Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 3 using Ghost Recon, Nascar 4, Quake3, F/A-18, Flanker Benchmarks Galore....downloads for those who care

Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe will steal my heart away. http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide where you are gonna spend money. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

Hey, what do you know; you don't even like snap views<G> Sorry Doc, couldn't resist. -John Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c43413a.14404812@news...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > will steal my heart away. > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > where you are gonna spend money. > > PAPA DOC > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net

Why are you scores so low for the Geforce 3? I get 8014 in 3dmark 2001. Is it because you have fsaa enabled? I got rid of my voodoo 5 and got the geforce 3. To me there is no comparison. The voodoo 5 is in slow motion compared to the geforce 3. Your scores make them look almost the same. I noticed in nascar 4 you added anisotropic to the geforce 3 and nothing to the voodoo 5. My voodoo 5 gets 70fps in that game with out anisotropic. You have a real nice write up on both cards but it is obvious to me that you are biased toward the voodoo 5. I also get 116.7 fps in quake 3 at 1600x1200 with the main setting at high. I did not change the other settings as you did. "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> Hey, what do you know; you don't even like snap views<G> Sorry Doc, > couldn't resist. > > -John > > > Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c43413a.14404812@news... > > Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > > will steal my heart away. > > > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > > > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > > where you are gonna spend money. > > > > PAPA DOC > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > > Never Forget Never Forgive > > September 11, 2001 > > We Will Find You > > www.papadoc.net > >

I almost forgot I think your system is messed up or something. You 3dmark 2001 score with the voodoo 5 is 1565. Dude you are running a thunderbird at 1.46 ghz! My old duron 600 overclocked to 1ghz (100fsb) and my voodoo 5 did 1713 in 3dmark 2001. Here is the link: http://gamershq.madonion.com/products/orb/?publish_compare.shtml?&project_ty pe=6&dprid=478256 Of course this does not compare to the 8015 of my gf3 and the althon xp that I now have. "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mhI08.51545$[email hidden]... > Why are you scores so low for the Geforce 3? I get 8014 in 3dmark 2001. Is > it because you have fsaa enabled? I got rid of my voodoo 5 and got the > geforce 3. To me there is no comparison. The voodoo 5 is in slow motion > compared to the geforce 3. Your scores make them look almost the same. I > noticed in nascar 4 you added anisotropic to the geforce 3 and nothing to > the voodoo 5. My voodoo 5 gets 70fps in that game with out anisotropic.You > have a real nice write up on both cards but it is obvious to me that youare

Quoted text (34 lines)

> biased toward the voodoo 5. I also get 116.7 fps in quake 3 at 1600x1200 > with the main setting at high. I did not change the other settings as you > did. > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Hey, what do you know; you don't even like snap views<G> Sorry Doc, > > couldn't resist. > > > > -John > > > > > > Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c43413a.14404812@news... > > > Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > > > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > > > will steal my heart away. > > > > > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > > > > > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > > > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > > > where you are gonna spend money. > > > > > > PAPA DOC > > > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > > > Never Forget Never Forgive > > > September 11, 2001 > > > We Will Find You > > > www.papadoc.net > > > > > >

Papa, I love the way the Voodoo5 looks...and the way the GeForce3 runs.... --Steve Smith (who wrote "PC Pilot," which I bet you haven't read) Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c43413a.14404812@news...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > will steal my heart away. > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > where you are gonna spend money. > > PAPA DOC > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net

Well he is not full of hot air. I have a ATI Radeon 8500 and a VooDoo 5. In my aging PIII 650 the VooDoo 5 is either as fast or faster in just about every game I play. But I think if you go high rez 1280 and beyond the ATI and GF3 will starting pulling away. With a 1Ghz + cpu I would expect the ATI to start strutting its stuff. but for now I have the ATI in a box and the V5 inside my box. The ATI is not as compatible as the V5 has worse FSAA and crashes more often and is no faster. So for the slow pokes like me with sub 1Ghz cpus I would take a V5 over a GF3 or ATI radeon. All that hopefully will change when I upgrade my cpu. Bob... On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:34:55 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce >competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe >will steal my heart away. > >http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > >Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices >mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide >where you are gonna spend money. > >PAPA DOC > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >Never Forget Never Forgive >September 11, 2001 >We Will Find You >www.papadoc.net

Only flaw I can point out (aside from the absurdly low 3dMark...my Celeron 900/ Abit BH6 / 512MB PC133 @ 100mhz with a GF2MX200 does just under 1700!!!) is that when you tallied up the wins/losses, they weren't weighted...so a 3 or 4fps win (N4 1024x768 x2 16bit, F/A-18 Low Altitude 1024x768 x4 16 bit, 1600x1200 x2 16bit Operation Flashpoint, the two in eFALCON BENCHMARK) for the V5 counts just the same as the more common 10+ fps wins for the GF3. Milhouse "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c43413a.14404812@news...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > will steal my heart away. > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > where you are gonna spend money. > > PAPA DOC > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net

Well have a thunderbird xp 1700+ at 140 fsb. There is no comparison. I gave my voodoo 5 to my 4 year old for use in his computer. I do not understand how the v5 could even come close to the geforce 3. "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ipK08.131702$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> Only flaw I can point out (aside from the absurdly low 3dMark...my Celeron > 900/ Abit BH6 / 512MB PC133 @ 100mhz with a GF2MX200 does just under > 1700!!!) is that when you tallied up the wins/losses, they weren't > weighted...so a 3 or 4fps win (N4 1024x768 x2 16bit, F/A-18 Low Altitude > 1024x768 x4 16 bit, 1600x1200 x2 16bit Operation Flashpoint, the two in > eFALCON BENCHMARK) for the V5 counts just the same as the more common 10+ > fps wins for the GF3. > > Milhouse > > "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c43413a.14404812@news... > > Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > > will steal my heart away. > > > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > > > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > > where you are gonna spend money. > > > > PAPA DOC > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > > Never Forget Never Forgive > > September 11, 2001 > > We Will Find You > > www.papadoc.net > >

A tired piece of Voodoo5 propoganda, I'm certain it will inflate your sense of self importance. You fail to discussfew points, and focus solely on others. The Voodoo5 performs well on a glide based app, as long as you don't want to rasie the resolution in 32-bit color, FSAA or not, it won't run at acceptable frame rates. The Voodoo5 is an abandoned product, there will be no support for DirectX8 other than the few persons who are issuing 3rd party drivers. I know, I have a few different sets. The Geforce3 line of products run OpenGL and Direct3D apps very well, for example Unreal Tournement in OpenGL with the enhanced texture set runs super-clean and is visually dramatic with the GeForce3, The Voodoo5 is unplayable under the same conditions. I know, I tried it, thats why I got a GeF3. And I believe UT is the showcase app for a Voodoo. You go on about how it costs $300 to get a GeForce3, you lose authority when you fail to mention that newegg is selling geforce3 ti200's for $159 and a lifetime warranty. Simply OC the card to 95% geforce3 regular levels and you have outstanding value. Or get a full blown GeF3 with 3.8ns ram for just under $200. You ignore the benefit of AGP and precaching textures (prevents stuttering), you ignore the numerous and varied settings that the Detonator drivers have, to tailor to your parcticual app. Have you tried Quincunx and 2X anisotropic filtering? They work phenomenally well with most "fast-action" games. Very small performance hit, great visual improvement. You neglect to compare the 2D quality, you neglect to mention color saturation, convergence, product support. You neglect a great many things to try and claim the voodoo5 is holding it's own with the current crop of games. Your testing methodology is flawed (honestly, just because you test the geforce3 with 16-bit color, and you go *on and on* about image quality I'm supposed to take your word for it that 32 bit color doesn't help the end result?) If your point is "The Voodoo5 runs DirectX7 games at low resolution and low frame rates, but with acceptable image quality" then thank you Mr. News Flash. Welcome to 2002. The V5 was a great card, it played well at low resolution with a fast processor on glide games and "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c43413a.14404812@news...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > will steal my heart away. > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > where you are gonna spend money. > > PAPA DOC > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net

I also agree on the FSAA of the VooDoo 5. I wish that ATI or Nvidia would get their shit together and use 3dfx's rotated grid method. Its a bit disappointing when the cards that are 3 years newer still have crapola FSAA. And any chance that unreal will work as well in D3D as it does in GLide? I mean how much time do they need to fix the Unreal for D3D? It seems that they spend too much time cranking out the fastest frame rates and the quality goes out the window. The 2 quality of the GF3 and ATI are worse than the old V5. The Matrox is the best still. For 300.00 why do they sacrifice 2D. I compared my Radeon to the V5 and the text is just a little bit blurrier at 1280 and beyond. Whats up with that? Don't get me wrong I know my V5 is dated and days are numbered. But the new cards take a step backwards in some areas. I want my cake and eat it too. I want all the good stuff of the V5 plus all the speed and new effects of the newer ones. On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:34:55 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce >competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe >will steal my heart away. > >http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > >Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices >mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide >where you are gonna spend money. > >PAPA DOC > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >Never Forget Never Forgive >September 11, 2001 >We Will Find You >www.papadoc.net

hehe...Listen how about you actually read the review before you go off on me. If you did you would see why the 3dMark scores are low for both cards...x4FSAA enabled with no Hardware TnL. I didnt enable Anisotropic filtering on the Voodoo 5 because it doesnt have it, and doesnt need it...but the GF3 to match the V5's image quality does indeed require it. But you can test it for yourself if you want...and see what kind of difference it makes....I made availible all the settings and the recordings. Changing the "other" settings is crucial in Quake 3 to match mine since Texture detail is halfway up using High Settings and Geometric detail is also set to medium. On my runs both were jacked up to Wide F*&king Open.... PAPA DOC

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Why are you scores so low for the Geforce 3? I get 8014 in 3dmark 2001. Is >it because you have fsaa enabled? I got rid of my voodoo 5 and got the >geforce 3. To me there is no comparison. The voodoo 5 is in slow motion >compared to the geforce 3. Your scores make them look almost the same. I >noticed in nascar 4 you added anisotropic to the geforce 3 and nothing to >the voodoo 5. My voodoo 5 gets 70fps in that game with out anisotropic. You >have a real nice write up on both cards but it is obvious to me that you are >biased toward the voodoo 5. I also get 116.7 fps in quake 3 at 1600x1200 >with the main setting at high. I did not change the other settings as you >did

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

Come close...?? It whips the Geforces ass in a couple of sims...Janes F/A-18, Falcon, and Nascar to stay on topic. 3dMark 2001 run without Hardware TnL enabled only software TnL and at x4 FSAA. Which explains why the Geforce did so well there btw...if I had run the GF3 in x0FSAA and x2 FSAA the scores would have been different. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (38 lines)

>Well have a thunderbird xp 1700+ at 140 fsb. There is no comparison. I gave >my voodoo 5 to my 4 year old for use in his computer. I do not understand >how the v5 could even come close to the geforce 3. >"Milhouse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:ipK08.131702$[email hidden]... >> Only flaw I can point out (aside from the absurdly low 3dMark...my Celeron >> 900/ Abit BH6 / 512MB PC133 @ 100mhz with a GF2MX200 does just under >> 1700!!!) is that when you tallied up the wins/losses, they weren't >> weighted...so a 3 or 4fps win (N4 1024x768 x2 16bit, F/A-18 Low Altitude >> 1024x768 x4 16 bit, 1600x1200 x2 16bit Operation Flashpoint, the two in >> eFALCON BENCHMARK) for the V5 counts just the same as the more common 10+ >> fps wins for the GF3. >> >> Milhouse >> >> "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:3c43413a.14404812@news... >> > Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce >> > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe >> > will steal my heart away. >> > >> > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html >> > >> > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices >> > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide >> > where you are gonna spend money. >> > >> > PAPA DOC >> > >> > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >> > Never Forget Never Forgive >> > September 11, 2001 >> > We Will Find You >> > www.papadoc.net >> >> > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

hehe...That reading thing has you flamboozled doesnt it...? >A tired piece of Voodoo5 propoganda, I'm certain it will inflate your sense >of self importance. You fail to discussfew points, and focus solely on >others. My sense of self impotance? About a video card review..?? You are serious..?? Sorry thats not what defines my sense of importance..though that you think it does says alot about you. > >The Voodoo5 performs well on a glide based app, as long as you don't want to >rasie the resolution in 32-bit color, FSAA or not, it won't run at >acceptable frame rates. Operation Flashpoint is one of the most popular games to have been sold in the States. Here are the scores running Direct X. Notice the 1600x1200 x2 FSAA score.. 1600x1200 x2 FSAA 16bit 25.7 Geforce 3 28.5 Voodoo 5 Course I can hear your blustering answer already...but Waaaaa you didnt run it in 32bit. Well Einstien as I stated several times in the review it, the review was specifically intended to test the card most V5 owners would run the games. We dont run in 32 bit because frankly we havent had to....not because we couldnt. Try reading something before acting like some self possessed jerk. >The Voodoo5 is an abandoned product, there will be no support for DirectX8 >other than the few persons who are issuing 3rd party drivers. I know, I have >a few different sets. And with your laser sharp grasp of the English language you apparently missed the part where I specifically made mention to the problem of the drivers. >You go on about how it costs $300 to get a GeForce3, you lose authority when >you fail to mention that newegg is selling geforce3 ti200's for $159 and a >lifetime warranty. Simply OC the card to 95% geforce3 regular levels and you >have outstanding value. Or get a full blown GeF3 with 3.8ns ram for just >under $200. As the article states several times genius I intended it for V5 owners who are considering whether to spend the money to buy a GF3. >You ignore the benefit of AGP and precaching textures (prevents stuttering), Stutters just fine in iL-2 thank you. >you ignore the numerous and varied settings that the Detonator drivers have, >to tailor to your parcticual app. You mean like the fact that the direct x page in the Drivers properties is missing the anisotropic adjustment..? You have to get a 3rd party app to adjust that...and it doesnt work in all games. > Have you tried Quincunx and 2X anisotropic >filtering? They work phenomenally well with most "fast-action" games. Very >small performance hit, great visual improvement. Ah I see you didnt read the article.. >You neglect to compare the 2D quality, you neglect to mention color >saturation, convergence, product support. 2D Quality..? You arent seriously gonna suggest that the V5 is deficient in that regard in comparison to the GF3..besides which Im a gamer. And yes if you would have taken time to step down from that very high horse of yours you would have seen that I did indeed talk about most of that. > >If your point is "The Voodoo5 runs DirectX7 games at low resolution and low >frame rates, but with acceptable image quality" then thank you Mr. News >Flash. Welcome to 2002. You mean like Ghost Recon ? Where at 1600x1200 x2 FSAA it beat the Geforce 3 by 2 frames a second..? Try reading its liberating. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

Thats a good point but the weighting in my mind is done by the people making the decisions based on what is important. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (31 lines)

>Only flaw I can point out (aside from the absurdly low 3dMark...my Celeron >900/ Abit BH6 / 512MB PC133 @ 100mhz with a GF2MX200 does just under >1700!!!) is that when you tallied up the wins/losses, they weren't >weighted...so a 3 or 4fps win (N4 1024x768 x2 16bit, F/A-18 Low Altitude >1024x768 x4 16 bit, 1600x1200 x2 16bit Operation Flashpoint, the two in >eFALCON BENCHMARK) for the V5 counts just the same as the more common 10+ >fps wins for the GF3. > >Milhouse > >"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:3c43413a.14404812@news... >> Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce >> competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe >> will steal my heart away. >> >> http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html >> >> Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices >> mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide >> where you are gonna spend money. >> >> PAPA DOC >> >> Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >> Never Forget Never Forgive >> September 11, 2001 >> We Will Find You >> www.papadoc.net > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

Pierre I dont want to quote you wrong. I do not play those games it might be faster. I know that my v5 with windows xp was terrible in nascar 4 since the support was nominal. Now in Nascar 4 I get 70 fps. In 3dmark 2001 you ran the gf3 at x4 FSAA. Did you run the v5 in 3dmark 2001 at x4FSAA also. My 3dmark score with my v5 was higher. I mostly play GPL. In GPL the GF3 is a lot better. I can run GPL at 1600x1200 at a constant 36fps during the race after the start. I could not do that with my V5. "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c437c91.10695566@news...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Come close...?? It whips the Geforces ass in a couple of sims...Janes > F/A-18, Falcon, and Nascar to stay on topic. > > 3dMark 2001 run without Hardware TnL enabled only software TnL and at > x4 FSAA. Which explains why the Geforce did so well there btw...if I > had run the GF3 in x0FSAA and x2 FSAA the scores would have been > different. > > PAPA DOC > > >Well have a thunderbird xp 1700+ at 140 fsb. There is no comparison. I

gave > >my voodoo 5 to my 4 year old for use in his computer. I do not understand > >how the v5 could even come close to the geforce 3. > >"Milhouse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:ipK08.131702$[email hidden]... > >> Only flaw I can point out (aside from the absurdly low 3dMark...myCeleron > >> 900/ Abit BH6 / 512MB PC133 @ 100mhz with a GF2MX200 does just under > >> 1700!!!) is that when you tallied up the wins/losses, they weren't > >> weighted...so a 3 or 4fps win (N4 1024x768 x2 16bit, F/A-18 LowAltitude > >> 1024x768 x4 16 bit, 1600x1200 x2 16bit Operation Flashpoint, the two in > >> eFALCON BENCHMARK) for the V5 counts just the same as the more common10+

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> fps wins for the GF3. > >> > >> Milhouse > >> > >> "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:3c43413a.14404812@news... > >> > Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two

fierce

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > >> > will steal my heart away. > >> > > >> > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > >> > > >> > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > >> > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to

decide

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >> > where you are gonna spend money. > >> > > >> > PAPA DOC > >> > > >> > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > >> > Never Forget Never Forgive > >> > September 11, 2001 > >> > We Will Find You > >> > www.papadoc.net > >> > >> > > > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net

Wow this is a spirited discussion! I liked my v5 when I had it but personally I think the gf3 is a much superior card. I play GPL and it does well in that game. I must say that operation flashpoint is a fine game but it is not one of the most popular games in the U.S. It really does not matter GPL is not one of the most popular games either. If you want popularity compare Quake 3. It is not my personal favorite due to its mindlessness. I do really like Return to Castle Wolfenstein though and I think it uses the Quake 3 engine. "Robert Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> I also agree on the FSAA of the VooDoo 5. I wish that ATI or Nvidia > would get their shit together and use 3dfx's rotated grid method. > > Its a bit disappointing when the cards that are 3 years newer still > have crapola FSAA. And any chance that unreal will work as well in > D3D as it does in GLide? I mean how much time do they need to fix > the Unreal for D3D? > > It seems that they spend too much time cranking out the fastest frame > rates and the quality goes out the window. The 2 quality of the GF3 > and ATI are worse than the old V5. The Matrox is the best still. > > For 300.00 why do they sacrifice 2D. I compared my Radeon to the V5 > and the text is just a little bit blurrier at 1280 and beyond. Whats > up with that? > > Don't get me wrong I know my V5 is dated and days are numbered. But > the new cards take a step backwards in some areas. I want my cake > and eat it too. I want all the good stuff of the V5 plus all the > speed and new effects of the newer ones. > > > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:34:55 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) > wrote: > > >Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > >competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > >will steal my heart away. > > > >http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > > >Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > >mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > >where you are gonna spend money. > > > >PAPA DOC > > > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > >Never Forget Never Forgive > >September 11, 2001 > >We Will Find You > >www.papadoc.net >

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c437e4c.11138435@news... > hehe...That reading thing has you flamboozled doesnt it...? Hardly. Your opinions, methodologies and editorializations are biased and basically useless.

