VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Thread
  1. For those who have used both of these AIW cards: I know the Radeon made significant improvements in 3D/gaming, but is there much of a difference in video captures and tuning? Thanks.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Both cards have the same Theater chip.

    edit -

    Let me clarify here. The AIW 128 Pro 32meg has the same Theater chip as the Radeon. I believe the 16 meg version of the AIW does not have the same Theater chip. I am not interested in gaming so I went with the AIW 128 Pro 32 meg which cost me $99 after rebates (I have two).

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: next on 2001-07-05 10:20:46 ]</font>
    Quote Quote  
  3. from what i've seen, the older PCI 16M aiw 128's have the bt829 capture chip, but the newer 16Mb PCI and all the 32Mb versions of the Aiw 128/128 Pro have the Rage Theater chip.

    i thought i read somewhere that the radeon can do some sort of 'hardware assist' (still primarily software coding though), but only at 320x240 or lower. i'm not sure i even believe that though.

    my opinion is that they will have the same performance. however, the 128 and 128 Pro have native VFW capture drivers available, while the radeon does not. the radeon is directshow only.
    Quote Quote  
  4. I think the performance is the same as well. The hardware assist has been mentioned for a while now. Check this out:

    http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2290033,00.html

    My personal preference is the 128 Pro 32 meg

    edit-
    can't seem to get the link right but it mentions hardware assist on the AIW 128 in an article from 1999. (non pro version). The claim has been around for a while.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: next on 2001-07-05 16:20:54 ]</font>
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member ejai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    New York USA
    Search Comp PM
    I found that the Radeon is not a good card for gaming. I have the Voodoo 3 TV card and it works much better. I now have both cards working in my computer, I use the Radeon for video and the Voodoo for games.

    The game play and graphic quality of the Voodoo surpasses the Radeon by many lengths. I had to turn down alot of the graphic enhancements on the Radeon to have smooth frame rates. With the Voodoo I left the games on high quality with no slow downs at all.

    My system consists of:
    AMD Athlon 850
    128 mg ram
    Sound blaster Live
    30 Gig HD
    Ati Radeon
    Voodoo 3 3500 TV Card

    I just wanted to enlighten you about the differences in game play between both cards.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Thanks for all your responses. I'm in a similar situation as next. I'm interested more in video captures than gaming so I think I'll get the AIW 128 Pro 32MB. You guys are the greatest. I get to save some $$$ without having to sacrifice on quality. Does the Rage Fury Pro use the same theater chip as well?
    Quote Quote  
  7. I believe the Rage Fury Pro does have the Theater chip. I use the Rage Fury Pro as well but I don't use it for captures very often because it lacks something important to me - an S-video input. My captures are better using the S-video input of the AIW 128 Pro 32 Meg. The AIW also has a TV turner which the Rage Fury Pro lacks.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: next on 2001-07-06 09:49:42 ]</font>
    Quote Quote  
  8. Does anybody beleive the part about the Composite vs S-Video comments in the following cut ans paste? From the ATI site:

    Q17: Do RAGE FURY PRO boards allow video capture as well as TV-out?


    A17:
    Yes! ATI has added video capture capability to the RAGE FURY PRO 32MB (full retail version only) so as to allow users not only amazing 3D gaming, and DVD, and TV-out, but now also the added benefit of video capture. With video capture, users can capture video or still shots for their web sites, they can use video conferencing or set up web cams, or even connect a game console their PC! The video capture and TV-out are enabled by ATI’s RAGE THEATRE chip. Video capture is provided via a "composite-in" connector on the graphics board. ATI opted not to include an s-video connector for video capture as the quality difference between composite and s-video capture is non-existent with the high quality RAGE Theatre multimedia chip. Also, most video capture devices offer a composite connector. Composite and S-Video connectors exist for TV-out. The XPERT 2000 PRO does not have TV-out or video capture.

    Any opinions?




    Quote Quote  
  9. the composite isn't bad, but they're full of it. i have the AiW 128 Pro and had the PCI AiW Pro before that, and there is a sharpness difference from s-video to composite on both cards. true, at 352x240 or 320x240 or whatever it defaults to it's probably hard to notice, but go to full screen and say that. the problem doesn't lie with the rage theater chip, but the electrical design of the signals. more signals on 1 line = more noise.

    i think what they were saying was "also, it would cost us an extra $2 to add an additional connector, even though the chip and software support already exists, so we decided for you that you didn't need it"
    Quote Quote  
  10. ejai said: "I found that the Radeon is not a good card for gaming"

    I dont agree with you there. I previously had a Voodoo3 and haven't notice any difference - even being a beta tester for Anarchy Online I haven't noticed a difference at all --- I think it's fine for gaming.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stinky on 2001-07-08 10:18:27 ]</font>
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member ejai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    New York USA
    Search Comp PM
    Stinky, I don't agree. 3D games work better with the Voodoo Card. I've tested several games.

    First of all the game Serious Sam would not run smoothly with all the video attributes set to the highest level on the Radeon card, but ran fine with all the settings set high on the Voodoo.

    Another example, the NBA Live 2000 game would not allow filtering of the lines on the basketball floor, the floor filtering was disabled, so they still have the pixelated look using Radeon. The Voodoo card smooth the floor lines without a problem.

    Another example, I consider this the best example, the Radeon showed poor frame rates when playing Madden 2001 as well as poor graphic quality. The Voodoo looks much better, it's like night and day. Also the voodoo handled the frame rate much better, no slow downs or pauses. I had some friends over to get their opinions and they all agreed the Voodoo won hands down. One last thing the filtering used by the Voodoo card looks much better on Madden due to the fact the Radeon uses 2D/3D filtering (In some games it sucks)The players show jagged edges.

    If anyone has access to both cards, judge for yourself. There is a difference.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!