radeon better than Geforce


macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 23, 2002
hah, Geforce 4 MX, capable of 1.1 gigatexels. Radeon 7500, capable of 1.6 gigatexels. hahhahaaha what a joke. But if the Geforce 4 MX does have the clock rates the ZDnet article claimed, 250+mhz and 166+mhz DDR, that would put the geforce 4 ahead of the Radeon.

And BTW Alphas arent dead, you can still buy them from compaq.com, in 1ghz models with up to 32 1ghz 8mb DDR L3 cache processors, in one server case. And Alphas are true 64-bit processors. ALPHA!!!!!!!!


macrumors regular
Jun 15, 2001
Marion, Ohio
The Radeon only has this increased resolution with analog monitors. They are identical in digital resolution respects.

Also, I think we need a scalable, true 64-bit processor. Having the abilities to scale data in 8, 16, 32, and 64 bits like altivec but in all executions would increase performance immensely. It would be difficult to write programs for, though. A true 64 bit processor has no advantage (except more ram) over the 32 bit processor unless it is written in 64bit code.


macrumors 601
Oct 4, 2001
Natick, MA
The Radeon 8500 is kick a$$, I put one into the peecee that I built and it ROCKS!! I would expect that it performs even better under the Mac OS. The 32MB ATI Radeon DDR (Mac edition) that I put into my G4 tower performed just as good as a 64MB version in the peecee. Just shows how the Mac platform is better.


macrumors 6502
Jan 8, 2002
Bakersfield, CA
Apples & Oranges Again!

Once again, we are compairing Apples to oranges. The GeForce4MX is the value line. That is what the MX is for. Look up the specs on a GeForce3 Ti200. Still not top of the line, but does something like 3 gigatixels. I have built 6 PCs from scratch, 2 of which used ATI boards. I spend more time on those 2 with ATI boards ironing out conflicts that all 4 of the nVidia boards I installed. Including one computer with 1 AGP and 1 PCI board, both in use. No problems, just install, load drivers, restart and you're golden.