I agree with Doc. Recently I have been running a Asus A7N266 nvidia mb with the built in gf2 and a pci 3dfx 5000. Seems to me, that even a pci 3dfx 5000 card, gives me a better picture for my flight sims. xman Charlie "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LwL08.51923$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> Wow this is a spirited discussion! I liked my v5 when I had it but > personally I think the gf3 is a much superior card. I play GPL and it does > well in that game. I must say that operation flashpoint is a fine game but > it is not one of the most popular games in the U.S. It really does not > matter GPL is not one of the most popular games either. If you want > popularity compare Quake 3. It is not my personal favorite due to its > mindlessness. I do really like Return to Castle Wolfenstein though and I > think it uses the Quake 3 engine. > "Robert Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I also agree on the FSAA of the VooDoo 5. I wish that ATI or Nvidia > > would get their shit together and use 3dfx's rotated grid method. > > > > Its a bit disappointing when the cards that are 3 years newer still > > have crapola FSAA. And any chance that unreal will work as well in > > D3D as it does in GLide? I mean how much time do they need to fix > > the Unreal for D3D? > > > > It seems that they spend too much time cranking out the fastest frame > > rates and the quality goes out the window. The 2 quality of the GF3 > > and ATI are worse than the old V5. The Matrox is the best still. > > > > For 300.00 why do they sacrifice 2D. I compared my Radeon to the V5 > > and the text is just a little bit blurrier at 1280 and beyond. Whats > > up with that? > > > > Don't get me wrong I know my V5 is dated and days are numbered. But > > the new cards take a step backwards in some areas. I want my cake > > and eat it too. I want all the good stuff of the V5 plus all the > > speed and new effects of the newer ones. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:34:55 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) > > wrote: > > > > >Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > > >competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > > >will steal my heart away. > > > > > >http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > > > > >Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > > >mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > > >where you are gonna spend money. > > > > > >PAPA DOC > > > > > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > > >Never Forget Never Forgive > > >September 11, 2001 > > >We Will Find You > > >www.papadoc.net > > > > >

I bought my v5 the day it came out. I remember I got it at Babbages because they had them before any other store in town. I always liked the card and the 2d and 3d looked great. I really had no complaints. I recently upgraded my cpu, motherboard, and ram. I found the v5 to not bee as great when using windows xp. I decided to go with the gf3. For me it is a better card. GPL runs better. I do not use fsaa becuase i think it looks better than the v5 because I can run at 1600x1200. I think quake 3 definitely looks better at 1600x1200. Pierre said he does not use 32 bit color because he does not need to. In my opinion 32 bit color does look better. It would be like saying you like a higher resolution instead of fsaa. Each person has their own opinion. I think a v5 is a very bad purchase for anyone right now because of the problems in windows xp. If you already have a v5 and you are happy with the games you play, there is no reason to upgrade. If you are building a system then a v5 is not a good choice. I decided I really liked windows xp so upgrading my video card was the best solution for me. I like it better than my v5. They both are good cards. "xman Charlie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hgN08.31986$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I agree with Doc. > > Recently I have been running a Asus A7N266 nvidia mb with the built in gf2 > and a pci 3dfx 5000. > > Seems to me, that even a pci 3dfx 5000 card, gives me a better picture for > my flight sims. > > xman Charlie > > "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:LwL08.51923$[email hidden]... > > Wow this is a spirited discussion! I liked my v5 when I had it but > > personally I think the gf3 is a much superior card. I play GPL and it

does > > well in that game. I must say that operation flashpoint is a fine gamebut

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > it is not one of the most popular games in the U.S. It really does not > > matter GPL is not one of the most popular games either. If you want > > popularity compare Quake 3. It is not my personal favorite due to its > > mindlessness. I do really like Return to Castle Wolfenstein though and I > > think it uses the Quake 3 engine. > > "Robert Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I also agree on the FSAA of the VooDoo 5. I wish that ATI or Nvidia > > > would get their shit together and use 3dfx's rotated grid method. > > > > > > Its a bit disappointing when the cards that are 3 years newer still > > > have crapola FSAA. And any chance that unreal will work as well in > > > D3D as it does in GLide? I mean how much time do they need to fix > > > the Unreal for D3D? > > > > > > It seems that they spend too much time cranking out the fastest frame > > > rates and the quality goes out the window. The 2 quality of the GF3 > > > and ATI are worse than the old V5. The Matrox is the best still. > > > > > > For 300.00 why do they sacrifice 2D. I compared my Radeon to the V5 > > > and the text is just a little bit blurrier at 1280 and beyond. Whats > > > up with that? > > > > > > Don't get me wrong I know my V5 is dated and days are numbered. But > > > the new cards take a step backwards in some areas. I want my cake > > > and eat it too. I want all the good stuff of the V5 plus all the > > > speed and new effects of the newer ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:34:55 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two

fierce

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > >competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > > > >will steal my heart away. > > > > > > > >http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > > > > > > >Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > > > >mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to

decide

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > >where you are gonna spend money. > > > > > > > >PAPA DOC > > > > > > > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > > > >Never Forget Never Forgive > > > >September 11, 2001 > > > >We Will Find You > > > >www.papadoc.net > > > > > > > > > > >

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c43413a.14404812@news... > Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > will steal my heart away. > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html Pierre, nice competitive review, thanks.

Well which particular benchmark that I quoted you in my response is invalid...? Based on what..? Based on that you claim that the V5 cannot do high res and in those two brand new games it spanks the GF3..? The GF3Ti500 are 279.00 on pricewatch right now...its clocked at 240 core and 500 memory...mine was clocked at 220 core and 525 memory....oooh big difference there punk. You are one of those little hardware geeks that run around trying to intimidate people with your bullshit...not here bud. Been around the block a few too many times to buy your line. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Hardly. Your opinions, methodologies and editorializations are biased and >basically useless. > > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

hehe....I doubt that you can quote me wrong...but you are welcome to try. >Pierre I dont want to quote you wrong. I do not play those games it might be >faster. I know that my v5 with windows xp was terrible in nascar 4 since the >support was nominal. Dont know about Windows XP, dont have any reason to upgrade now. >Now in Nascar 4 I get 70 fps. Thats the type of statement that doesnt get very far with me. Quoting Framerate scores our of context of all of your settings does no one any good. > In 3dmark 2001 you ran >the gf3 at x4 FSAA. Did you run the v5 in 3dmark 2001 at x4FSAA also. Brian thats a silly question...of course I ran it at x4 FSAA...did you actually read the review or are you getting your information second hand...the point of running 3dMark was to show what to expect with apps that either do not support or dont support TnL well. >My >3dmark score with my v5 was higher. Or course it was higher you havent paid attention to the article and understood the settings I have used or why I used them. >I mostly play GPL. In GPL the GF3 is a >lot better. I can run GPL at 1600x1200 at a constant 36fps during the race >after the start. If you cannot do that after the race with a V5 then you needed to upgrade your CPU. I can do that easily. But I choose to stay at x2 FSAA at 1024 because of the better image quality. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

Operation Flashpoint was at the top of the best sellers list for sometime. Whether it is more popular than Quake is irrelevent since both are benchmarked....you really havent read the article have you. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (56 lines)

>Wow this is a spirited discussion! I liked my v5 when I had it but >personally I think the gf3 is a much superior card. I play GPL and it does >well in that game. I must say that operation flashpoint is a fine game but >it is not one of the most popular games in the U.S. It really does not >matter GPL is not one of the most popular games either. If you want >popularity compare Quake 3. It is not my personal favorite due to its >mindlessness. I do really like Return to Castle Wolfenstein though and I >think it uses the Quake 3 engine. >"Robert Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> I also agree on the FSAA of the VooDoo 5. I wish that ATI or Nvidia >> would get their shit together and use 3dfx's rotated grid method. >> >> Its a bit disappointing when the cards that are 3 years newer still >> have crapola FSAA. And any chance that unreal will work as well in >> D3D as it does in GLide? I mean how much time do they need to fix >> the Unreal for D3D? >> >> It seems that they spend too much time cranking out the fastest frame >> rates and the quality goes out the window. The 2 quality of the GF3 >> and ATI are worse than the old V5. The Matrox is the best still. >> >> For 300.00 why do they sacrifice 2D. I compared my Radeon to the V5 >> and the text is just a little bit blurrier at 1280 and beyond. Whats >> up with that? >> >> Don't get me wrong I know my V5 is dated and days are numbered. But >> the new cards take a step backwards in some areas. I want my cake >> and eat it too. I want all the good stuff of the V5 plus all the >> speed and new effects of the newer ones. >> >> >> >> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:34:55 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) >> wrote: >> >> >Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce >> >competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe >> >will steal my heart away. >> > >> >http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html >> > >> >Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices >> >mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide >> >where you are gonna spend money. >> > >> >PAPA DOC >> > >> >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >> >Never Forget Never Forgive >> >September 11, 2001 >> >We Will Find You >> >www.papadoc.net >> > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

In article <3c437e4c.11138435@news>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > >hehe...That reading thing has you flamboozled doesnt it...? > >>A tired piece of Voodoo5 propoganda, I'm certain it will inflate your sense >>of self importance. You fail to discussfew points, and focus solely on >>others. > >My sense of self impotance? About a video card review..?? You are >serious..?? Sorry thats not what defines my sense of >importance..though that you think it does says alot about you.

He's a Geforce Fanatic, and you questioned his manhood. Now he needs to prove that, even though there ain't much between his legs, his video card makes up for it. Honestly, you'd get the same from other types if you had trashed any item of choice. You should see how car company fanatics can get. Video card types don't compare. -Tim

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c43db14.9604386@news... > Operation Flashpoint was at the top of the best sellers list for > sometime. Whether it is more popular than Quake is irrelevent since > both are benchmarked....you really havent read the article have you. > > PAPA DOC Pierre, I read the article (well, *most* of it - it *was* long ;) ). I "upgraded" from a V5 5500 to a GF2MX - although now am on a Herc 4500. It really pained me to do so, having been a big fan of Voodoos since their launch. I had to change as, at the time, I was playing a lot of Tribes2 and it really didn't get along with 3dfx. Either way, I would agree wholeheartedly with your comments about overall visual quality. *BUT* and, as I am sure you can see it is a *big* "but". I was astounded by the difference in colour portrayal (maybe saturation, although I would say it was more than just that). The GF2 made games like Tribes, Half Life et al so much more colourful. Whilst I do miss the 4xfsaa mode a lot, for me personally this is more than compensated for by the colour differences. I am certain that I didn't just have a badly set up rig, as I have had 3dfx from Voodoo1 on various machines, all with the same look. Thanks for the page, though, I am sure it will be very useful to the intended audience - as opposed to idiots who have nothing better to do than whine about which video card is better than another when it is not relevant to them... Schrodinger

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > hehe...Listen how about you actually read the review before you go off > on me. If you did you would see why the 3dMark scores are low for both > cards...x4FSAA enabled with no Hardware TnL. I don't see why you should run a GF3 with no hardware TnL. If the object of the article is as you indeed say, to help V5 owners if they want to upgrade to a GF3 or not, why would they NOT want to run their apps using hardware TnL? That's just STUPID. > I didnt enable Anisotropic filtering on the Voodoo 5 because it doesnt > have it, and doesnt need it... Dosn't need it? BS, man. All cards "need" anisotropic filtering, and if you knew what anisotropic filtering really does, you'd agree with that. But then, the V5 can't even do trilinear while multitexturing, and you diehard 3dfx zealot apologists have all the reasons in the world trying to cover such embarassing truths... :-) Bye! /HB.

In <%dS08.6397$[email hidden]> "Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> writes: >Dosn't need it? BS, man. All cards "need" anisotropic filtering, and if you >knew what anisotropic filtering really does, you'd agree with that. Why does Nvidia leave it disabled in the Direct X driver then? I mean, if it's something you can't live without and all, shouldn't you be able to turn it on without a 3rd party app? -- Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity. GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> kirjoitti viestiss�:3c43413a.14404812@news... > Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > will steal my heart away. > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html--------------------Clip---------------------------- Hmmm, i don�t quite understand the Nascar4 benchmark. I had p3 1000 Mhz and V5, but my Psu died, killing my motherboard at the same time, so it was time for upgrade. Nascar 4 is just about the only game i play nowdays, so i get into that. With the earlier setup i could run N4 @ 960*7xx/16 bits with 2x Fsaa and most of the eye candy turned off. The frame rate howered from low 20:s to 42.x, but mostly it was wery playable, meaning it was closer to 40 than 20. The V5 seemed to have some problems with sand and lights and on some tracks (Sears, L-night) and the fps dropped a little too much for my liking. With my new setup (Xp 1600, GF3 Ti-200, everything else the same), i can run the game @ 1024/32 bits, 2x fsaa, most of the eye candy on and the fps is like 35-70! Sears point runs like a dream, no matter how much sand is in the air, so i don't think that is all because of the faster cpu. IMHO, Gf3 seems to be the winner for N4. Haven't tried Gpl yet, but i don't think there will be much improvement, because that game ran great with my earlier setup also. - Samu

"John Henders" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Dosn't need it? BS, man. All cards "need" anisotropic filtering, and ifyou > >knew what anisotropic filtering really does, you'd agree with that. > Why does Nvidia leave it disabled in the Direct X driver then? Because it incurs a performance hit, naturally. I suppose Nvidia could hide behind some compliancy clause or something, but that's more or less what it boils down to. If feature = less 3dmarks, then feature = off as default. ;-) Same thing with all manufacturers, even bankrupt ex-market leaders. It's disabled as default in OpenGL too by the way, and much for the same reason I would think, just substitute 3dmark above with quake3... > I mean, if it's something you can't live without and all LOL. I can live without it, but wouldn't you want your graphics to look as good as reasonably possible? I sure do. > shouldn't you be able > to turn it on without a 3rd party app? I believe that is because of Microsoft actually, and their god-damn WHQL certification. Anyway, it's no bother installing Rivatune, Nvmax or such, so there's no point in trying to make it out as something bad. Bye! /HB.

