Rating: 
Summary: Better than Radeon8500......but expensive
Review: Although it is true the Radeon 8500 beats the GeForce3 in most benchmarks like 3D Mark 2000 and Quake3, it is due to its driver set, which cheats using an advantage in the OpenGL driver version (v7191). This has since been corrected (v7206) but the incompatibility of the Radeon 8500 on Athalon based systems persists. Also, if you run Windows XP DO NOT, repeat DO NOT buy the Radeon 8500 -- stick with the GF3 as the 8500 has awful performance on XP (ATI will hopefully fix this in their next driver release since it is such a good card overall). ATI's SmoothVision filtering is excellent, but lags behind the FSAA method used by Nvidia (translates to faster prettier gameplay on the GF3). The GF3 Ti-500 is the card to go for if you have endless cash -- it is overpriced for now, but with ATI's new competition it should come down significantly. Also, now that the Ti-500 is coming mainstream, the "older" GF3's will be comparable in price to the Radeon 8500 and with some overclocking can beat or match the newer GF3 Ti-500.In conclusion, while the Radeon 8500 is an excellent card, its methods of image filtering kill performance and produce average graphics for the lost performance. On the other hand, the GF3 and GF3 Ti-500 still beat the 8500 in performance tests and once the new driver set for the GF3 is released enabling higher FSAA quality, there will be nothing to stop the gf3 from destroying the 8500. Save your pennies and buy a GeForce 3 Ti-500, but if you still want to eat, go for an older GeForce 3 like the one above and wait for the new drivers -- ATI won't know what hit 'em! PS
The 8500 does NOT have "4 times the processing power of a GeForce 3!" -- its chip clock is only 35 MHz faster than a GF3 Ti-500 (75MHz faster than a GF3) and its memory clock is only 25 MHz faster than the Ti-500 (45MHz respectivly for the GF3).
Rating: 
Summary: Are they kidding?
Review: Don't bother getting this card. I don't have this particular card but I know it's already an old card. A G3 64 MB graphics card for three hundred bucks? The price is friggin ridiculous. There's now the new Geforce FX 5200 128 MB DDR Graphics card that costs around or under a hundred bucks, the Geforce FX 5600 256 MB DDR graphics at around a hundred-seventy bucks, or the ATI Radeon 9600 to 9700 pro 128 MB DDR that cost between a hundred-fifty to two hundred fifty bucks. You can look these cards up at pricewatchdotcom's page. This graphics card is old already and is not worth it if you want to play the latest games smoothly like the upcoming Half-Life 2, GTA: Vice City, Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield, IL-2: Forgotten Battles, and the upcoming Rome Total War.
Rating: 
Summary: Arghhh... which one do I buy?
Review: Familiar question? NVidia makes great chips but they definitely make it confusing when it comes to deciding which card to buy. First is a Geforce, then a Geforce2, oh wait, here's this MX version, now a Pro version... oh I see an Ultra version. Oh man, now a Geforce3, now a TI200 and TI500. Are they deliberately trying to confuse us? To sort through the confusion I went to the 3DMark website. As of the time of this writing, the results stand as follows (from fastest to slowest):
1. ATI Radeon 8500
2. NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500
3. NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200
4. NVIDIA GeForce3
5. ATI Radeon 7500
6. NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra
7. NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/Pro
Any of these cards will run anything currently out without breaking a sweat. In fact, as many reviewers have pointed out, many of the features available in the Geforce 3 and Radeon cards haven't even been incorporated into games (yet). Compare prices and determine which on the list is within your price range. As of the time of this writing, the GF3ti200 is offered for much cheaper than the original GF3, yet the ti200 is a faster card. Regarding the Radeon vs. Geforce debate, it's nice to see healthy competition or else NVidia would be selling their cards for much more $$ I'm sure. That said, I'm very unhappy with ATI's unstable drivers and poor tech support. Keep that in mind when deciding on a card. Hope this helps you in your decision.
Rating:
Summary: Arghhh... which one do I buy?
