Written By:
Date Posted: June 6, 2002

3D Mark 2001 SE

A well known synthetic benchmark, we use it here for our Direct3D tests, as there aren't really many Direct3D benchmark programs I like that much. Add to the fact that you can compare yourself with other users add to it's value. As with our previous benchmarks, 640x480 and 800x600 have been dropped. We chose the default settings, as well as test the AntiAliasing performance.

Quite a difference from our OpenGL tests. Basically, directly compared with the Ti500, the Radeon's closest competitor, the 8500 scores convincing wins across the board in Direct 3D.

AntiAliasing has always been the thorn in a video card's side. Although there is a loss in performance, at 2xAA, the Radeon 8500 continues it's Direct 3D mastery over the Ti500.

Villagemark

We added the Villagemark benchmark simply to test one feature, Occlusion Culling, or hidden surface removal. This trick is a good idea because, why render something you cannot see? No point in slowing the game down needlessly.

The benchmark was designed with the Kyro II in mind, but most modern video cards have some form of this optimization. Like our Direct 3D tests, the Radeon pulls ahead of the Ti500 again.

Final Words

I suppose what a lot of you are thinking is, why should I get this card, with all the other choices out there? Well, I'm not going to BS you. The GeForce 4 Titanium cards are a lot more exciting, and at 200$, the Ti4200 is probably the best budget choice you can make.

Believe it or not, 200$ is still to high for some people. Even 150$ may be a lot to swallow. For about 100$, this is what you'll get with a Radeon 8500 64MB...

1) A fast card, at least when gauged with today's games. It rivals the GeForce 3 Ti500 cards, and should easily beat the GeForce 4 MX cards (according to other reviewer benchmarks).

2) Superb image quality.

3) Dual monitor support, plus the above points, for 100$.

Sure, the GeForce 4 MX offers comparible features for the same price, but given it's lack of DirectX 8.xx hardware features, which the Radeon 8500 has, you'll likely have a stronger desire to replace the MX sooner than you would a Radeon. Now, I doubt you'll be able to play Doom 3 at maximum settings, at a playable framerate, but you'll have one sweet looking slideshow.

I can't really recommend the card for anyone who already has a GeForce 3 or higher card already. In fact, even if you're looking for an upgrade, I'd still lean on spending a couple more bucks for the Ti4200. On the otherhand, if you really can't spare more than a c-note, you'll be satisfied with the Radeon.

Pros: Cheap, good performance, good hardware features.

Cons: Lags behind the big, bad GF4 Titaniums. Beaten by the GF3 in OpenGL benchmarks.

Bottom Line: Given the choice between the GeForce 4 MX, and the Radeon 8500, the Radeon wins hands down. Speed may be comparible, as are the features, and the price, but the Radeon is a full DX8 part, whereas the MX is not. How important it is to you will depend on the games you "plan" to play.

Agree? Disagree? Discuss it in our forums

Previous Page - Benchmarks

Home