Whatever. Your boring insults don't hide the fact that the GeForce3 is an upgrade for the Voodoo5 in each and every category. Visual Quality, Speed, Ease of use and Price. You facts are in gross error, and you are annoying. So take another walk around the block, you obviously missed most of the worthy sights the first time around. "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c43d83b.8875786@news...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Well which particular benchmark that I quoted you in my response is > invalid...? Based on what..? Based on that you claim that the V5 > cannot do high res and in those two brand new games it spanks the > GF3..? The GF3Ti500 are 279.00 on pricewatch right now...its clocked > at 240 core and 500 memory...mine was clocked at 220 core and 525 > memory....oooh big difference there punk. > > You are one of those little hardware geeks that run around trying to > intimidate people with your bullshit...not here bud. Been around the > block a few too many times to buy your line. > > PAPA DOC > > > > >Hardly. Your opinions, methodologies and editorializations are biased and > >basically useless. > > > > > > > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net

No offense but Operation Flashpoint has been in the top 10 in computer software sales for the past 6 months in the United States, and has outsold nearly everything during that period. Saying that it is not one of the most popular games in the U.S. is to completely ignore the sales figures it has generated. I'm amazed at how long this thread has gotten. The review written by the person who started this thread simply demonstrates one of the most obvious facts about video cars: the Voodoo 5 looks better, the GeForce 3 is faster at the expense of really nasty flickering jaggies. When I switched from a Voodoo 4 to a GeForce 3 I nearly vomited upon loading Nascar 4 for the first time. I ran my V4 with FSAA *off* in 800x600x16 and it was so much more pleasant to look at compared to the G3 with 4x FSAA *on* in 1280x1024x32. I've been seriously considering 'downgrading' to a Voodoo 5 because I find Nvidia image quality completely frustrating (there's nothing like having a headache after a 2-3 hour session of Nascar 4 or GPL). There is really no excuse for a card a full generation beyond the Voodoo 4/5 series to still have ridiculous aliasing and flickering problems, especially when it's released by the company that owns 3dfx technology. Jason "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<LwL08.51923$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (54 lines)

> Wow this is a spirited discussion! I liked my v5 when I had it but > personally I think the gf3 is a much superior card. I play GPL and it does > well in that game. I must say that operation flashpoint is a fine game but > it is not one of the most popular games in the U.S. It really does not > matter GPL is not one of the most popular games either. If you want > popularity compare Quake 3. It is not my personal favorite due to its > mindlessness. I do really like Return to Castle Wolfenstein though and I > think it uses the Quake 3 engine. > "Robert Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I also agree on the FSAA of the VooDoo 5. I wish that ATI or Nvidia > > would get their shit together and use 3dfx's rotated grid method. > > > > Its a bit disappointing when the cards that are 3 years newer still > > have crapola FSAA. And any chance that unreal will work as well in > > D3D as it does in GLide? I mean how much time do they need to fix > > the Unreal for D3D? > > > > It seems that they spend too much time cranking out the fastest frame > > rates and the quality goes out the window. The 2 quality of the GF3 > > and ATI are worse than the old V5. The Matrox is the best still. > > > > For 300.00 why do they sacrifice 2D. I compared my Radeon to the V5 > > and the text is just a little bit blurrier at 1280 and beyond. Whats > > up with that? > > > > Don't get me wrong I know my V5 is dated and days are numbered. But > > the new cards take a step backwards in some areas. I want my cake > > and eat it too. I want all the good stuff of the V5 plus all the > > speed and new effects of the newer ones. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:34:55 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) > > wrote: > > > > >Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > > >competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > > >will steal my heart away. > > > > > >http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > > > > >Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > > >mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > > >where you are gonna spend money. > > > > > >PAPA DOC > > > > > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > > >Never Forget Never Forgive > > >September 11, 2001 > > >We Will Find You > > >www.papadoc.net > >

Oopsy Nvidia does have the page to enable it in OpenGl part of their properties. It is only unavailible when in the Direct X page.... The reason it is disabled is because it is buggy in Direct X...works sometimes, doesnt work other times, works in some drivers and not in others... PAPA DOC

Quoted text (10 lines)

>I believe that is because of Microsoft actually, and their god-damn WHQL >certification. Anyway, it's no bother installing Rivatune, Nvmax or such, so >there's no point in trying to make it out as something bad. > > > Bye! >/HB. > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

hehe..You are too easy...ask harder questions please. Ones that show you actually can read instead of just looking at the pretty pictures. >I don't see why you should run a GF3 with no hardware TnL. If the object of >the article is as you indeed say, to help V5 owners if they want to upgrade >to a GF3 or not, why would they NOT want to run their apps using hardware >TnL? That's just STUPID. Ooopsy I guess we know who didnt read all those complicated little thingies called words in the article. To quote "I decided on this test after I saw how unexpectedly close the Voodoo 5 was to the GF3 on games that didn�t support TnL or didn�t support it enough to be obvious or supported it but it didn�t make any difference�.Nascar 4 anyone? I ran this test to see how strong both cards were without any affect from TnL being considered. It was interesting to see how this highly respected and widely used benchmark showed the differences between the two cards�.when TnL was factored out of the equation" For you short bus types, here is a easy version of what I said above. Many games right now are either not TnL enabled, poorly enabled, or only limitedly enabled...for those games both cards are on equal footing with the GF3's GPU being factored out.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> I didnt enable Anisotropic filtering on the Voodoo 5 because it doesnt >> have it, and doesnt need it... > >Dosn't need it? BS, man. All cards "need" anisotropic filtering, and if you >knew what anisotropic filtering really does, you'd agree with that. But >then, the V5 can't even do trilinear while multitexturing, and you diehard >3dfx zealot apologists have all the reasons in the world trying to cover >such embarassing truths... :-)

hehe...Well if its so important I guess you better be pissed off at Nvidia since they claim to have it and its not enabled in their drivers. As far as needing it...yup it would be nice if the V5 had it...but it doesnt. But that doesnt change the fact that when compared side by side the FSAA of the V5 is less blurry and more beautiful. I only was interested in Anisotropic filtering to the degree that it helped the GF3 equal the V5's abilities in FSAA. Next. PAPA DOC > > Bye! >/HB. > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

You can download the Benchmark Recording from my site to use the same test I used. I included all my settings as well. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (16 lines)

>With my new setup (Xp 1600, GF3 Ti-200, everything else the same), i can run >the game @ 1024/32 bits, 2x fsaa, most of the eye candy on and the fps is >like 35-70! >Sears point runs like a dream, no matter how much sand is in the air, so i >don't think that is all because of the faster cpu. IMHO, Gf3 seems to be the >winner for N4. > >Haven't tried Gpl yet, but i don't think there will be much improvement, >because that game ran great with my earlier setup also. > >- Samu > > > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

I see this thread keeps getting longer, and some responses are starting to approach being just plain silly. For myself I would like to thank Papa Doc for his work, and review. While I am sure someone can produce numbers that prove almost any point in a video card battle, I think his numbers show that the V5 still has some life left. Of course for myself playing mostly the Papy Nascar sims (and GPL but that is a special case), and after having tried the newest demo for N2002, it appears that the V5 might finally have to be replaced. Since N2002 is finally going to use larger 32 bit textures, the VooDoo cards won't even be able to hold a candle to the newer Nvidia and ATI cards. -- btgoss btgoss(my_shorts)@yahoo.com Remove my shorts to reply "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c4496ca.14968475@news... > Oopsy Nvidia does have the page to enable it in OpenGl part of their > properties. It is only unavailible when in the Direct X page.... > > The reason it is disabled is because it is buggy in Direct X...works > sometimes, doesnt work other times, works in some drivers and not in > others... > > PAPA DOC > > >I believe that is because of Microsoft actually, and their god-damn WHQL > >certification. Anyway, it's no bother installing Rivatune, Nvmax or such, so > >there's no point in trying to make it out as something bad. > > > > > > Bye! > >/HB. > > > > > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: >loading Nascar 4 for the first time. I ran my V4 with FSAA *off* in >800x600x16 and it was so much more pleasant to look at compared to the >G3 with 4x FSAA *on* in 1280x1024x32. I've been seriously considering That is just plain ridiculous! You have to be a serious 3dfx fanatic to peddle such crap.

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Oopsy Nvidia does have the page to enable it in OpenGl part of their > properties. It is only unavailible when in the Direct X page.... Nevertheless, aniso is disabled as default both in ogl and d3d. However, it can easily be enabled in both modes using a number of handy tweaker programs. > The reason it is disabled is because it is buggy in Direct X...works > sometimes, doesnt work other times, works in some drivers and not in > others... Not had any problems with it whatsoever. I would say you are in error here. And I do believe not exposing aniso settings to the end-user is a MS WHQL requirement. Bye! /HB.

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > hehe..You are too easy...ask harder questions please. Pierre, it's simply your testing methodology that is faulty. For details, see below.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Ooopsy I guess we know who didnt read all those complicated little > thingies called words in the article. To quote > "I decided on this test after I saw how unexpectedly close the Voodoo > 5 was to the GF3 on games that didn't support TnL or didn't support it > enough to be obvious or supported it but it didn't make any > difference..Nascar 4 anyone?

Then why are you using a synthetic, TnL-optimized, DX8 title to try this out? It's just rediculous. Use a d3d app that does not support TnL instead, that's the proper way to do it. "Deciphering" d3d performance in other applications from a run of 3dmark2001 (using TnL or not) is a dubious practice to put it kindly. It's simply not possible to do. > I ran this test to see how strong both > cards were without any affect from TnL being considered. It was > interesting to see how this highly respected and widely used benchmark > showed the differences between the two cards..when TnL was factored > out of the equation" The GF3 is far superior compared to a V5 even in applications not supporting TnL, no matter what your so-called conclusions show using 3dmark2001 in a way it was never intended to. Plain and simple. > For you short bus types, here is a easy version of what I said above. > Many games right now are either not TnL enabled, poorly enabled, or > only limitedly enabled...for those games both cards are on equal > footing with the GF3's GPU being factored out. Christ, man. This is so pathetic. Only the most die-hard, hardcore, taliban-level fundamentalist 3dfx zealot/apologist would get in his head the V5 and the GF3 are level in performance ON ANY LEVEL. Christ, that's just plain silly. > hehe...Well if its so important I guess you better be pissed off at > Nvidia since they claim to have it and its not enabled in their > drivers. Oh, but it is enabled, you just have to turn it on yourself. It's like electric lights in a building, Pierre. The house is wired and connected up to the electric grid and all, mmkay, but it doesn't mean every electric appliance in the house is running constantly 24/7. It's a fairly simple concept, I'm sure you'll grasp it eventually. ;-) > As far as needing it...yup it would be nice if the V5 had > it...but it doesnt. But that doesnt change the fact that when compared > side by side the FSAA of the V5 is less blurry and more beautiful. And a lot slower too mind you, which pretty much makes it pointless. Pretty but slow graphics doesn't make anyone happy. > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You When I see flagwaving, chestthumping BS like this, I keep wondering when all those US (ex) military/CIA officers, presidents etc will be arrested and charged with crimes against humanity for meddling in SO MANY south american countries they had no business sticking their filthy noses in, causing the death of countless innocent civilians. Bye! /HB.

hehe..Well I run Nascar at the same resolution I ran it with the Geforce 3 and with x2 FSAA its much nicer looking and just as fast....and thats not crap. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >Yup, it's pure crap. > >I loved all of my Voodoo cards and owned every model of >them except the V4. I owned V1, V2, V2-SLI, V3, and V5. > >I have a GeForce3, at the moment, and am a happy camper, >in the sims and games I play. > >-- >"You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition, > half of 'em are dumber than THAT." - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

[email hidden] (JvG) wrote in message news:<3c44b09d$0$34446$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: > > >loading Nascar 4 for the first time. I ran my V4 with FSAA *off* in > >800x600x16 and it was so much more pleasant to look at compared to the > >G3 with 4x FSAA *on* in 1280x1024x32. I've been seriously considering > > That is just plain ridiculous! You have to be a serious 3dfx fanatic to peddle > such crap.

Nope. I'm sticking with the GeForce 3 simply because I find Nascar 4 and Rally Trophy need it. There is a part of me that wishes I had bought a Voodoo 5 first tho, and the GeForce 4 sure as hell better fix the flickering and aliasing issues or I'll just hold off and hope I can find a Quantum3D board with 4 or 8 vsa-100 chips on it. To be fair, I can get my GeForce 3 card to look pretty damn good with Quincux FSAA and AS filtering but by that point I'm getting around 14fps at 1280x1024x32 in Nascar 4 with full details (1.4gHz athlon) and it still barely compares to a Voodoo 4 at 800x600x16 no FSAA quality wise. I think you really have to be used to a 3dfx card to fully appreciate how much flickering is present on Nvidia cards. Screenshots look comparable, maybe even leaning towards the GF3, but there's no comparison in terms of the quality of animation. Jason

hehehehe....Man Oh Man you are fun...even the insults at the end are so fun to read. You are a funny funny man. >Pierre, it's simply your testing methodology that is faulty. For details, >see below. I believe its more your reading skills that are faulty but dont go away... >Then why are you using a synthetic, TnL-optimized, DX8 title to try this >out? It's just rediculous. Use a d3d app that does not support TnL instead, >that's the proper way to do it. Maybe you didint notice the other apps that were tested along with 3dMark. But first off your position that no one should use 3D Mark to benchmark video cards without TnL enabled is absolutely hilarious given that it is an option in that app. Why put the option if the people who built the app intended you to not use it..? It was a very useful benchmark...as well its very easy to run. > >"Deciphering" d3d performance in other applications from a run of 3dmark2001 >(using TnL or not) is a dubious practice to put it kindly. It's simply not >possible to do. You are like the proverbial room full of monkey's you get it right from time to time even though its plain that you stumble on it. Absolutely if my review had ONLY included 3DMark it would not have been as useful...luckily for me I included 9 apps....hehe. >The GF3 is far superior compared to a V5 even in applications not supporting >TnL, no matter what your so-called conclusions show using 3dmark2001 in a >way it was never intended to. Plain and simple. Well thats what I started out believing but the numbers dont prove it. Unless all you play is Quake 3 engined games...and thats a legitament question. Which ironically is covered in the first part of the article you didnt read.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> For you short bus types, here is a easy version of what I said above. >> Many games right now are either not TnL enabled, poorly enabled, or >> only limitedly enabled...for those games both cards are on equal >> footing with the GF3's GPU being factored out. >Christ, man. This is so pathetic. Only the most die-hard, hardcore, >taliban-level fundamentalist 3dfx zealot/apologist would get in his head the >V5 and the GF3 are level in performance ON ANY LEVEL. Christ, that's just >plain silly.

Oooh you big man call me names, make me write bad checks. Is english a second language for you...? Apparently the simplest of sentences escapes your ability to decipher it. For instance in the sentence you are screaming about, so uncreatively, I dont claim that they are equal, only that with a app that does not have TnL both cards are only dependent on the native abilities not on the GPU of the Geforce so they are on EQUAL footing...meaning no advantage to the GF3 for TnL, which is relevent today because of many games that dont take good advantage of TnL hardware. >Oh, but it is enabled, you just have to turn it on yourself. It's like >electric lights in a building, Pierre. The house is wired and connected up >to the electric grid and all, mmkay, but it doesn't mean every electric >appliance in the house is running constantly 24/7. It's a fairly simple >concept, I'm sure you'll grasp it eventually. ;-) Ooooh I love it when you try to be clever...its such a pitiful sight. Nvidia does not enable it because it doesnt work reliably....if it did work they would enable it like it is enabled in the OGL page. That is part of the driver release as well loon...so if MS didnt like it that wouldnt be there either. But MS does like Anisotropic filtering they are one of the people responsible for pushing it in consumer cards. Nvidia has been claiming for sometime that the feature would be enabled but they cannot get it to work reliably. Unlike you I dont depend on signals being recieved by the antennas on my head for my information....instead I test it myself. >And a lot slower too mind you, which pretty much makes it pointless. Pretty >but slow graphics doesn't make anyone happy. Oooopsy someone forgot to tell the Geforce 3 to be faster in Nascar, Ghost Recon, Operation Flashpoint, Falcon, Janes F/A-18....quick someone go tell them.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >> Never Forget Never Forgive >> September 11, 2001 >> We Will Find You > >When I see flagwaving, chestthumping BS like this, I keep wondering when all >those US (ex) military/CIA officers, presidents etc will be arrested and >charged with crimes against humanity for meddling in SO MANY south american >countries they had no business sticking their filthy noses in, causing the >death of countless innocent civilians.

Well that does it, now Im gonna stomp my diddle foot and get all political on you. Careful the waters you step into there are much deeper than the deeper than you can handle waters you are in now. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Bye! >/HB. > > >

Given our history thats very gracious of you. Thanks very much. PAPA DOC >Pierre, nice competitive review, thanks. > >

Great article. Looks like a lot went into it, well done. I would like to say as a former owner of a v5500. I have the luxury of three computers in my office. One had a radeon VIVO, one had an Elsa gf2 gts 32meg, and one had a v5-5500. the radeon was on a p3 system, 440bx board. the other two were on 1gig athlons. The elsa card was definitely the fastest of all the cards. This was running Q3A on the same map, same settings, with all card set to same vis quality- no FSAA. Not a timedemo, the real game running- in the same place, at the same time, side by side, the vs was slower. i wish, however, that I had one now, because of the image quality in systems that aren't mission critical in the 3d dept. Geforce is a faster card, period, especially the GF3. The Geforce 2 gts and Pro versions were faster- never had an Ultra. Side by side, in comparable systems, (and I;m gonna get burned for this but I've seen it) the v5 runs closer, albeit a bit faster, to the first Geforce in terms of speed. I have a creative labs annihilator, shuttle ddr board with 512mb, 1.0 gig cpu, its almost as fast as the v5. However, I would like to buy a v5. If anyone in the SE Texas area wants to sell one, let me know in this NG plz. "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Given our history thats very gracious of you. Thanks very much. > > PAPA DOC > > >Pierre, nice competitive review, thanks. > > > > >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Nope. I'm sticking with the GeForce 3 simply because I find Nascar 4 >and Rally Trophy need it. > >There is a part of me that wishes I had bought a Voodoo 5 first tho, >and the GeForce 4 sure as hell better fix the flickering and aliasing >issues or I'll just hold off and hope I can find a Quantum3D board >with 4 or 8 vsa-100 chips on it. > >To be fair, I can get my GeForce 3 card to look pretty damn good with >Quincux FSAA and AS filtering but by that point I'm getting around >14fps at 1280x1024x32 in Nascar 4 with full details (1.4gHz athlon) >and it still barely compares to a Voodoo 4 at 800x600x16 no FSAA >quality wise. I think you really have to be used to a 3dfx card to >fully appreciate how much flickering is present on Nvidia cards. >Screenshots look comparable, maybe even leaning towards the GF3, but >there's no comparison in terms of the quality of animation.

