• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

GF2 GTS 32mb Upgrade to GF2 Ultra or Gf3?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Geobronc

Member
Joined
May 9, 2001
I run monitor at 800x600 (MAG 15" .25 ).
I have a 1.33 AMD and Leadtek GF2 GTS 32mb.

Is it worth to upgrade to GF2 Ultra ? or wait a while for prices to go down more on GF3?
I mainly play games with my PC.

GEOBRONC
 

Da Whip

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2001
Location
Sunny Florida, you can keep the midwest!!
It might be worth waiting for prices to drop, plus GF2 Ultras a getting cheaper everyday. GF3's are great but there are not alot of games out yet that utilize all of its features. By the time more games come out there will be the GF3 ultras or something similar.
 
OP
Geobronc

Geobronc

Member
Joined
May 9, 2001
So what will a GF2 Ultra get me over a GF2 GTS at 800x600? Is going to GF3 a better idea? Or?
 

_jubei_

Disabled
Joined
Mar 12, 2001
Location
BROOKLYN, NY
Ultra will give you A LOT !!!!!!!!!! at this RESolution...... If you ran only at 800x600 get Ultra over Geforce 3..... At low Resolution Geforce 3 will run the same as Ultra.... Only Above 1200x800 Geforce 3 outperforms G2ULTRA.........

Did you ever think about getting better Monitor..... It will make a difference, big difference.. Higher Res and Higher Refresh rate.......
 
OP
Geobronc

Geobronc

Member
Joined
May 9, 2001
Yes,

I can run my refresh rate at 85mhz though in 800x600 mode. My .25 MAG monitor makes the graphics look very good!

Hmmm, Geforce2 Ultra will work better for me than GF3 at 800x600? or the same?
 

batboy

Senior Moment
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Kansas, USA
I've been trying to decide this same question too. Except I have a MX card right now. The GF2 Ultras are about $250 and the GF3's are about $350 (US prices not including shipping). The price is the deciding factor. In my case, I can afford the extra $100 and I have a bigger jump from a MX card and bigger potential performance gains, so a GF3 makes sense to me. If I had a GTS card, I might wait another month or two, prices for both the Ultra and GF3 will keep going down. If you are a big gamer and have the extra cash, go for the GF3. It benchmarks better than the Ultra in all respects. You have to decide for yourself if it's worth the extra cost. Without a doubt, the GF3 is the fastest 3D card right now.
 

Froggy1

Registered
Joined
May 3, 2001
batboy (May 23, 2001 09:49 p.m.):
I've been trying to decide this same question too. Except I have a MX card right now. The GF2 Ultras are about $250 and the GF3's are about $350 (US prices not including shipping). The price is the deciding factor. In my case, I can afford the extra $100 and I have a bigger jump from a MX card and bigger potential performance gains, so a GF3 makes sense to me. If I had a GTS card, I might wait another month or two, prices for both the Ultra and GF3 will keep going down. If you are a big gamer and have the extra cash, go for the GF3. It benchmarks better than the Ultra in all respects. You have to decide for yourself if it's worth the extra cost. Without a doubt, the GF3 is the fastest 3D card right now.

The GF3 DOES NOT perform better than the GF2 Ultra in all tests! There are many benchmarks that thr GF2 Ultra has slighty better FPS in older games! Now in new games using full DX8 that is another matter! They have the same memory but the GF3 has a SLOWER core speed! Cuz there is not a GF3 Ultra yet! Then the GF3 will truely be the fastest card out there! For older games like CS and Q3 the GF2 Ultra seems like a better deal!
 

Mac42

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
The area's where the Ultra outperform the GF3 are generally resolutions that are limited by the CPU (remember back when 3DFx claimed it's card was faster than the GeForce at 640x480 in Quake3?)

The ONE thing that made me upgrade to a GF3 rather than an Ultra was 64-tap anisotropic filtering. You just can't describe how much of an improvement it is... it's even noticably better than 32-tap (in my opinion anyway). Quincunx is also a nice feature, but to a lesser degree... though it doesn't seem to affect performance much at 1024x768 or below. If you want to run games at 800x600 then the Ultra can't compare to the image quality of the GF3.


-=mac=-
 

GOD

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2001
Location
The land down under...LOL..
the big question here is not the speed of the card but the picture quality.
have u compared the picture quality of a ultra compared to the GF3 in real life????
well i have and to tell straight out it is like comparing the tnt2 to GF2....
everything looks so much better and fluid....
but if u really want a good card then u should wait till
end of the year..
GF3 ultra is on it`s way for about the same price as the GF3`s price now.
that`s what i`m waiting for....
and more games will come out with the support of the new functions of GF3 cards.

GOD....
 

_jubei_

Disabled
Joined
Mar 12, 2001
Location
BROOKLYN, NY
I have Elsa G2 Ultra... THe card has Awesome Visuals..... From your posts it sound as if G3 has Much better visuals than Ultra ... How can it be ??? Did you compare them side by side ??? I don't see how VISUALS can be SO much better on G3 than Ultra, since its upto the person that Develops the game... Ofcourse the G3 has some features that will improve visuals in some areas, but for now All games do not use those features(except for GIANTS elsa edition ).. with old games I don't think G3 will look better that G2... It will be faster YES, it will have FSAA x 4 ( G2U can do good job with FSAA x2, Not much difference between x4, x2 ) , but I don't its much better than G2 Ultra.....

Not for now At least...
 
OP
Geobronc

Geobronc

Member
Joined
May 9, 2001
I like eye candy in games, but frame rates + eye candy are more important.
However I dont want to spend much. Maybe I should get the Geforce 2 Ultra and then in 1-year get a GF3 Ultra?

I just need a card that will be fast, good graphics, support older games like Rogue Spear/ Urban Ops, Air Warrior 3, Tribes 2, Need for Speed 5.

Suggestions?
 

Mac42

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
Yea, I've compared the GF2 and GF3 side-by-side and the GF3 looks much better. A major difference is that you can get rid of that "mossy" effect on the ground at a distance caused by mip-maps (that's the anisotropic filtering I mentioned earlier). I "think" the GF2 supports 32-tap, but it might only be 16-tap (the 64-tap of the GF3 really doess look good. Also, this isn't a feature that the game developers have to include in a game unless the game specificly blocks that feature. I played the original Unreal today on my GF3 and it looks great... how old is that game anyway, 3 years... I know the RivaTNT hadn't been out long at the time.


-=mac=-
 

batboy

Senior Moment
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Kansas, USA
Ok, I stand corrected. The GF3 card out performs the Ultra in most benchmarks and in most games. Having said that, I'll also say that there's nothing wrong with the Ultra for the price, either. Both cards are fine solid performers. You just need to decide what price you're willing to pay. Fortunately, driver support is wonderful for all nVida video cards, so you can't go wrong with either the Ultra or the GF3.

P.S. For those on a tight budget but still want a good card, look at the GF2 Pro video cards. Prices are good now and should continue to drop.
 

_jubei_

Disabled
Joined
Mar 12, 2001
Location
BROOKLYN, NY
But at HIS resolution which is 800x600 ( that what he uses on his monitor) G2 ultra and G3 are the same. in FPS department that is.
 

flyman0

Registered
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
wait till later this year for the new cards to come out. Prices for everything will drop, and quality will get better. I was thinking of getting the GF3 for my new computer, but I am going with the GF2 Ultra because I can use the $100 I save at the end of the year. Hope this helps. :)