Which vid card is better?

**JohnE.** · July 21st, 2003, 07:30 PM

I just pulled these video cards from 2 dead systems: ATI Rage 128 32MB AGP (built by ATI) & nVidia Riva TNT2 Vanta 16MB AGP (IBM FRU 25P4058). Both are AGP4X and 128 bit, afaict...

I'm wanting to replace an nVidia TNT2 M64 32 MB PCI (need the slot for a sound card) on a SuperSocket7 board (AMD K6-2 350, oc'd to 450) so which would be the better (faster) choice?

According to nVidia the Vanta's specs are: 125/150 Clock, 128Bit SD Memory, but I can't seem to find the corresponding specs for the Rage 128. Just wondering if the Vanta may actually be faster, even though it has less RAM.

JohnE.

**EvilCrow** · July 21st, 2003, 07:46 PM

Wow, lookie what I found:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...age128-05.html

**Ultima** · July 21st, 2003, 07:46 PM

The Vanta is the sorriest excuse for a TnT2 around, so my guess is that the Rage would be better.

The vanta has half the bandwidth of the TnT2 and some other small differences.

**JohnE.** · July 21st, 2003, 08:17 PM

Ultima...

Yeah, the Vanta is real bottom of the barrel, but it's what I got to work with atm, lol. If it has 1/2 the bandwidth of a regular TNT2, how does it compare to the older Rage 128?

EvilCrow...

I had already checked out that review at Tom's prior to posting my question... it is comparing a Rage 128 and the original TNT, not a TNT2.

Also, further in the article he states: "I prefer to not copy the whole spec sheet, you can find it at ATI's website as well as in several other reviews of the Rage 128". He also states "Initially the Rage 128 was supposed to run at 100 MHz core clock. The Rage 128 cards that went out to many reviewers now, are running at only 90 MHz core clock". I could not find the correct & current clock info at ATI's site or in any of the other reviews I found/read, hence my post here.

Wow, lookie what I found:

If you have or know the answer to someone's inquiry, please post it without the sarcasm. I do not ask anything here without trying to get the answer myself first. I could probably find the info if I spent a lot more time Googling, but that defeats the purpose of this forum.

**EvilCrow** · July 21st, 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by JohnE.
EvilCrow...

I had already checked out that review at Tom's prior to posting my question... it is comparing a Rage 128 and the original TNT, not a TNT2.

Also, further in the article he states: "I prefer to not copy the whole spec sheet, you can find it at ATI's website as well as in several other reviews of the Rage 128". He also states "Initially the Rage 128 was supposed to run at 100 MHz core clock. The Rage 128 cards that went out to many reviewers now, are running at only 90 MHz core clock". I could not find the correct & current clock info at ATI's site or in any of the other reviews I found/read, hence my post here.

If you have or know the answer to someone's inquiry, please post it without the sarcasm. I do not ask anything here without trying to get the answer myself first. I could probably find the info if I spent a lot more time Googling, but that defeats the purpose of this forum.

Erm...dude...I wasn't being sarcastic...
I said "lookie what i found" because I was surprised that I found something that was exactly related to your question.

Sorry for any inconvienence I may have caused, but I wasn't being sarcastic.

**JohnE.** · July 21st, 2003, 09:12 PM

I'm sorry EvilCrow, my apologies then

Please forgive me

It looked like one of those "try using Google, I found it in 2 seconds, you lazy so-and-so" replies that I've seen a few times. I tend to be rather assertive when there's even the remotest chance I'm being insulted, lol.

Unfortunately, the comparison is of a Rage 128 and a TNT so, although somewhat helpful, doesn't quite help me determine which is the better card.

I just installed the ATI and the drivers on a tester machine and the Properties>Details says it's an AGP1X/2X only. Not sure if it says that because it's installed in an AGP 2X only board or if that's the actual bus speed of the card.

JohnE.

**JohnE.** · July 22nd, 2003, 04:54 PM

Well, I dug a little deeper at ATI's site and found some info that seems to indicate that the Rage 128 is either a Magnum or an Xpert2000. Very difficult to tell for sure with these cards. The Rage 128 series are all 2X AGP cards.

RAMDAC Speed: 250 MHz
Memory Interface:
128 bit (RAGE FURY, MAGNUM, XPERT 128)
64 bit (XPERT 99, XPERT 2000)

Which doesn't match the specs in the Tom's Guide article at all... very odd.

Decided to go with the Rage 128... the mobo only supports 2X AGP so the 4X AGP Vanta probably wouldn't make much of a difference anyways, even if it's a "newer" TNT2 card. Just hoping the Rage 128 will work correctly in that old Via MVP3 board, as I read there can be conflicts with that chipset.

JohnE.

**DanU** · July 22nd, 2003, 07:14 PM

I've got a Rage Fury 16MB AGP working in a VIA MVP3 mobo. Performance-wise, it's between the TNT and TNT2. My guess is that it's comparable with the TNT2 Vanta. If you have the time, why not benchmark both cards and post the results here?

BTW, the latest rage 128 drivers were not compatible with my mobo. ATI recommends an older driver for MVP3 mobos. You can download it from their web page.

**OuTpaTienT** · July 22nd, 2003, 07:26 PM

Strictly a guess (slightly educated) but I'd say the TNT2 Vanta is the better choice. Speedwise it may be very close to the ATI but if I remember correctly the visual quality of the picture for 3D games/apps was far superior on the TNT series of chips.

**JohnE.** · July 22nd, 2003, 10:29 PM

Wish I could've benchmarked both... I had already promised one of the cards to a friend and he came by to pick it up today. That's why I needed to know which was better asap, hehe. Oh well, made my choice and I'm stuck with it now.

JohnE.