Is Nascar 4 a glide game, or what? Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that a V5 could produce such an output at 800x600@16 that it would look better than a GF3 with those features enabled unless something is seriously wrong with the game itself. I still have a 3dfx Banshee in my P2-300, I�m not sure what you mean by "flickering". I see no such thing on my PC with a GF3. Since it is supposedly such an obvious difference, put your money where your mouth is and let�s see some screenshots.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Yup, it's pure crap. > >I loved all of my Voodoo cards and owned every model of >them except the V4. I owned V1, V2, V2-SLI, V3, and V5. > >I have a GeForce3, at the moment, and am a happy camper, >in the sims and games I play.

Seemingly, some folks are still stuck in the past though. ;)

"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > hehehehe....Man Oh Man you are fun...even the insults at the end are > so fun to read. You are a funny funny man. Wish I could say the same bout you, however there is nothing entertaining about what you're writing. It's just SAD to witness a man arguing plain futility and trying to make it out as the truth. > Maybe you didint notice the other apps that were tested along with > 3dMark. Doesn't matter one bit when speaking about *3DMark*. You can't, repeat: *CAN'T*, compare non-TnL performance out of a TnL-enabled/optimized application on TnL-enabled/optimized hardware by disabling TnL on said program/hardware. You just get bogus numbers from doing that. > But first off your position that no one should use 3D Mark to > benchmark video cards without TnL enabled is absolutely hilarious > given that it is an option in that app. That's not what I said, dude. (And you accuse ME of lacking reading skills?) What I said is that you don't get any meaningful numbers from doing so. Anyway, the only thing 3dmark2001 measures is 3dmark2001 performance, not d3d performance, TnL performance or 3D performance in general for that matter. It ONLY measures 3dmark2001 performance, which makes it a pretty useless benchmark, a position I've maintained for, like, forever. > It was a very useful benchmark...as well its very easy to run. It's easy to run, I'll give you that. But it's not useful for any kind of performance comparisons. You don't do a lot of playing 3dmark2001, do you? So why use it as a performance comparison tool? It's a fake benchmark, pretty to look at and nice for testing 3D card stability but not much else. > You are like the proverbial room full of monkey's you get it right > from time to time even though its plain that you stumble on it. "Monkey's"? Monkey's WHAT? Please make more grammatical sense than this. > Well thats what I started out believing but the numbers dont prove it. If you didn't get the numbers to prove it, your system is screwed up. It's that easy. GF3 is two years more recent than the V5 (architectually, it's more than that, since V5 basically is two TNT2s stuck on one board), if you seriously believe the two products are equal, then you are more screwed up than I'd like to imagine. > Oooh you big man call me names, make me write bad checks. Is english a > second language for you...? Apparently the simplest of sentences > escapes your ability to decipher it. Translation: "Blah, blah, blah. Yadda-yadda. I'm full both of myself and hot air." > For instance in the sentence you > are screaming about, so uncreatively, I dont claim that they are > equal, only that with a app that does not have TnL both cards are only > dependent on the native abilities not on the GPU of the Geforce so > they are on EQUAL footing...meaning no advantage to the GF3 for TnL But they're not on EQUAL footing. GF3 has both greater raw fillrate and greater fillrate efficiency. So they're really not equal at all. > which is relevent today because of many games that dont take good > advantage of TnL hardware. But you're not putting them on EQUAL footing by disabling hardware TnL in 3dmark2001. That's what I've been trying to tell you for a while now, but you seem incapable of changing your dim views once you've gotten an idea in your head. Typical zealot behaviour, you desperately want to see your aging, obsolete hardware on the same level as the latest and greatest of today, and you look everywhere, turn every rock in search of evidence to back up such a pre-made conclusion. Too bad it's all a house built of playing cards. It can all go *poof* just by someone breathing on it. > >Oh, but it is enabled, you just have to turn it on yourself. It's like > >electric lights in a building, Pierre. The house is wired and connectedup > >to the electric grid and all, mmkay, but it doesn't mean every electric > >appliance in the house is running constantly 24/7. It's a fairly simple > >concept, I'm sure you'll grasp it eventually. ;-) > Ooooh I love it when you try to be clever...its such a pitiful sight. > Nvidia does not enable it because it doesnt work reliably... Where's your evidence to back up such a claim? > if it did > work they would enable it like it is enabled in the OGL page. That is > part of the driver release as well loon...so if MS didnt like it that > wouldnt be there either. MS has no say in what is, or isn't present in the OGL page of the video properties. It's not for them to decide such things, and hence they don't. So there. > but they cannot get it to work reliably. Just like your head, perhaps? > Unlike you I dont > depend on signals being recieved by the antennas on my head for my > information....instead I test it myself. That could have been a creative insult, except for the fact I use telephaty, not antennas. Like I said, *poof*. > Oooopsy someone forgot to tell the Geforce 3 to be faster in Nascar, > Ghost Recon, Operation Flashpoint, Falcon, Janes F/A-18....quick > someone go tell them. There are examples of software written that runs poorly on one product or another, but as ANYONE with half a brain could tell you, that does not make a soon three year old piece of hardware from a bankrupt company level with the best of today. It's a SOFTWARE issue, not a hardware one. You're going to play Nascar for the rest of your life? By all means, go right ahead, keep your V5 forever and never switch to anything newer and better. The rest of us probably don't have such limited vision... > >When I see flagwaving, chestthumping BS like this, I keep wondering whenall > >those US (ex) military/CIA officers, presidents etc will be arrested and > >charged with crimes against humanity for meddling in SO MANY southamerican > >countries they had no business sticking their filthy noses in, causingthe > >death of countless innocent civilians. > Well that does it, now Im gonna stomp my diddle foot and get all > political on you. Careful the waters you step into there are much > deeper than the deeper than you can handle waters you are in now. You are so scary, man. ...No. Not really. Pathetic is more like it. I envision you much like an irate armchair quarterback sitting in front of the TV, screaming with glee at the sight of George Dubya firing $2 million missiles at $10 empty tents and hitting a camel in the butt, while the voice commentator delivers patriotic statement of how great America is. Anyway, when will those US (ex) military/CIA officers, presidents etc be arrested and prosecuted? Bye! /HB.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote: >hehe..Well I run Nascar at the same resolution I ran it with the >Geforce 3 and with x2 FSAA its much nicer looking and just as >fast....and thats not crap. So what you are saying here is that Nascar with 2x FSAA does look better on the GF3 than 800x600 with no AA on a V5?

[email hidden] (JvG) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> (jason moyer) wrote: > >>Screenshots look comparable, maybe even leaning towards the GF3, but >>there's no comparison in terms of the quality of animation. > >Since it is supposedly such an obvious difference, put your money >where your mouth is and let�s see some screenshots.

Reading comprehension problems?

Lol, no kidding. -John chrisv <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> [email hidden] (JvG) wrote: > > > (jason moyer) wrote: > > > >>Screenshots look comparable, maybe even leaning towards the GF3, but > >>there's no comparison in terms of the quality of animation. > > > >Since it is supposedly such an obvious difference, put your money > >where your mouth is and let�s see some screenshots. > > Reading comprehension problems? >

> video card battle, I think his numbers show that the V5 still has somelife > left. Of course for myself playing mostly the Papy Nascar sims (and GPLbut Well...keep telling yourself that. Some people say a V2 plays Wolf ok but that is just opinion....hehe..and not very realistic. The market already knows where the power is and all you have to do is sit behind a GF3 to see how superior it is in comparison to any Voodoo card.

> My sense of self impotance? About a video card review..?? You are Oops....a Freudian slip? Lol......

> Pierre, nice competitive review, thanks. ..oh and you forgot: "Yes...you can keep the V5!" Lol......

In article <[email hidden]>, chrisv <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>>Screenshots look comparable, maybe even leaning towards the GF3, but >>>there's no comparison in terms of the quality of animation. >> >>Since it is supposedly such an obvious difference, put your money >>where your mouth is and let�s see some screenshots. > >Reading comprehension problems?

No, too early in the morning. ;) But anyhow, the quality of animation being better on a V5 is just as ludicrous as the previous statement he made. It shows a total lack of disregard for 3D modeling and animation basics.

Oh, I don't know; several times in the article(which is a good one IMO), he states the GeForce does X item better, several times he states the VooDoo does another item better. There's both compliments and criticisms of both cards. Point of the article for me was to get the card based on your gaming needs, as each card has strengths and weaknesses based on those needs, not that one card was overall better or not than the other. The quality of animation on a V5 is better in the cases cited.......it's never said it's always better, in fact, it's stated that the GeForce card is better in other cases. Anyway, that was my take on it :) -John > No, too early in the morning. ;) > > But anyhow, the quality of animation being better on a V5 is just asludicrous > as the previous statement he made. It shows a total lack of disregard for3D > modeling and animation basics.

hehe >>hehe..Well I run Nascar at the same resolution I ran it with the >>Geforce 3 and with x2 FSAA its much nicer looking and just as >>fast....and thats not crap. > >So what you are saying here is that Nascar with 2x FSAA does >look better on the GF3 than 800x600 with no AA on a V5? Nope Im saying exactly what I said....should I use shorter sentences or words for you? Try and keep up. PAPA DOC

Hey, Watch out, or Pierre will flame you on your reading comprehension skills. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com - Hi, I'm a sig virus. - Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world. n <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fc718.7344$[email hidden]... > Great article. Looks like a lot went into it, well done. I would like to say > as a former owner of a v5500. I have the luxury of three computers in my > office. One had a radeon VIVO, one had an Elsa gf2 gts 32meg, and one had a > v5-5500. the radeon was on a p3 system, 440bx board. the other two were on > 1gig athlons. The elsa card was definitely the fastest of all the cards. > This was running Q3A on the same map, same settings, with all card set to > same vis quality- no FSAA. Not a timedemo, the real game running- in the > same place, at the same time, side by side, the vs was slower. i wish, > however, that I had one now, because of the image quality in systems that > aren't mission critical in the 3d dept. Geforce is a faster card, period, > especially the GF3. The Geforce 2 gts and Pro versions were faster- never > had an Ultra. Side by side, in comparable systems, (and I;m gonna get burned > for this but I've seen it) the v5 runs closer, albeit a bit faster, to the > first Geforce in terms of speed. I have a creative labs annihilator, shuttle > ddr board with 512mb, 1.0 gig cpu, its almost as fast as the v5. However, I > would like to buy a v5. If anyone in the SE Texas area wants to sell one, > let me know in this NG plz

Using the same resolution with the same graphical options the V5 will indeed look better at x2 FSAA or x4 FSAA. PAPA DOC > >But anyhow, the quality of animation being better on a V5 is just as ludicrous >as the previous statement he made. It shows a total lack of disregard for 3D >modeling and animation basics.

hehe >> My sense of self impotance? About a video card review..?? You are > >Oops....a Freudian slip? >Lol...... So happy you noticed..are you cruising to get picked up or something...? PAPA DOC

hehe So happy you noticed..are you cruising to get picked up or something...? PAPA DOC

Hey, Only things that strike me as a bit odd... If you say our choices mean little to you, why the need to jump into the flamefest? The other thing, if, according to the first paragraph in your review, you don't want it to degenerate into a flamefest, again i ask, why the need to jump into it with everyone? Other than that, for the target audience, it was a decent review. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com - Hi, I'm a sig virus. - Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world. Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c43413a.14404812@news... > Alrighty then I have just finished the latest look at these two fierce > competitors and its likely to be the last look since the GF4 maybe > will steal my heart away. > > http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html > > Before you get your panties in a knot understand that your choices > mean little to me, this is just more information you can use to decide > where you are gonna spend money. > > PAPA DOC > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net >

> So happy you noticed..are you cruising to get picked up or > something...? Nah...but my GF3 is very potent...hehe

In article <[email hidden]>, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote: > The quality of animation on a V5 is better in the cases cited.......it's >never said it's always better, in fact, it's stated that the GeForce card is >better in other cases. How is that possible when mesh animation frames are hard coded? Are you referring to another kind of "animation"? Are you saying a plane rolls more realistically on a V5? You do realize that no site, gaming or hardware, has reported such behavior before, do you? The answer as to why is obvious, no such difference exsists. The animation is exactly the same. Now if the claim was merely that the AA looks better on the V5, you�d have had a reasonable point. But improved animation? Of all the ridiculous things I�ve read in the last two years...

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>>hehe..Well I run Nascar at the same resolution I ran it with the >>>Geforce 3 and with x2 FSAA its much nicer looking and just as >>>fast....and thats not crap. >> >>So what you are saying here is that Nascar with 2x FSAA does >>look better on the GF3 than 800x600 with no AA on a V5? > >Nope Im saying exactly what I said....should I use shorter sentences >or words for you? Try and keep up.

No, it�s your crappy English, doofus.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote: >Using the same resolution with the same graphical options the V5 will >indeed look better at x2 FSAA or x4 FSAA. That�s more like it, this is a reasonable statement.

Oh well, call me ridiculous then :) Fortunately, I've got more important things than arguing over video cards to worry about. -John JvG <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c4605f6$0$65385$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "John Pancoast"<[email hidden]> wrote: > > > The quality of animation on a V5 is better in the casescited.......it's > >never said it's always better, in fact, it's stated that the GeForce cardis > >better in other cases. > > How is that possible when mesh animation frames are hard coded? Are you > referring to another kind of "animation"? Are you saying a plane rollsmore > realistically on a V5? You do realize that no site, gaming or hardware,has

Quoted text (9 lines)

> reported such behavior before, do you? > > The answer as to why is obvious, no such difference exsists. The animation > is exactly the same. > > Now if the claim was merely that the AA looks better on the V5, you�d have > had a reasonable point. But improved animation? > > Of all the ridiculous things I�ve read in the last two years...

> That�s more like it, this is a reasonable statement. Yes....it's always possible to turn off the eye candy on a GF3...hehe

hehe... >Doesn't matter one bit when speaking about *3DMark*. You can't, repeat: >*CAN'T*, compare non-TnL performance out of a TnL-enabled/optimized >application on TnL-enabled/optimized hardware by disabling TnL on said >program/hardware. You just get bogus numbers from doing that. And why cant you..? Are you saying that it delivers unreliable results..? Or are you saying that the results are not worthwhile since its not a game..? (Keep in mind that Max Payne is pretty damn popular). In any case it delivers everything a benchmark is supposed to deliver. 1. Most importantly it delivers repeatable scores, meaning for the short bus types...that it gives the same result for a given setup every time you run it. 2. It has a very sophisticated TnL engine but it also allows one to turn off the engine to run without the benefit of the TnL hardware on a card. 3. Its extremely easy to run. 4. Its widely accepted as a benchmark. 5. Notwithstanding your drivel it actually mirrored what real games showed...that the Nvidia memory structure allows it to run x4 FSAA more efficiently than the V5's. 6. The margin it was ahead in 3DMark was about the same margin the Nvidia had in other Non TnL apps with x4 FSAA. >What I said is that you don't get any meaningful numbers from doing so. >Anyway, the only thing 3dmark2001 measures is 3dmark2001 performance, not >d3d performance, TnL performance or 3D performance in general for that >matter. It ONLY measures 3dmark2001 performance, which makes it a pretty >useless benchmark, a position I've maintained for, like, forever. hehe...Well sorry there short bus, but it uses the Max Payne engine for at least one of the benchmarks and that indeed is a game. About your other claims everyone including me is laughing at you.... >It's easy to run, I'll give you that. But it's not useful for any kind of >performance comparisons. You don't do a lot of playing 3dmark2001, do you? >So why use it as a performance comparison tool? It's a fake benchmark, >pretty to look at and nice for testing 3D card stability but not much else. hehe.....Make what you will of it, there were other apps testes and indeed 3DMark confirmed the advantage the Nvidia had at x4FSAA. >If you didn't get the numbers to prove it, your system is screwed up. It's >that easy. Ah well then you can do a test and we will see how much your numbers deviate. All the benchmarks are availible to run...have at it. >GF3 is two years more recent than the V5 (architectually, it's more than >that, since V5 basically is two TNT2s stuck on one board), if you seriously >believe the two products are equal, then you are more screwed up than I'd >like to imagine. The V5 is two TnT2's on one board...? Wow thats impressive is all of your knowledge this broad..? I never knew that Nvidia and 3Dfx were collaborating back then... >But they're not on EQUAL footing. GF3 has both greater raw fillrate and >greater fillrate efficiency. So they're really not equal at all. Yup thats true and turning off TnL allowed the Nvidia card to show that strength. It did...what are you bitching about..?? Equal footing in that the Nvidia GPU was not factored in....which getting back to my reason was important because so many games dont have a good TnL engine. Its been a lovely circular arguement with you...keep going. PAPA DOC

hehe... And why cant you..? Are you saying that it delivers unreliable results..? Or are you saying that the results are not worthwhile since its not a game..? (Keep in mind that Max Payne is pretty damn popular). In any case it delivers everything a benchmark is supposed to deliver. 1. Most importantly it delivers repeatable scores, meaning for the short bus types...that it gives the same result for a given setup every time you run it. 2. It has a very sophisticated TnL engine but it also allows one to turn off the engine to run without the benefit of the TnL hardware on a card. 3. Its extremely easy to run. 4. Its widely accepted as a benchmark. 5. Notwithstanding your drivel it actually mirrored what real games showed...that the Nvidia memory structure allows it to run x4 FSAA more efficiently than the V5's. 6. The margin it was ahead in 3DMark was about the same margin the Nvidia had in other Non TnL apps with x4 FSAA. hehe...Well sorry there short bus, but it uses the Max Payne engine for at least one of the benchmarks and that indeed is a game. About your other claims everyone including me is laughing at you.... hehe.....Make what you will of it, there were other apps testes and indeed 3DMark confirmed the advantage the Nvidia had at x4FSAA. Ah well then you can do a test and we will see how much your numbers deviate. All the benchmarks are availible to run...have at it. The V5 is two TnT2's on one board...? Wow thats impressive is all of your knowledge this broad..? I never knew that Nvidia and 3Dfx were collaborating back then... Yup thats true and turning off TnL allowed the Nvidia card to show that strength. It did...what are you ***ing about..?? Equal footing in that the Nvidia GPU was not factored in....which getting back to my reason was important because so many games dont have a good TnL engine. Its been a lovely circular arguement with you...keep going. PAPA DOC

hehe..Well Im kinda having a good time. If I begin to lose my perspective I will bow out but right now its entertainment. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (15 lines)

