to gain a few more fps were it really matters.

Another point to make is the Radeon 7500 comes clocked at 290/460 and overclocks well, but the Geforce2 Ti comes at 250/400 and overclocks a higher percentage over stock, which both cards were tested at. So for example the Radeon at 320/540 doesn't get as big of a boost as a Geforce2 Ti at 300/500.

Bottom line, the Geforce2 Ti is cheaper and faster in games!

That I agree with you, yeah the bud got to me LOL. I am not only looking at the pure framerates of the nvidia cards I am considering the card and its overall performance.

I am siding with the conclusions given in each of the articles not because I am an ATI fan or because I own a 7500. Overall if you can find a 7500 for under a 100 then I think it is a better buy imho. I have read post on those who have bought the ATI OEM 7500's and it appears they are clked the same but that I can not confirm till I find the link.

But if you consider a Powermagic Retail 7500 which can be bought for $119US online with a clk/mem of 290/460 then thats a good deal I think because of the other features the 7500 offers.

The difference in framerates in the tesyts is minimal, the average user would not notice. But maybe they would prefer clearer 2 D visiual quality or better 3D quality that the articles all say is better in the ATI product. Also dvd hardware suport and TV out at 1024x768 HDTV support.

Maybe I should have rephrased the way I stated the thread. Cause flat out the Ultra is a rip off for the price.

It would be interesting to look at the OEM slower clocked 7500 compared to a retail G2Ti 200 to keep pricing more similar to see how they do against one another.

Thats about it, I have been so busy with work I have not been here much to post some more linkks I have and explain my point further.

Cisco Kid :)

[rogue1979]

You are right, the Ultra is a rip off. The Geforce2 Ti is a sweet deal. The Radeon is a sweet deal also, with alot of features at a good price. But the 2D quality of a Geforce is equal to a Radeon if you pick the right manufacturer.
Check out this thread though, all brands of Geforce 2 owners might enjoy superior 2d quality.

http://forums.overclockers.ws/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59150

you can read more about it here

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1577&p=5