Review: Familiar question? NVidia makes great chips but they definitely make it confusing when it comes to deciding which card to buy. First is a Geforce, then a Geforce2, oh wait, here's this MX version, now a Pro version... oh I see an Ultra version. Oh man, now a Geforce3, now a TI200 and TI500. Are they deliberately trying to confuse us? To sort through the confusion I went to the 3DMark website. As of the time of this writing, the results stand as follows (from fastest to slowest):
1. ATI Radeon 8500
2. NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500
3. NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200
4. NVIDIA GeForce3
5. ATI Radeon 7500
6. NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra
7. NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/Pro
Any of these cards will run anything currently out without breaking a sweat. In fact, as many reviewers have pointed out, many of the features available in the Geforce 3 and Radeon cards haven't even been incorporated into games (yet). Compare prices and determine which on the list is within your price range. As of the time of this writing, the GF3ti200 is offered for much cheaper than the original GF3, yet the ti200 is a faster card. Regarding the Radeon vs. Geforce debate, it's nice to see healthy competition or else NVidia would be selling their cards for much more $$ I'm sure. That said, I'm very unhappy with ATI's unstable drivers and poor tech support. Keep that in mind when deciding on a card. Hope this helps you in your decision.
Rating:
Summary: Good speed, but I'd expect better for the price.
Review: For it's price tag, one would have to get a loan to get this thing. No video card to date is able to match NVidia's GeForce3 in speed. The GeForce3 has the fastest fps so some games play smoothly. Notice I said some. Although the quickest thing on the market, it's 2D/3D performance is shabby. The image quality for many games are jagged, even at low resolutions. With FSAA turned on, they still don't look right. The 2D is nothing to get excited about. Text appears fine but it can get blurry at times even with a good monitor. I switched the GeForce3 with a 64MB DDR Radeon and it worked fine. Don't get me wrong, the 2D isn't bad, but compared to cards from different vendors like ATI and the long-gone 3DFX and Matrox, it performs mediocre. 3D is a little better. Games and movies are smooth most of the time. One of the best choices for games because the card allows you to play at high resolutions with 4X FSAA on @ 32-bit color. But during some parts of a game like MK-II, the video card doesn't seem to match against my older video card. Hmmm... The GeForce3 is a very good card. Again, I can't stress how fast it is. But for its price tag, I'd like to see some better image quality.
Rating:
Summary: Easy installation
Review: Having suffered with a defective video card in my Dell for too long (grey horizontal streaking), I decided to splurge and replace it with 'the best'. I had never installed a video card before and was nervous about doing so (especially considering the bucks I spent on it!) ... It was (almost) as easy as adding memory chips.... The directions were clear and -- except for skipping a couple of rather obvious intermediate step-by-steps -- detailed. I love to play Black and White now! If anyone is deterred by "I'ver never replaced a video card, and I'm not sure I can do it," don't hesitate. I did it -- and I'm a 55 year old geezer whose 26 year old son can't believe 'how such a smart guy can be so dumb' when it comes to computers. (Sound familiar, over 40's?)
Rating:
Summary: EXPENSIVE BUT GREAT CARD
Review: i bought this card 2 weeks ago, and i paid for it $..., i taught that was much money for a graphic card, and i was seriously looking for the gillemot 3d prophet III. but wat a surprise, when i installed and proved the card. ohhhhh my god, who said 3d prophet III??? wat amazing quality, and nice performance make this card a strong competitor into the geforce 3 cards. I think that the visiontek is a monster choice, with an expensive price, but dont care about the money, when u play unreal tournament or undying you said, ohh god exist!! the frame rate is excellent, and the performance is very good, also the speed is amazing, much better than the geforce 2 ultra! the only negative point about this card is that you cant connect it to a flat monitor, but who cares about that? and the other bad point is that this card doesnt have many extras as the gillemot product.In conclusion if u want upgrade your pc with the lastest graphics, go and buy the visiontek geforce 3, and dont care about gillemot!
Rating:
Summary: NIce
Review: I got one with my new compputer and it has made games much more playable, if you dont have at least a 16mb i would consider getting a new one(u dont know what you are missing). the card is very fast and i never have had any trouble with it, although it is probably for computers 900mhz or faster, if you have a slower proccesor i would go for something not more than 16mb.
Rating:
Summary: Are they kidding?
Review: I haven't used this card, so this is a review of this company. It has the worst customer support I have every experienced. Their web site is a joke. Their support hours are incredibly short. They have support only from 8AM to 5PM during week days. Frankly, I can't afford to stay at home because they made a defective card.
Rating:
Summary: Worst Customer Support!
Review: I haven't used this card, so this is a review of this company. It has the worst customer support I have every experienced. Their web site is a joke. Their support hours are incredibly short. They have support only from 8AM to 5PM during week days. Frankly, I can't afford to stay at home because they made a defective card.
| 