>The other thing, if, according to the first paragraph in your review, you >don't want it to degenerate into a flamefest, again i ask, why the need to >jump into it with everyone? > >Other than that, for the target audience, it was a decent review. >-- >- Will DeRivera >- http://www.numic.net >- http://www.luxt.com >- Hi, I'm a sig virus. >- Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world. > > >

Actually with the options currently availble on the GF3 its not possible to turn them on! Since Anisotropic filtering is such a godsend to the world you would think that you wouldnt need a 3RDparty app to turn it on... But even with them on....same old same old V5 is better. Try it one day...line up two computers side by side and watch them. PAPA DOC >Yes....it's always possible to turn off the eye candy on a GF3...hehe > > >

Badababoom....hehehe PAPA DOC > >Nah...but my GF3 is very potent...hehe > > >

> Actually with the options currently availble on the GF3 its not > possible to turn them on! Since Anisotropic filtering is such a > godsend to the world you would think that you wouldnt need a 3RDparty > app to turn it on... Oh? Is that so...hehe > But even with them on....same old same old V5 is better. Try it one > day...line up two computers side by side and watch them. I see you have been sipping grandpa's cough medicine again...hehe Watching a V5 is similar to watching an old V2. Even it can 'appear' to be running fast in games but, as many a voodoo zealot has learned, when you want the games to actually look as they were intended to look then Voodoo just doesn't cut it....hehe Ah..the glory of the GF3....who could even 'think' about stepping down to a V5.....hehe

> hehe.....Make what you will of it, there were other apps testes and > indeed 3DMark confirmed the advantage the Nvidia had at x4FSAA. Freud again, huh...hehe

[email hidden] (JvG) wrote in message news:<3c45e033$0$65213$[email hidden]>... > But anyhow, the quality of animation being better on a V5 is just as ludicrous > as the previous statement he made. It shows a total lack of disregard for 3D > modeling and animation basics. What do I need to know about 3D modelling to make that statement? My point is that I've experienced problems with flickering edges on both Nvidia cards I've owned (a Geforce 2 mx 400 and a Geforce 3 Ti200) in addition to others I've used (the TNT2 in the machine I'm posting from). I have *never* experienced flickering edges on any 3dfx card, with or without FSAA. 4x FSAA does fix this to a certain extent on my GF3 however it drops the framerate in the sims I play to unacceptable levels (I'm talking ~12FPS in Nascar 4 for example). I'm not trying to say 3dfx cards were without fault, I much prefer the way the GeForce 3 renders textures, for instance, and of course a GeForce 3 will run circles around a Voodoo 5 in terms of raw performance, but I really don't know how anyone can not be annoyed by the edge flickering present in Nvidia cards, especially if they've gotten used to a 3dfx card. Even at 1280x1024 it's annoying in any sim that requires a lot of depth perception (racing or flight sims in particular). So anyway, which card is better? For me, the GeForce 3. Just don't try to look at that car entering turn 3 while you're exiting turn 2 at Daytona or you'll have an epileptic seizure from all the flickering. Jason

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>What do I need to know about 3D modelling to make that statement? My >point is that I've experienced problems with flickering edges on both >Nvidia cards I've owned (a Geforce 2 mx 400 and a Geforce 3 Ti200) in >addition to others I've used (the TNT2 in the machine I'm posting >from). I have *never* experienced flickering edges on any 3dfx card, >with or without FSAA. 4x FSAA does fix this to a certain extent on my >GF3 however it drops the framerate in the sims I play to unacceptable >levels (I'm talking ~12FPS in Nascar 4 for example).

Flickering edges? What does that have to do with animation? That�s just a product of _non-aliased polygon edges_. And yes, THEY ARE THERE on 3dfx cards too. Swimming edges are just as present on my 3dfx board as they are on my GeForce, or on the Radeon series. ONLY FSAA can fix it, so I�m at a loss why you would say that 3dfx boards do not produce said "flickering" with FSAA disabled. It does not make sense, 3dfx cards do not magically aliase edges. >Daytona or you'll have an epileptic seizure from all the flickering. Or something is wrong with your eyes? Seriously, the edge flickering you describe is not at all absent on 3dfx boards. That is just absurd, and in fact you are the first in this NG to present such a strange observation.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Actually with the options currently availble on the GF3 its not >possible to turn them on! Since Anisotropic filtering is such a >godsend to the world you would think that you wouldnt need a 3RDparty >app to turn it on... > >But even with them on....same old same old V5 is better. Try it one >day...line up two computers side by side and watch them.

The V5 cannot match texture clarity when anisotropic is enabled on the GF3 (or on the Radeon 8500 for that matter). Pretending otherwise is sheer delusion.

In article <[email hidden]>, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Oh well, call me ridiculous then :) Fortunately, I've got more important >things than arguing over video cards to worry about. Well, your claim would make more sense if you clarified what you meant by "animation", namely polygon edge swimming. Animation means something entirely different to me.

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Actually with the options currently availble on the GF3 its not >> possible to turn them on! Since Anisotropic filtering is such a >> godsend to the world you would think that you wouldnt need a 3RDparty >> app to turn it on... > >Oh? Is that so...hehe Yes, you idiot. hehe.

In article <xpe18.14091$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

>But you're not putting them on EQUAL footing by disabling hardware TnL in >3dmark2001. That's what I've been trying to tell you for a while now, but >you seem incapable of changing your dim views once you've gotten an idea in >your head. Typical zealot behaviour, you desperately want to see your aging, >obsolete hardware on the same level as the latest and greatest of today, and >you look everywhere, turn every rock in search of evidence to back up such a >pre-made conclusion.

Wow, man. You really seem to think you're less of a man if you don't leap out to spend however many hundereds as soon as possible? Wow. You know, you can get surgery to help a little bit. -Tim

In article <m4n18.37001$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > >Hey, > >Only things that strike me as a bit odd... > >If you say our choices mean little to you, why the need to jump into the >flamefest? > >The other thing, if, according to the first paragraph in your review, you >don't want it to degenerate into a flamefest, again i ask, why the need to >jump into it with everyone?

Speaking as an observer, I'd say it's the brainless few that jumped up to insist that everyone who doesn't overspend on the latest and greatest like them obviously is much less potent. -Tim

Sorry ZOD but its not superior in 2D image quality and neither is the ATI. As long as your desktop is set at 1024 rez or lower you can't tell. But I was slightly annoyed that my new radeon 8500 while better than the GF in 2D quality was not up to the old V5 in clarity. Speedwise yes the GF3 (given a really fast CPU) will stomp the VooDoo 5 in most games. ] On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:57:19 GMT, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> video card battle, I think his numbers show that the V5 still has some >life >> left. Of course for myself playing mostly the Papy Nascar sims (and GPL >but > >Well...keep telling yourself that. Some people say a V2 plays Wolf ok but >that is just opinion....hehe..and not very realistic. >The market already knows where the power is and all you have to do is sit >behind a GF3 to see how superior it is in comparison to any Voodoo card. >

Hans don't be moron. Take your anti american statements and shove them you know where. We help out far more people than we hurt. Don't bring this shit into the newgroup. On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:32:29 GMT, "Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (159 lines)

> >"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> hehehehe....Man Oh Man you are fun...even the insults at the end are >> so fun to read. You are a funny funny man. > >Wish I could say the same bout you, however there is nothing entertaining >about what you're writing. It's just SAD to witness a man arguing plain >futility and trying to make it out as the truth. > >> Maybe you didint notice the other apps that were tested along with >> 3dMark. > >Doesn't matter one bit when speaking about *3DMark*. You can't, repeat: >*CAN'T*, compare non-TnL performance out of a TnL-enabled/optimized >application on TnL-enabled/optimized hardware by disabling TnL on said >program/hardware. You just get bogus numbers from doing that. > >> But first off your position that no one should use 3D Mark to >> benchmark video cards without TnL enabled is absolutely hilarious >> given that it is an option in that app. > >That's not what I said, dude. (And you accuse ME of lacking reading skills?) > >What I said is that you don't get any meaningful numbers from doing so. >Anyway, the only thing 3dmark2001 measures is 3dmark2001 performance, not >d3d performance, TnL performance or 3D performance in general for that >matter. It ONLY measures 3dmark2001 performance, which makes it a pretty >useless benchmark, a position I've maintained for, like, forever. > >> It was a very useful benchmark...as well its very easy to run. > >It's easy to run, I'll give you that. But it's not useful for any kind of >performance comparisons. You don't do a lot of playing 3dmark2001, do you? >So why use it as a performance comparison tool? It's a fake benchmark, >pretty to look at and nice for testing 3D card stability but not much else. > >> You are like the proverbial room full of monkey's you get it right >> from time to time even though its plain that you stumble on it. > >"Monkey's"? Monkey's WHAT? > >Please make more grammatical sense than this. > >> Well thats what I started out believing but the numbers dont prove it. > >If you didn't get the numbers to prove it, your system is screwed up. It's >that easy. > >GF3 is two years more recent than the V5 (architectually, it's more than >that, since V5 basically is two TNT2s stuck on one board), if you seriously >believe the two products are equal, then you are more screwed up than I'd >like to imagine. > >> Oooh you big man call me names, make me write bad checks. Is english a >> second language for you...? Apparently the simplest of sentences >> escapes your ability to decipher it. > >Translation: "Blah, blah, blah. Yadda-yadda. I'm full both of myself and hot >air." > >> For instance in the sentence you >> are screaming about, so uncreatively, I dont claim that they are >> equal, only that with a app that does not have TnL both cards are only >> dependent on the native abilities not on the GPU of the Geforce so >> they are on EQUAL footing...meaning no advantage to the GF3 for TnL > >But they're not on EQUAL footing. GF3 has both greater raw fillrate and >greater fillrate efficiency. So they're really not equal at all. > >> which is relevent today because of many games that dont take good >> advantage of TnL hardware. > >But you're not putting them on EQUAL footing by disabling hardware TnL in >3dmark2001. That's what I've been trying to tell you for a while now, but >you seem incapable of changing your dim views once you've gotten an idea in >your head. Typical zealot behaviour, you desperately want to see your aging, >obsolete hardware on the same level as the latest and greatest of today, and >you look everywhere, turn every rock in search of evidence to back up such a >pre-made conclusion. > >Too bad it's all a house built of playing cards. It can all go *poof* just >by someone breathing on it. > >> >Oh, but it is enabled, you just have to turn it on yourself. It's like >> >electric lights in a building, Pierre. The house is wired and connected >up >> >to the electric grid and all, mmkay, but it doesn't mean every electric >> >appliance in the house is running constantly 24/7. It's a fairly simple >> >concept, I'm sure you'll grasp it eventually. ;-) > >> Ooooh I love it when you try to be clever...its such a pitiful sight. >> Nvidia does not enable it because it doesnt work reliably... > >Where's your evidence to back up such a claim? > >> if it did >> work they would enable it like it is enabled in the OGL page. That is >> part of the driver release as well loon...so if MS didnt like it that >> wouldnt be there either. > >MS has no say in what is, or isn't present in the OGL page of the video >properties. It's not for them to decide such things, and hence they don't. >So there. > >> but they cannot get it to work reliably. > >Just like your head, perhaps? > >> Unlike you I dont >> depend on signals being recieved by the antennas on my head for my >> information....instead I test it myself. > >That could have been a creative insult, except for the fact I use telephaty, >not antennas. Like I said, *poof*. > >> Oooopsy someone forgot to tell the Geforce 3 to be faster in Nascar, >> Ghost Recon, Operation Flashpoint, Falcon, Janes F/A-18....quick >> someone go tell them. > >There are examples of software written that runs poorly on one product or >another, but as ANYONE with half a brain could tell you, that does not make >a soon three year old piece of hardware from a bankrupt company level with >the best of today. It's a SOFTWARE issue, not a hardware one. > >You're going to play Nascar for the rest of your life? By all means, go >right ahead, keep your V5 forever and never switch to anything newer and >better. The rest of us probably don't have such limited vision... > >> >When I see flagwaving, chestthumping BS like this, I keep wondering when >all >> >those US (ex) military/CIA officers, presidents etc will be arrested and >> >charged with crimes against humanity for meddling in SO MANY south >american >> >countries they had no business sticking their filthy noses in, causing >the >> >death of countless innocent civilians. > >> Well that does it, now Im gonna stomp my diddle foot and get all >> political on you. Careful the waters you step into there are much >> deeper than the deeper than you can handle waters you are in now. > >You are so scary, man. > > >...No. Not really. Pathetic is more like it. I envision you much like an >irate armchair quarterback sitting in front of the TV, screaming with glee >at the sight of George Dubya firing $2 million missiles at $10 empty tents >and hitting a camel in the butt, while the voice commentator delivers >patriotic statement of how great America is. > >Anyway, when will those US (ex) military/CIA officers, presidents etc be >arrested and prosecuted? > > > Bye! >/HB. > >

JVG All I know is I have a new ATI Radeon 8500 sitting in a box waiting for drivers that don't crash in windows 2000. I am still using my old VooDoo 5 with ancient hacked win2k drivers which don't crash. As far as visual quality in older open GL games the VooDoo using wicked gl drivers looks better hands down. Now potentially the Radeon should wax it once games take advantage of the special features. But for now all I want is stable drivers and eye candy later. The VooDoo 5 is not as outdated as one would think. I know cause I have both ATI and V5 and Gforce Mx (not in same league as either card) On 17 Jan 2002 10:30:23 -0600, [email hidden] (JvG) wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote: > >>Actually with the options currently availble on the GF3 its not >>possible to turn them on! Since Anisotropic filtering is such a >>godsend to the world you would think that you wouldnt need a 3RDparty >>app to turn it on... >> >>But even with them on....same old same old V5 is better. Try it one >>day...line up two computers side by side and watch them. > >The V5 cannot match texture clarity when anisotropic is enabled on >the GF3 (or on the Radeon 8500 for that matter). > >Pretending otherwise is sheer delusion.

Damn..hehe...thats what I get for rushed pissing....er posting. PAPA DOC >Freud again, huh...hehe > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

Ive seen them both side by side running the same mission...same settings....you need to do that to understand. Besides you cannot turn on Anisotropic filtering without a 3Rd Party app...wonder why? PAPA DOC >The V5 cannot match texture clarity when anisotropic is enabled on >the GF3 (or on the Radeon 8500 for that matter). > >Pretending otherwise is sheer delusion. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

"The Enigmatic One" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Wow, man. You really seem to think you're less of a man if you don't > leap out to spend however many hundereds as soon as possible? Did I say that? I don't think so... Dunno why you'd want to mix in penis envy into this, I was just stating facts. Anyway, the GF3 has been out for almost a year now, so I don't really understand where that "as soon as possible" came from. You a bit behind the times maybe? GF3 Ti200:s are fairly cheap anyway, and beat the pants off of that old V5 so you needn't spend no 'many hundreds'. That's good, wouldn't you say? Bye! /HB.

In article <V0J18.7045$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > >"The Enigmatic One" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Wow, man. You really seem to think you're less of a man if you don't >> leap out to spend however many hundereds as soon as possible? > >Did I say that? I don't think so... Dunno why you'd want to mix in penis >envy into this, I was just stating facts. > >Anyway, the GF3 has been out for almost a year now, so I don't really >understand where that "as soon as possible" came from. You a bit behind the >times maybe?

