Is Radeon 9600 a good option,or it displays many bugs yet?
Is Radeon 9600 a good option,or it displays many bugs yet?
I am in doubt if I buy a Geforce fX 5600(gf 4 Ti 4200,if it yet exists) or a Radeon 9600.The last is better for games,but many people said that Celestia exhibit some bugs even in Radeon 9xxx,because I prefer to optimize the video card for Celestia.Which effects does Radeon 9600 don?t show that a NVIDIA card do?Maybe the absence of haze?
I'm interested too in this. Currently, I have a NVidia GeForce4 MX with 32 MB of video ram, and it's not enough. I wanted to buy a GeForce 4 Titanium with 128 MB, recently, but I learned last week that NVidia isn't making that card anymore (at least for the Mac). So I'm now in search for a new video card for my Mac, with 128 MB of video ram. Any opinion ?
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"
Daniel,
It does seem that ATI's most recent drivers for Windows have fixed the problems that people have been having with Celestia on Radeon cards. However, don't forget that Chris Laurel does most of the OpenGL coding. Since he has Nvidia cards, not ATI, it's hard for him to fix problems that are only seen on ATI or other cards. He has to depend on the OpenGL drivers doing the right things.
Cham,
You don't mention which version of MacOS you're running. My understanding is that the drivers in the most recent versions of OS X have improved, but still have a few glitches. Apple provides their own graphics drivers, so it's best to get one of the models of cards that they officially support. Since Chris doesn't have a Mac, you can understand why Celestia might make use of features that your OS doesn't quite support.
It does seem that ATI's most recent drivers for Windows have fixed the problems that people have been having with Celestia on Radeon cards. However, don't forget that Chris Laurel does most of the OpenGL coding. Since he has Nvidia cards, not ATI, it's hard for him to fix problems that are only seen on ATI or other cards. He has to depend on the OpenGL drivers doing the right things.
Cham,
You don't mention which version of MacOS you're running. My understanding is that the drivers in the most recent versions of OS X have improved, but still have a few glitches. Apple provides their own graphics drivers, so it's best to get one of the models of cards that they officially support. Since Chris doesn't have a Mac, you can understand why Celestia might make use of features that your OS doesn't quite support.
Selden
I'm really sad that NVidia dropped their GeForce 4 Titanium card. I was ready to buy one. Now, I don't know what to buy anymore.
I'm using the latest version of OS X : Panther 10.3.2.
I'm using the latest version of OS X : Panther 10.3.2.
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"
-
Mikeydude750
- Posts: 169
- Joined: 31.01.2002
- With us: 22 years 9 months
- Location: Wisconsin
Well...if all you do is OGL applications, then get an nVidia card. If you do a lot of DirectX as well as Celestia, it's a tossup between ATI and nVidia(if you do mostly gaming, get ATI[there aren't a whole lot of problems with Radeons], because it will do really good with games, and still does fine with Celestia).
It would be nice if we also had an ATI coder here, however.
It would be nice if we also had an ATI coder here, however.
It?s solved.I will order a Geforce Fx 5700 128 MB,which I think will improve very much Celestia compared to a Geforce 4 MX 440 SE 64 MB.Am I right?I think this video card is good for both : games and Open GL aplications like Celestia.I only don?t know if Celestia will improve very much,while I still mantain 256 MB DDR.I think I could delay a little to put another 256 MB DDR...