Like many, my computer is put together at cheaper levels. One probably would say I'm behind the times. The point is, however, that you reacted to a very good comparitive review with the same sort of defensiveness that I see with all the idiots that actually debate Ford vs Chevy. I think it's pretty obvious that those Ford vs Chevy types are doing some compensating, thus it seems the same to you. >GF3 Ti200:s are fairly cheap anyway, and beat the pants off of that old V5 >so you needn't spend no 'many hundreds'. That's good, wouldn't you say? True, the Ti200 is nice if you want to overclock it. Almost enough to get me to shell out some more money. The problem is, $160 is still $160 that I can't spend on other things, and the upgrade just isn't enough, considering that it will be a downgrade in some games and, IMO, 2d visual quality. That, and I don't play enough FPS games. -Tim

"The Enigmatic One" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Like many, my computer is put together at cheaper levels. One > probably would say I'm behind the times. Yes, but some people ACTUALLY have the cash to buy new video cards ;-), just pretend I was speaking to them, mmkay. No need in bringing in the size of my male member or such (which I am quite satisfied with, btw). > The point is, however, that you reacted to a very good comparitive > review I didn't think it was "very good". Alright, if all one wants is running a limited set of mainly flight sims and racing games from now and to the end of time, then the V5 might be the preferable choice, but one also has to consider which card(s) that software companies are optimizing for these days. > with the same sort of defensiveness that I see with all the idiots > that actually debate Ford vs Chevy. I have no experience of such debates, I'm sure that both brands have their merits. As for defensiveness, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Would you mind very much pointing out any examples of such percieved defensiveness on my part? > Ford vs Chevy types are doing some compensating, thus it seems the same to > you. While cars may help in scoring with chicks to some extent, video cards DO NOT. So much for that "compensation" theory of yours. ;-) Anyway, all I got is a plain-jane GF3 which refuses to overclock very much at all. There are many examples of Ti200:s which clock faster than my card, and as we all know, the GF3 Ti500 is out since a couple months. Also, the GF4 is right around the corner, so why would I want to compensate using what essentially is inferior tech anyway? This does not compute, Enigmatic... > The problem is, $160 is still $160 > that I can't spend on other things $160 is not "many hundreds" of $ which you claimed at first. Seems you are backtracking here, and fast! ;-) > and the upgrade just isn't enough, > considering that it will be a downgrade in some games Very few games, and I can guarantee you that the follow-ups to said games will not run faster on a V5 than on a GF-series card. > and, IMO, 2d visual quality. There's nothing wrong with the 2D quality of the GF3 chip itself. If there are any image quality issues, it's because of low-grade board components and I can assure you that is not the case with all GF3:s. Mine for example gives a very nice picture at 1600*1200 @ 75, so I do not complain. Anyway, I run the thing on a DVI flatscreen monitor - something which is not possible on the V5 afair - so I sidestep the analog side of the circuitry completely. Bye! /HB.

"bp" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Well it DOESN'T beat the pants off the "old V5" is FSAA and that is > what his review was about. Not exactly sure what are you talking about here. In modern 3D titles, V5-series cards may look nice when 4x-antialiased, but they certainly do not perform up to snuff, as fillrate is severely lacking. Bye! /HB.

yer gettin up there, score wise... http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2481225 On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:56:47 GMT, "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I almost forgot I think your system is messed up or something. You 3dmark >2001 score with the voodoo 5 is 1565. Dude you are running a thunderbird at >1.46 ghz! My old duron 600 overclocked to 1ghz (100fsb) and my voodoo 5 did >1713 in 3dmark 2001. Here is the link: >http://gamershq.madonion.com/products/orb/?publish_compare.shtml?&project_ty >pe=6&dprid=478256 Of course this does not compare to the 8015 of my gf3 and >the althon xp that I now have.

> As far as visual quality in older open GL games the VooDoo using > wicked gl drivers looks better hands down. LOL............

> True, the Ti200 is nice if you want to overclock it. Almost enough > to get me to shell out some more money. The problem is, $160 is still$160 > that I can't spend on other things, and the upgrade just isn't enough, > considering that it will be a downgrade in some games and, IMO, 2d visual > quality. That, and I don't play enough FPS games. LOL............

> In modern 3D titles, V5-series cards may look nice when 4x-antialiased,but > they certainly do not perform up to snuff, as fillrate is severelylacking. Oh..but Hans...it's only the 'other' vidcards that have 'unusable' features...hehe

> Yes, you idiot. hehe. If only you played Wolf.....hehe

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:36:31 GMT, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>> Actually with the options currently availble on the GF3 its not >> possible to turn them on! Since Anisotropic filtering is such a >> godsend to the world you would think that you wouldnt need a 3RDparty >> app to turn it on... > >Oh? Is that so...hehe > >> But even with them on....same old same old V5 is better. Try it one >> day...line up two computers side by side and watch them. > >I see you have been sipping grandpa's cough medicine again...hehe >Watching a V5 is similar to watching an old V2. Even it can 'appear' to be >running fast in games but, as many a voodoo zealot has learned, when you >want the games to actually look as they were intended to look then Voodoo >just doesn't cut it....hehe >Ah..the glory of the GF3....who could even 'think' about stepping down to a >V5.....hehe > > >

I have great fun building computers,so I have 2 under my desk..... One a P3-800 with V5 on board. One a P4-1900 with GF3 Ti200 (which will happily overclock to 240.. got lucky). So can play all my legacy stuff (Tribes, Falcon etc...) fast in Glide on the V5 + P3-800 and get reasonable speed on latest titles in D3D on the GF3+ P4-1900.... ( Hard-hat mode definitely ON..... ) John Lewis

> Sorry ZOD but its not superior in 2D image quality and neither is the ....and for that statement...you should be sorry..hehe > Speedwise yes the GF3 (given a really fast CPU) will stomp the VooDoo > 5 in most games. Don't go out on a limb now..hehe It's just so ironic that there has been such a flip-flop in the 3dfx-nVidia comparisons. I still remember the 3dfx sheep saying 'our voodoos blow away that nvidia card of yours and so what if the quality isn't as good'...hehe Funny how that happens depending on how they are losing...hehe..of course with the GF3....they can't win either way!!!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I have great fun building computers,so I have 2 under my desk..... > One a P3-800 with V5 on board. One a P4-1900 with GF3 Ti200 > (which will happily overclock to 240.. got lucky). So can play all > my legacy stuff (Tribes, Falcon etc...) fast in Glide on the > V5 + P3-800 and get reasonable speed on latest titles in D3D > on the GF3+ P4-1900.... > > ( Hard-hat mode definitely ON..... )

Sounds like fun to me......I still like firing up Descent/Descent2 on the V2 I still have...hehe..but now with some OpenGL ports....don't even need a Voodoo for that. It just shows you that had 3dfx used OpenGL instead of Glide......we could have been much happier these days. Just like Mame32....soon we can do everything in emulation...hehe

In article <[email hidden]>, Robert Jones <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>JVG All I know is I have a new ATI Radeon 8500 sitting in a box >waiting for drivers that don't crash in windows 2000. I am still >using my old VooDoo 5 with ancient hacked win2k drivers which don't >crash. > >As far as visual quality in older open GL games the VooDoo using >wicked gl drivers looks better hands down. > >Now potentially the Radeon should wax it once games take advantage of >the special features. But for now all I want is stable drivers and >eye candy later. > >The VooDoo 5 is not as outdated as one would think. I know cause I >have both ATI and V5 and Gforce Mx (not in same league as either card)

You won�t here me saying ATI has perfect drivers, but a lot of folks are happily running their 8500 as a replacement for their V5. The voodoo card should not look better in OpenGL games, if it does then ATI has something screwed up. But it wouldn�t surprise me, several Radeon drivers do not show certain lights in OpenGL games such as Elite Force last time I checked.

In article <3c474f8c.62697455@news>, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) wrote: >Ive seen them both side by side running the same mission...same >settings....you need to do that to understand. So what? The V5 has no anisotropic, pretending that texture clarity will be the same is ludicrous. Statements like that from you pretty much emphasize that you have little to no objectivity. >Besides you cannot turn on Anisotropic filtering without a 3Rd Party >app...wonder why? Wrong, since you can for OpenGL. Only for D3D do you need a 3rd party app and that works fine.

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Sorry ZOD but its not superior in 2D image quality and neither is the > >....and for that statement...you should be sorry..hehe For your history of being a moron, you should be sorry. hehe.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Speedwise yes the GF3 (given a really fast CPU) will stomp the VooDoo >> 5 in most games. > >Don't go out on a limb now..hehe >It's just so ironic that there has been such a flip-flop in the 3dfx-nVidia >comparisons. I still remember the 3dfx sheep saying 'our voodoos blow away >that nvidia card of yours and so what if the quality isn't as good'...hehe

Idiot. 2D quality is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than having slightly better gradients in the sky when you're playing a shoot-em-up game. The Voodoo's were PLENTY good at 3D quality, and, unlike the crappy nVidia-based product, had excellent 2D as well. GET IT? >Funny how that happens depending on how they are losing...hehe..of course >with the GF3....they can't win either way!!! Losers like you, who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, sure never win.... hehe.

"bp" <[email hidden]> wrote: > ?? here let me explain > It DOESN'T beat the pants off the "old V5" is FSAA and that is > what his review was about. No it wasn't. ;-) Just check in with PD, he'll set you right, hehe. Anyway, FSAA is nice to have, but it's not everything. Far from it. > >In modern 3D titles, V5-series cards may look nice when 4x-antialiased,but > >they certainly do not perform up to snuff, as fillrate is severelylacking. > NOT TRUE My, my. Some 3dfx fan(atics) sure are defensive about their item of worship, rotfl... Yes it is. 4x FSAA on a V5 is 4x the fillrate and 4x the video scanout bandwidth. This makes for a serious hit in framerates for games that are fillrate intensive. This is not something that is debatable, after all, even when overclocked to 183MHz, a V5 only manages something like 366Mpix/s of theoretical fillrate when multi-texturing, and in practice it will be much less than that. Factor in FSAA, some overdraw, and things will start to chug rather quickly. Flightsims and other not very fillrate-demanding games might run well, but for other purposes the V5 is limited by it's technical inferiority. It's only natural, this always happens in the computer world, when Doom3 hits the stands my GF3 will be obsolete too. There's something for you to feel smug about. ;-) > do you or have you ever owned a v5 ? No, and no. And it wouldn't perform any better even if I did/had. I might TRICK myself into believing that, but it wouldn't be true. Bye! /HB.

ZOD, I don't mind going to the next latest fastest chips and paying the cash. But.... I don't like them cutting corners on quality. The 2D is the corner they are cutting now and I don't appreciated it. I want my cake and eat it to. 80% of the time I am reading emails and newsgroups etc. So I would think most people would want the best 2D the cards has diminished. I mean worse than 4 years ago. (its a given these days) but its obvious (with the exception of canopus GF3, which is hard to find) the 2D quality on just about all So what do I need? Two cards like the VooDoo 2 days one for 2D and one for games? My old V5 is not considered the best in 2D either. Matrox owns that area. The card I want is the canopus GF3. Its suppose to have better 2D quality. As for the best choice for the available cards I would have to say the ATI 8500 but the drivers still suck. So I digress back to my old V5 until things get better. On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:42:38 GMT, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> Sorry ZOD but its not superior in 2D image quality and neither is the > >....and for that statement...you should be sorry..hehe > >> Speedwise yes the GF3 (given a really fast CPU) will stomp the VooDoo >> 5 in most games. > >Don't go out on a limb now..hehe >It's just so ironic that there has been such a flip-flop in the 3dfx-nVidia >comparisons. I still remember the 3dfx sheep saying 'our voodoos blow away >that nvidia card of yours and so what if the quality isn't as good'...hehe >Funny how that happens depending on how they are losing...hehe..of course >with the GF3....they can't win either way!!! > > >

> ZOD, I don't mind going to the next latest fastest chips and paying > the cash. But.... I don't like them cutting corners on quality. The > 2D is the corner they are cutting now and I don't appreciated it. Look...I am sure there are some nVidia based cards that have sub-par 2d quality but just about every one I have seen is equal to ANY modern 3d card on the market including Matrox. I am running a Ti GF3 and it's very nice on my 22" Viewsonic. This 'nVidia's 2d is crap' stuff is getting real old and it's based on nothing but a couple of idiots saying it was so. > My old V5 is not considered the best in 2D either. Matrox owns that > area. Well......I have seen all the top cards side by side and it it sooooooooo close.....stupid to argue over anyway. > The card I want is the canopus GF3. Its suppose to have better 2D > quality. Also...keep in mind that this quality issue on a few selected cards is due to a poor quality filter, not nVidia's GPU. > As for the best choice for the available cards I would have to say the > ATI 8500 but the drivers still suck. So I digress back to my old V5 > until things get better. I wouldn't own an ATI either.....but I'd have an 8500 before I'd even think about buying a V5 now....

> 4x FSAA on a V5 is 4x the fillrate and 4x the video scanout bandwidth.This > makes for a serious hit in framerates for games that are fillrateintensive. Geez.....even Hans can grasp the concept...hehe > No, and no. And it wouldn't perform any better even if I did/had. I might > TRICK myself into believing that, but it wouldn't be true. DOh...hehe

> For your history of being a moron, you should be sorry. hehe. You should talk...hehe > Idiot. 2D quality is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than having slightly better > gradients in the sky when you're playing a shoot-em-up game. The > Voodoo's were PLENTY good at 3D quality, and, unlike the crappy > nVidia-based product, had excellent 2D as well. GET IT? ..and there you go proving it once again...lol > Losers like you, who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, > sure never win.... hehe. Dude...if you actually knew what thinking for yourself was well then...hehe Dumbass sheepboy...hehe

You should talk...hehe ..and there you go proving it once again...lol Dude...if you actually knew what thinking for yourself was well then...hehe Dumbass sheepboy...hehe

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >This 'nVidia's 2d is crap' stuff is getting real old and it's based on >nothing but a couple of idiots saying it was so. Absolutely false. Rather, it's a well-documented shortcoming of the nVidia-based video cards, historically. If they FINALLY fixed the GF3 (jury is still out, I'd say), fine. >It's just so ironic that there has been such a flip-flop in the 3dfx-nVidia >comparisons. I still remember the 3dfx sheep saying 'our voodoos blow away >that nvidia card of yours and so what if the quality isn't as good'...hehe >Funny how that happens depending on how they are losing. There has been NO "flip-flop". The POINT is that 2D quality is MUCH more important, VASTLY more important, than small differences in 3D quality. Always has been, always will be. It is NOT WORTH trading 2D quality for 3D quality OR for 3D frame rates! GET IT?

In article <w%V18.14720$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... >for other purposes the V5 is limited by it's technical inferiority. It's >only natural, this always happens in the computer world, when Doom3 hits the >stands my GF3 will be obsolete too. There's something for you to feel smug >about. ;-) No, I'd feel snug about not wasting hundreds of dollars every few months to make sure I feel like more of a man. -Tim

In article <k1N18.7058$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> The point is, however, that you reacted to a very good comparitive >> review > >I didn't think it was "very good". Alright, if all one wants is running a >limited set of mainly flight sims and racing games from now and to the end >of time, then the V5 might be the preferable choice, but one also has to >consider which card(s) that software companies are optimizing for these >days.

Yup. That was sorta the point. Just getting the next newest thing isn't all that wise.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> with the same sort of defensiveness that I see with all the idiots >> that actually debate Ford vs Chevy. > >I have no experience of such debates, I'm sure that both brands have their >merits. As for defensiveness, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Would >you mind very much pointing out any examples of such percieved defensiveness >on my part?

Someone suggested that, for some purposes and some gamers, making an expensive upgrade to the latest generation really doesn't make sense to Voodoo5 owners. You reacted as if someone had questioned your very essance of being.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> Ford vs Chevy types are doing some compensating, thus it seems the same to >> you. > >While cars may help in scoring with chicks to some extent, video cards DO >NOT. So much for that "compensation" theory of yours. ;-) Anyway, all I got >is a plain-jane GF3 which refuses to overclock very much at all. There are >many examples of Ti200:s which clock faster than my card, and as we all >know, the GF3 Ti500 is out since a couple months. Also, the GF4 is right >around the corner, so why would I want to compensate using what essentially >is inferior tech anyway? This does not compute, Enigmatic...

When did you buy your GF3? Was probably top of the line when you got it. And yes, the GF4 is right around the corner. That was mentioned in that article, as it had a "wait for the GF4 if you're still running a Voodoo5" undertone to it. >> The problem is, $160 is still $160 >> that I can't spend on other things > >$160 is not "many hundreds" of $ which you claimed at first. Seems you are >backtracking here, and fast! ;-) Many hundreds when new. The GF4 probably will be as well. Admittedly, the Ti200 is now to somewhat acceptable prices, but again, for many systems the change will not be worth it. >> and the upgrade just isn't enough, >> considering that it will be a downgrade in some games > >Very few games, and I can guarantee you that the follow-ups to said games >will not run faster on a V5 than on a GF-series card. Yup. Looks like one more generation of games until a needed upgrade. As is, the latest play pretty well on a V5, enough so not to justify an upgrade. At least, not with my mid-level CPU.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> and, IMO, 2d visual quality. > >There's nothing wrong with the 2D quality of the GF3 chip itself. If there >are any image quality issues, it's because of low-grade board components and >I can assure you that is not the case with all GF3:s. Mine for example gives >a very nice picture at 1600*1200 @ 75, so I do not complain. Anyway, I run >the thing on a DVI flatscreen monitor - something which is not possible on >the V5 afair - so I sidestep the analog side of the circuitry completely.

Not bad at all. Though if you want to avoid the low grade stuff, you'll need to be careful when picking a Ti200. -Tim

"The Enigmatic One" <[email hidden]> wrote: > No, I'd feel snug about not wasting hundreds of dollars every few > months to make sure I feel like more of a man. You keep implying penis envy on my behalf. Of course, that's not the case, try to be at least somewhat serious in your posts. Anyway, this is my first (at least somewhat) top of the line videocard since forever, I used to play on an ATI Rage128 with a crippled 64-bit bus, and before that I had - brr - a PowerVR PCX2. That was not fun at all, and the difference from that and what I have now is literally lightyears. I don't upgrade "every few months", far from it. Besides, GF3s don't cost "hundreds of dollars" anymore. Don't be rediculous. Anyway, the V5 was good when it was new, no point in debating that. It's also not a point in debating that it's NOT a waste of money to upgrade to something recent, that might well be a GF3, or a Radeon 8xxx for that matter. So wise up, dude and stop acting like a petuous child. Bye! /HB.

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Doom3 hits the stands my GF3 will be obsolete What?? You really think so? I was hoping that a GF3 or Radion 8500 would suffice! When's Doom3 due out, anyway?

> No, I'd feel snug about not wasting hundreds of dollars every few > months to make sure I feel like more of a man. Wasting? Hundreds? Lol....... Yeah...by all means...go buy a V5....you really deserve it...hehe

> Absolutely false. Rather, it's a well-documented shortcoming of the > nVidia-based video cards, historically. If they FINALLY fixed the GF3 > (jury is still out, I'd say), fine. You total moron... I got your Jury right here..hehe You are one twisted idiot.... > There has been NO "flip-flop". The POINT is that 2D quality is MUCH > more important, VASTLY more important, than small differences in 3D > quality. Always has been, always will be. It is NOT WORTH trading 2D > quality for 3D quality OR for 3D frame rates! GET IT? You really do represent the bottom of the gene pool, don't ya.....hehe Have you ever even seen a GF3 yet? Dumbass....hehe

> What?? You really think so? I was hoping that a GF3 or Radion 8500 > would suffice! > When's Doom3 due out, anyway? You 3dfx sheep are such idiots....hehe

"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Doom3 hits the stands my GF3 will be obsolete > What?? You really think so? Carmack has mentioned he expects a GF3 to run Doom3 at 30fps-ish I believe, and while it may be playable it's certainly not pretty nor comfortable... > I was hoping that a GF3 or Radion 8500 would suffice! Radeon 8500 might fare better, since it features more advanced pixel shaders which cuts down on the number of rendering passes needed from 2-3 on GF3 to possibly just one. > When's Doom3 due out, anyway? I don't think it will happen this year, but I really don't know. I suppose it'll hit the stands right around the same time Duke Nukem Forever does, LOL! ;-) Bye! /HB.

You get that feeling alot dont you..? PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Not exactly sure what are you talking about here. > > Bye! >/HB. > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

Hans stupidity like yours shouldnt go unpunished... >> It DOESN'T beat the pants off the "old V5" is FSAA and that is >> what his review was about. > >No it wasn't. ;-) Just check in with PD, he'll set you right, hehe. Actually thats EXACTLY what it was about..just that you havent even read the review, you have just looked at the pretty pictures. > >Anyway, FSAA is nice to have, but it's not everything. Far from it. Nope if you have a Geforce FSAA isnt that big a deal because it doesnt work nearly as well. > >> NOT TRUE > >My, my. Some 3dfx fan(atics) sure are defensive about their item of worship, >rotfl... Yes it is. Well actually it is but dont let the fact that alot of games dont care that much about the fillrate of the card since even at x4 FSAA the fillrate is sufficient. But hey you havent let silly little things like facts get in the way yet. >4x FSAA on a V5 is 4x the fillrate and 4x the video scanout bandwidth. This >makes for a serious hit in framerates for games that are fillrate intensive. Well ok you have a few cells ticking over up there...now next question are ALL games Fillrate intensive..? Next question if all games are NOT fillrate intensive and a player with a 750mhz is considering buying a video card to up his picture quality and framerate and he plays 80% games that are NOT fillrate intensive what should he do...? Upgrade his V5 or buy a new CPU? > >> do you or have you ever owned a v5 ? > >No, and no. And it wouldn't perform any better even if I did/had. I might >TRICK myself into believing that, but it wouldn't be true. Its not a question of performance genius..since the performance has been established as equal in many games. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Bye! >/HB. > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

First off I have the advantage since I HAVE seen them running side by side...you have not. So attacking my objectivity when I have taken the trouble to actually compare them is unwise. You have not seen them side by side..you just believe everything you read. I do not. Most games are Direct X, if the drivers dont work in Direct X then a very large part of the abilities of the card are broken since you claim that they are so important. Yes when it works its great I stated as much in the article. But they are BROKEN in Direct X... PAPA DOC > >Wrong, since you can for OpenGL. Only for D3D do you need a 3rd party >app and that works fine. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > You get that feeling alot dont you..? Nothing better to do with your time than taking cheap, unneccessary potshots like this? That's just so very sad! Bye! /HB.

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Actually thats EXACTLY what it was about.. You said yourself your so-called article was for people to determine if they needed to upgrade to a GF3 or not. Now you suddenly change your story after several days? Yeah, well, I never expected much of a 3dfx zealot like yourself. > just that you havent even > read the review, you have just looked at the pretty pictures. Like you would know... Yes, I did actually read it. > >Anyway, FSAA is nice to have, but it's not everything. Far from it. > Nope if you have a Geforce FSAA isnt that big a deal because it doesnt > work nearly as well. Uh, it works fine. Never found a single app where it doesn't work. > Well actually it is but dont let the fact that alot of games dont care > that much about the fillrate of the card since even at x4 FSAA the > fillrate is sufficient. But hey you havent let silly little things > like facts get in the way yet. You aren't hard of reading, are you? Like I said, in fillrate intensive apps the V5 is lagging behind (and badly) in 4x FSAA since 3dfx's implementation quadruples not only fillrate requirements but also video scanout bandwidth. And here you come romping through like a mountain troll shouting about "silly things like facts"... Stick to the subject, you fool. > Well ok you have a few cells ticking over up there...now next question > are ALL games Fillrate intensive..? Next question if all games are NOT > fillrate intensive and a player with a 750mhz is considering buying a > video card to up his picture quality and framerate and he plays 80% > games that are NOT fillrate intensive what should he do...? Upgrade > his V5 or buy a new CPU? Considering the V5 has no tech support, no driver support and NO FUTURE WHATSOEVER, I think the answer to that question is pretty clear. Have you seen very many games that claims 3dfx compatibility lately? To be frank, I'd be surprised if you could even find one. > Its not a question of performance genius..since the performance has > been established as equal in many games. It's not equal in many games. In a select few examples, from a limited genre, the V5 is indeed competitive. But then, in Unreal and such titles, a V3 could outperform a GF256, so that proves nothing. That the V5 is competitive in those select few titles (which more often than not are none too new for that matter) does not make the two products equal, and anyone believing so is a FOOL. Period. If you do indeed intend to keep on playing those few titles FOREVER, never plan to upgrade your OS or your hardware (to a P4 845/850 system), then go right ahead and keep that V5 of yours. To quote Zod, the idiot child: "You deserve it. hehe" Other people may want to reconsider. Bye! /HB.

In article <jQ_18.14770$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

>You keep implying penis envy on my behalf. Of course, that's not the case, >try to be at least somewhat serious in your posts. Anyway, this is my first >(at least somewhat) top of the line videocard since forever, I used to play >on an ATI Rage128 with a crippled 64-bit bus, and before that I had - brr - >a PowerVR PCX2. That was not fun at all, and the difference from that and >what I have now is literally lightyears. I don't upgrade "every few months", >far from it. Besides, GF3s don't cost "hundreds of dollars" anymore. Don't >be rediculous.

Not anymore, but every brand new top-of-the-line card is at the $300 or so price range when it comes out. And I know of those who insist at jumping on the latest and greatest. If you didn't, great. I misjudged you. >Anyway, the V5 was good when it was new, no point in debating that. It's >also not a point in debating that it's NOT a waste of money to upgrade to >something recent, that might well be a GF3, or a Radeon 8xxx for that >matter. So wise up, dude and stop acting like a petuous child. New? It was/is great old, used and on the cheap. And yes, a GF3 is a waste of money with the games I play. Even if I got a Ti200 and sold my V5, I'd be out $80 or so out of pocket. And I wouldn't want to sell my V5 as some games I'm working on run better in it (Deux Ex, for example.) Of course, I am planning on building a new system sometime soon, with a nice Athlon XP 2000 or so, and at that point I'll need something new and great. Though it will likely be a Radeon. But again, the review still stands as quite good. It is the sort of thing that those who care about what they spend and whether what they spend on is worth it need. -Tim

hehe...Operation Flashpoint genius is one of the top selling games in the US and its a Glide game...oopsy those facts slapping you upside the head again. In regards to what you read, admitting you have read the article is makes it worse for you not better. Because now you admit to no comprehension of what you have read. For instance your inability to understand this... "So what is the purpose of comparing old dog vs the big bad ass new dog aside from wanting to see for myself? Easy there are a lot of people who own a Voodoo 5 that are wondering whether spending the $300.00 for a new Geforce 3 will be worthwhile. A note, please understand that this card compares favorably to the newest GF3 Ti 500 since it was clocked at 220/525 for the duration of this test no anomalies were seen at this speed and I believe it could have hit much higher. I hope to provide some comparisons with some apps to help you decide whether your $300.00 should be spent on the Winfast LeadTek Geforce 3 or a new motherboard and CPU combination. For the attention deficit disorder crowd I believe that unless you own an Intel i740 Graphic Chipset or the like that you will ALWAYS get better bang for buck going with a new CPU." Or this..... "It was great to see the Nvidia product really take on everything this time with not a hint of the driver instability when using FSAA that I encountered in the last test with the Geforce 2 GTS. Certainly anyone getting a GF3 should be very happy and they will marvel at their cards performance especially in 32bit. But if you are sitting there thinking that getting rid of your Voodoo 5 and buying a Geforce 3 is gonna fix your framerate problems�.well you should consider other avenues first. Get the fastest processor you can buy with the best memory and motherboard as that will probably get you much more improvement for the money over the course of all your games. Plus you wont lose your compatibility with older games along with not losing that unbeatable FSAA" Both ripped directly from the review...goof. I would respond to the rest of your drivel but its to much effort. http://www.papadoc.net/V5vsGF3.html PAPA DOC.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Considering the V5 has no tech support, no driver support and NO FUTURE >WHATSOEVER, I think the answer to that question is pretty clear. Have you >seen very many games that claims 3dfx compatibility lately? To be frank, I'd >be surprised if you could even find one. > Bye! >/HB. > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

hehe.... >Nothing better to do with your time than taking cheap, unneccessary potshots >like this? >That's just so very sad! Well its raining outside and smacking around knowitalls like you is one of my favorite pastimes when I have nothing better to do. Besides you are such an easy target. PAPA DOC > Bye! >/HB. > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

In article <3c49948a.67035922@news>, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>First off I have the advantage since I HAVE seen them running side by >side...you have not. So attacking my objectivity when I have taken the >trouble to actually compare them is unwise. You have not seen them >side by side..you just believe everything you read. I do not. > >Most games are Direct X, if the drivers dont work in Direct X then a >very large part of the abilities of the card are broken since you >claim that they are so important. > >Yes when it works its great I stated as much in the article. But they >are BROKEN in Direct X...

Anisotropic broken in directx? Not when I checked it out. And as for the image quality difference between no anisotropic and anisotropic, you�d be hard-pressed to find people who agree with you that there is no difference. That statement of yours alone is more than enough evidence to question the veracity of your statements. I�m in agreement with hans, you are a waste of time as you�ve always been. Enjoy your outdated piece of hardware.

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > hehe...Operation Flashpoint genius is one of the top selling games in > the US and its a Glide game... Yeah, tell me when you see a pattern emerging of great, best-selling Glide games coming out on the market. There's always the oddball example to make a grab for when you're a zealot, isn't there? > oopsy those facts slapping you upside > the head again. Flukes aren't facts dude. But you wouldn't understand, since you're a zealot blind to all things fact. > In regards to what you read, admitting you have read the article is > makes it worse for you not better. Because now you admit to no > comprehension of what you have read. I think it's you showing lack of comprehension. You attack me for pointing out your "article" was not about if 3dfx's FSAA is the best or not, when even the quotes you fling at me say nothing of the sort. You're a rather bizarre person methinks. Go grow a brain, and some manners. > Both ripped directly from the review...goof. Yeah, so what? I read em both the first time round. If you're gonna go on with these silly personal attacks, at least be logical and consistent about it. > I would respond to the rest of your drivel but its to much effort. Yeah, I wouldn't expect a zealot like you being able to accept any facts not agreeing with your personal religion. Go get a life, video cards aren't deities you know. Bye! /HB.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:30:36 GMT, [email hidden] (John Lewis) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >I have great fun building computers,so I have 2 under my desk..... >One a P3-800 with V5 on board. One a P4-1900 with GF3 Ti200 >(which will happily overclock to 240.. got lucky). So can play all >my legacy stuff (Tribes, Falcon etc...) fast in Glide on the >V5 + P3-800 and get reasonable speed on latest titles in D3D >on the GF3+ P4-1900.... >

Oh, and another point. I was very hesitant to buy any nVidia accelerator up through GF3, having witnessed horrible 2D-resolution compared to either a V3 AGP or the V5. However the "GF3 Ti" series is a new circuit-board layout with careful attention to the VGA output. The improvement certainly shows. I cannot distinguish any 2D resolution difference between my V5-5500 and my GF3 Ti200. ( I swap the same monitor between the 2 computers using a top-quality plug and socket connection, not a switch-box... ). nVidia must have put some of the 3dfx engineers to good use in their latest Reference designs. By the way, my GF3 Ti200 is an Xtasy 6564, with fan and memory heatsinks, VGA and S-VHS outputs. Highly recommended. John Lewis

hehe....Cute.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> hehe...Operation Flashpoint genius is one of the top selling games in >> the US and its a Glide game... > >Yeah, tell me when you see a pattern emerging of great, best-selling Glide >games coming out on the market. There's always the oddball example to make a >grab for when you're a zealot, isn't there?

Nope not a zealot at all...you fit the description though. I look at things critically and compare facts and figures myself instead of believing press releases. You believe press releases. You do not compare items for yourself...you believe others....and you apply no critical thought to your own beliefs...it helps to do that from time to time. I played with the GF3 for over 4 months...I directly compared them for over 1 month...given the relative amounts of time we both spent comparing cards, me 4 months, you zero....well. >> oopsy those facts slapping you upside >> the head again. > >Flukes aren't facts dude. But you wouldn't understand, since you're a zealot >blind to all things fact. Ah but then again the question remains where do you get your facts from and where are my facts coming from....my 4 months of experience to your zero. Ummmm.....something is not quite kosher here and it smells like you. hehe.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> In regards to what you read, admitting you have read the article is >> makes it worse for you not better. Because now you admit to no >> comprehension of what you have read. > >I think it's you showing lack of comprehension. You attack me for pointing >out your "article" was not about if 3dfx's FSAA is the best or not, when >even the quotes you fling at me say nothing of the sort. You're a rather >bizarre person methinks. Go grow a brain, and some manners.

Coming from the person who started off by calling me stupid thats a rich demand...so I think I will just ignore it You dont know what my article was about and are too much of a nvidiot to see it for just what it was. Anyone that has a V5 is using the FSAA feature because it really is head and shoulders above the crap that Nvidia passes off as FSAA. So my article naturally had to show several things to the Voodoo 5 owner considering a purchase of a video card. It did...that you are even commenting on the article gives all the evidence required that you are indeed not capable of understanding the written word, it was specifically meant for the Voodoo 5 owner not Nvidiots...I care little for sheep like you.. It wasnt intended for you...you dont understand it and given your lack of critical thought abilities you wont ever understand it. > >> Both ripped directly from the review...goof. > >Yeah, so what? I read em both the first time round. If you're gonna go on >with these silly personal attacks, at least be logical and consistent about >it. In the face of direct evidence of your wrongness you accuse me of not being logical...hehe...you probably dont realize how rich that is. >> I would respond to the rest of your drivel but its to much effort. > >Yeah, I wouldn't expect a zealot like you being able to accept any facts not >agreeing with your personal religion. Go get a life, video cards aren't >deities you know. hehe...Again thats an observation I wouldnt expect from you. Since you are the one that thinks buying the latest greatest video card is a good idea...keep sopping up that Nvidiot bullshit...someone needs to keep Nvidia in business until they release something better enough that I feel the need to spend $300.00 PAPA DOC > > Bye! >/HB. > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

hehe....Cute. Nope not a zealot at all...you fit the description though. I look at things critically and compare facts and figures myself instead of believing press releases. You believe press releases. You do not compare items for yourself...you believe others....and you apply no critical thought to your own beliefs...it helps to do that from time to time. I played with the GF3 for over 4 months...I directly compared them for over 1 month...given the relative amounts of time we both spent comparing cards, me 4 months, you zero....well. Ah but then again the question remains where do you get your facts from and where are my facts coming from....my 4 months of experience to your zero. Ummmm.....something is not quite kosher here and it smells like you. hehe. Coming from the person who started off by calling me stupid thats a rich demand...so I think I will just ignore it You dont know what my article was about and are too much of a nvidiot to see it for just what it was. Anyone that has a V5 is using the FSAA feature because it really is head and shoulders above the ***that Nvidia passes off as FSAA. So my article naturally had to show several things to the Voodoo 5 owner considering a purchase of a video card. It did...that you are even commenting on the article gives all the evidence required that you are indeed not capable of understanding the written word, it was specifically meant for the Voodoo 5 owner not Nvidiots...I care little for sheep like you.. It wasnt intended for you...you dont understand it and given your lack of critical thought abilities you wont ever understand it. In the face of direct evidence of your wrongness you accuse me of not being logical...hehe...you probably dont realize how rich that is. hehe...Again thats an observation I wouldnt expect from you. Since you are the one that thinks buying the latest greatest video card is a good idea...keep sopping up that Nvidiot bullshit...someone needs to keep Nvidia in business until they release something better enough that I feel the need to spend $300.00 PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

hehe..You and Hans make a good pair. >Anisotropic broken in directx? Not when I checked it out. Really so then Nvidia is just not putting the adjustment tab in the Direct X properties because...... > >And as for the image quality difference between no anisotropic and >anisotropic, you�d be hard-pressed to find people who agree with you >that there is no difference. That statement of yours alone is more than >enough evidence to question the veracity of your statements. Sheesh is it so hard to actually quote me correctly. I didnt say no difference...I said I compared them side by side and unless you can do that you dont know what you are talking about...in regards to better image quality. Im not specifically talking about Anio...but when you compare both cards at x4 FSAA with the Geforce 16/32 Anio the V5 looks better and the textures are more stable with less creepy crawlies. Flying over a city in Flanker with both cards is a very different experience... >Enjoy your outdated piece of hardware. Outdated or not, Im not thinking about spending money to replace it just because its old. The only reason to replace a video card is if the new one will bring significant speed increases in the games I play...the GF3 doesnt in enough games to make a difference and in some games not by the margin I was led to believe, or if it makes a significant difference in image quality, the GF3 still lags pretty far behind, or if its better for compatibility...I still have some Glide games that I love...so the GF3 doesnt compare there. Most V5 owners will have alot of the same requirements as me, thats who the article was written for...not a bunch of knowitall Nvidiots who tag along behind Nvidia with their tongues out wagging for the latest greatest in the hopes that this card will be the one that makes them StudKing. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > hehe....Cute. Big words from a little man. > Nope not a zealot at all...you fit the description though. Eh, excuse me? You base this on what, really? You: V5 = equal to GF3 (based on limited number of software titles from limited number of genres) Me: No, they are not equal (simple fact). Which one of these positions would you consider the most zealous? Here I see you start coming with the "nvidiot" accusation again, same thing I heard you fling at me the last time we discussed the V5 and it's behind-the-timesness (which was right around the time when it was new), and at that point I was actually running on an ATI card of all things. How is that for LOL, huh? :-D You are so predictable, Pierre... Blinded by your zealotry, you automatically assume I'm a nvidiot because I oppose your position. Not so. I'd rather have had a Radeon 8500 instead (for various reasons), but this card was what came with my computer. Not that I'm actually COMPLAINING, this thing is murderously fast compared to what I had before (and your silly little V5 too, hehe). So take that nvidiot ephitet and stick it you know where, mmkay? I was simply using the GF3 to stand off against your V5 because that is what YOU DID, not because I have a love affair with Nvidia and their products (I do not; they're good, no denying that, but other products suit me better). > You believe press releases. Haha! What a rediculous and totally baseless accusation. You are so pathetic. > I played with the GF3 for over 4 months...I directly compared > them for over 1 month...given the relative amounts of time we both > spent comparing cards, me 4 months, you zero....well. I don't HAVE to compare a soon three year old video card with one less than six months old to know the outcome of that, dude. As I've already said several times, if your goal is to run 4xFSAA in a limited set of technically simplistic applications forever, not upgrading, by all means go ahead and keep that V5, you deserve it (hehe). If your horizons are broader than this however, one would do well to consider other options. > and where are my facts coming from....my 4 months of experience > to your zero. Ummmm.....something is not quite kosher here and it > smells like you. hehe. Considering you came up with the idea the V5 compares favourably to the GF3, I would refrain from making remarks about ME smelling... I distinctly feel an aroma of bullshit coming from your direction. > You dont know what my article was about Considering you seem to change the purpose of the article as you see fit, then no. Apparantly, I don't. You said in your "article" it was to help V5 owners decide if they needed to upgrade or not, but I guess that doesn't count because now the "article" was about the fact V5 FSAA is superior to GF3 FSAA all of a sudden. Go figure. > and are too much of a nvidiot Rotfl... We've been over this territory already, but I just thought I'd again take the opportunity to point out how silly, stupid and childish you are by flinging such baseless accusations about. Rotfl... > It did...that you are > even commenting on the article gives all the evidence required that > you are indeed not capable of understanding the written word Hmm, well... Whatever. If it makes you feel important, by all means go ahead and believe that if you wish. > it was specifically meant for the Voodoo 5 owner not Nvidiots... Yeah, you V5 zealots need to have your beliefs in a failed company periodically re-inforced, otherwise you'd might actually come to agree your product is no longer the bestest and the greatest (and never was, by the way). Haha! Yes, so much for objectivity, Pierre. Write up a piece of sheit concluding your almost three year old 3D card still has what it takes and then get mad at me when I call your bluff, rotfl... > hehe...Again thats an observation I wouldnt expect from you. Since you > are the one that thinks buying the latest greatest video card is a > good idea... Really, I don't understand you at all. Provided one has the cash, why would it not be a good idea? You get the latest greatest videocard! So one has to cough up for the pleasure of owning it, SO WHAT? Isn't it a distinctly un-American (or should that be, "anti-American"?) p.o.v. that paying for the best is bad? Or in terms you are more likely to understand: are you saying you'd rather drive a Pinto than a Cadillac because it's CHEAPER? Besides, I got my GF3 in november, more than six months after the card had been released, so so much for your wild theories, LOL. > keep sopping up that Nvidiot bullshit...someone needs to > keep Nvidia in business until they release something better enough > that I feel the need to spend $300.00 OOPS! Someone forgot to tell you that you can get yourself the superior GF3 for way less than $300 these days... Still stuck in your delusions I see, rotfl! Bye! /HB.

"bp" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Compared to the V5 the GF3's FSAA is a NO SHOW Don't know what you'd mean by "compared to" and all the rest, you're putting an awful lot of subjectivity into such a statement. > and imo doesn't work at all. Well luckily, I really don't care about your opinion. :-) It does work, certainly not as efficiently, but then, speed hit is less too which makes it more useful. > But you've never had good FSAA so I can't blame you for being fooled > by what you have. So sorry Don't feel sorry for me. I've seen V5 FSAA even though I've never owned a card myself (gosh darn it, but it's true!), and yes, it does look purty, but the speed hit is significant too so I could not say with a straight face it's a feature one could rely on constantly, in ALL apps. I have no speed problems with my GF3 running 4x FSAA+9-tap filter and 32-tap anisotropic, so I'd rather have less effective but fast FSAA than effective FSAA which is too slow to use. Wouldn't you? Bye! /HB.

Forget it Pop, The very content of the subject line of this thread is enough to bring every uninformed idiot out of the woodwork just to jump on your butt. The first time I saw you bring up this subject again I knew you were in for a long flame war with a bunch of lemmings. Some of us fortunately are not conditioned to always buy the corporate line and highly appreciate unbiased REAL WORLD evaluations. I personally still run a V3 2000 and 3000 as well as a Radeon and Rage128 card and the old Voodoos still hold their own even in WinXP. I am toying with buying a Kyro II card but am hesitant right now as the Kyro II Ultra and maybe even the Kyro III are around the corner. I do not feel like paying $200 for an 8500 but that's my other option. Any idea how a Kyro II might fare running RTCW and Opfor? Im thinking my Radeon 32 SDR can't handle it well in 1024x768x32 and figure a Kyro II would deal with it. Think I should wait? PS, be aware that somebody is cross posting this thread into the Nvidia newsgroup to incite flames so I have taken the liberty of removing it from my reply. L8r. "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c4a5e40.34993817@news...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> hehe....Cute. > > > > >> hehe...Operation Flashpoint genius is one of the top selling games in > >> the US and its a Glide game... > > > >Yeah, tell me when you see a pattern emerging of great, best-selling

Glide > >games coming out on the market. There's always the oddball example tomake a

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >grab for when you're a zealot, isn't there? > > Nope not a zealot at all...you fit the description though. I look at > things critically and compare facts and figures myself instead of > believing press releases. You believe press releases. You do not > compare items for yourself...you believe others....and you apply no > critical thought to your own beliefs...it helps to do that from time > to time. I played with the GF3 for over 4 months...I directly compared > them for over 1 month...given the relative amounts of time we both > spent comparing cards, me 4 months, you zero....well. > > >> oopsy those facts slapping you upside > >> the head again. > > > >Flukes aren't facts dude. But you wouldn't understand, since you're a

zealot

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >blind to all things fact. > > Ah but then again the question remains where do you get your facts > from and where are my facts coming from....my 4 months of experience > to your zero. Ummmm.....something is not quite kosher here and it > smells like you. hehe. > > > > >> In regards to what you read, admitting you have read the article is > >> makes it worse for you not better. Because now you admit to no > >> comprehension of what you have read. > > > >I think it's you showing lack of comprehension. You attack me for

pointing

Quoted text (22 lines)

> >out your "article" was not about if 3dfx's FSAA is the best or not, when > >even the quotes you fling at me say nothing of the sort. You're a rather > >bizarre person methinks. Go grow a brain, and some manners. > > Coming from the person who started off by calling me stupid thats a > rich demand...so I think I will just ignore it You dont know what my > article was about and are too much of a nvidiot to see it for just > what it was. Anyone that has a V5 is using the FSAA feature because it > really is head and shoulders above the crap that Nvidia passes off as > FSAA. So my article naturally had to show several things to the Voodoo > 5 owner considering a purchase of a video card. It did...that you are > even commenting on the article gives all the evidence required that > you are indeed not capable of understanding the written word, it was > specifically meant for the Voodoo 5 owner not Nvidiots...I care little > for sheep like you.. It wasnt intended for you...you dont understand > it and given your lack of critical thought abilities you wont ever > understand it. > > > >> Both ripped directly from the review...goof. > > > >Yeah, so what? I read em both the first time round. If you're gonna go on > >with these silly personal attacks, at least be logical and consistent

about

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >it. > > In the face of direct evidence of your wrongness you accuse me of not > being logical...hehe...you probably dont realize how rich that is. > > >> I would respond to the rest of your drivel but its to much effort. > > > >Yeah, I wouldn't expect a zealot like you being able to accept any facts

not

Quoted text (23 lines)

> >agreeing with your personal religion. Go get a life, video cards aren't > >deities you know. > > hehe...Again thats an observation I wouldnt expect from you. Since you > are the one that thinks buying the latest greatest video card is a > good idea...keep sopping up that Nvidiot bullshit...someone needs to > keep Nvidia in business until they release something better enough > that I feel the need to spend $300.00 > > PAPA DOC > > > > > Bye! > >/HB. > > > > > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive > September 11, 2001 > We Will Find You > www.papadoc.net

> I personally still run a V3 2000 and 3000 as well as a Radeon and Rage128 > card and the old Voodoos still hold their own even in WinXP. I am toying > with buying a Kyro II card but am hesitant right now as the Kyro II Ultra > and maybe even the Kyro III are around the corner. I do not feel like > paying $200 for an 8500 but that's my other option. Any idea how a KyroII > might fare running RTCW and Opfor? Im thinking my Radeon 32 SDR can't > handle it well in 1024x768x32 and figure a Kyro II would deal with it. > Think I should wait? I have a kyro II 64mb(the hercules one) With this base system athlon 1.4ghz 512 Mb SDR RAM Runs rtcw brilliantly, can't give you an fps score(don't know the command) but at 1024x768x32 with everyting on high detail, except light maps(kyro doesn't handle light sources too well), it goes above the refresh rate of the monitor i.e. 75hz. I know this coz v-synch is off, and you get that cutting on the screen. It doesn't score too highly on 3dmark 2001, it gets around 2300(if tweaked). But actual in game performance is excellent. The medal of honor demo, max payne, rtcw, avp2 and homeworld cataclysm(for a bit of variation) all run excellently. BUT it is twitchy, i.e. prepare to have to tweak it and mess around with drivers a lot before everyting is happy. Having said that, i would wait for the Kyro 3, this will have hardware t&l support. Which the kyro2 doesn't. Although not a problem now, in the future with games like unreal 2 it will help no end. Cheers Sven

"Sven" <cmdr_sven@{nospam}.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:G2E28.7356$[email hidden]... > > > > I personally still run a V3 2000 and 3000 as well as a Radeon andRage128 > > card and the old Voodoos still hold their own even in WinXP. I amtoying > > with buying a Kyro II card but am hesitant right now as the Kyro IIUltra

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > and maybe even the Kyro III are around the corner. I do not feel like > > paying $200 for an 8500 but that's my other option. Any idea how a Kyro > II > > might fare running RTCW and Opfor? Im thinking my Radeon 32 SDR can't > > handle it well in 1024x768x32 and figure a Kyro II would deal with it. > > Think I should wait? > > I have a kyro II 64mb(the hercules one) > With this base system > athlon 1.4ghz > 512 Mb SDR RAM > > > Runs rtcw brilliantly, can't give you an fps score(don't know the command) > but at 1024x768x32 with everyting on high detail, except light maps(kyro > doesn't handle light sources too well),

LOL! Yeah, the Radeon doesn't like smoke too well either so it's a trade off. I think we can all agree that there is no perfect 3D card. Each one has it's own limiting factors. You just have to match it to what you play I guess. > it goes above the refresh rate of > the monitor i.e. 75hz. I know this coz v-synch is off, and you get that > cutting on the screen. > > It doesn't score too highly on 3dmark 2001, Well 3Dmark is just an Nvidia PR tool anyway, although I have read that the 8500 cards rip it apart LOL.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> it gets around 2300(if tweaked). > But actual in game performance is excellent. The medal of honor demo, max > payne, rtcw, avp2 and homeworld cataclysm(for a bit of variation) all run > excellently. > > BUT it is twitchy, i.e. prepare to have to tweak it and mess around with > drivers a lot before everyting is happy.

That's always the fun part of owning a 3D card anyway. > Having said that, i would wait for the Kyro 3, this will have hardware t&l > support. Which the kyro2 doesn't. Although not a problem now, in thefuture > with games like unreal 2 it will help no end. Just wish I knew how long it would take for the KIIU or KIII to apear. My Radeon is an excellent card but the fact that I purchased the dirt cheap SDR version is starting to show AFAIK. It could also be that I only have an 800MHz Duron though. Not sure if an XP 1.6 GHz CPU would increase the Radeon's life or not. Wish I knew. With that said, I am still very tempted to buy a Prophet 4500 but only if I have some extra disposable income. I purchased my used V3 2000 AGP for $15 recently and put it on one of my spare machines. At that price I was tickled to death. Talk about a great deal. > Cheers > Sven Thanks for the info Sven.

Gonzo wrote in message ... <snip> >Any idea how a Kyro II >might fare running RTCW and Opfor? Im thinking my Radeon 32 SDR can't >handle it well in 1024x768x32 and figure a Kyro II would deal with it. >Think I should wait? A friend of mine is running a by today standards lowly Athlon 650 paired with a Kyro II, and I must say I was pretty impressed. RTCW runs really well, except with lightmaps as Sven said. > >PS, be aware that somebody is cross posting this thread into the Nvidia >newsgroup to incite flames so I have taken the liberty of removing it from >my reply. L8r. Sad. <snip> .. Jimmy Nilzohn

[[snipped the Flashpoint NG because of exceeding stupid ISP's limitation of crossposting of 5 NG's]] ZOD wrote in message ...

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> ZOD, I don't mind going to the next latest fastest chips and paying >> the cash. But.... I don't like them cutting corners on quality. The >> 2D is the corner they are cutting now and I don't appreciated it. > >Look...I am sure there are some nVidia based cards that have sub-par 2d >quality but just about every one I have seen is equal to ANY modern 3d card >on the market including Matrox. I am running a Ti GF3 and it's very nice on >my 22" Viewsonic. >This 'nVidia's 2d is crap' stuff is getting real old and it's based on >nothing but a couple of idiots saying it was so. > >> My old V5 is not considered the best in 2D either. Matrox owns that >> area. > >Well......I have seen all the top cards side by side and it it sooooooooo >close.....stupid to argue over anyway.

I don't agree. I'm doing 1600x1200 2D-CAD work 8h/day and I just can not stand using anything else than something from Matrox, and that includes a few Ti500 I've tried. One might or might not notice any difference if you use them an hour or two, but using a Matrox card (preferably a MGA-2x64W!!) is a must for me. It's so important that I am right now looking for a used Millennium I/II *PCI* card to use for 2D, since I want to keep my GTS for 3D. Quadro2 is not an option right now, it's too expensive. >> The card I want is the canopus GF3. Its suppose to have better 2D >> quality. > >Also...keep in mind that this quality issue on a few selected cards is due >to a poor quality filter, not nVidia's GPU. I'm not so sure about this either...I think Nvidia is cutting corners. With so many transistors, no wonder they have to cut somewhere... >> As for the best choice for the available cards I would have to say the >> ATI 8500 but the drivers still suck. So I digress back to my old V5 >> until things get better. Yup.... but the Voodoo driver support is nonexistant, nowadays. >I wouldn't own an ATI either.....but I'd have an 8500 before I'd even think >about buying a V5 now.... Agreed. Unless it's a V5 PCI for legacy Glide games :) .. Jimmy Nilzohn

[[snipped the Flashpoint NG because of exceeding stupid ISP's limitation of crossposting of 5 NG's]] rrevved wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:38:39 GMT, "Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Yeah, you V5 zealots..... your product is no longer the bestest and >>the greatest (and never was, by the way). Haha! > >Well, you're wrong there, dude. What product was around when V5 was >released that was better? Please don't say TNT-1.

"Better"? Well...some might say Geforce (1) DDR. And didn't the GF2 GTS hit the shelves just a few weeks later than the V5 5500? > >LOL > Indeed? .. Jimmy Nilzohn

hehe... >The cool thing about my GeForce3, though, is that I can run up the >resolution so high, with very little framerate loss, compared to what my >V5 would sustain, that FSAA becomes less of an issue with each >increase in resolution . No thats not true even the Professional 3D cards that operate at absurd resolutions tout their FSAA. Why? Because it takes care of the stuff that happens to textures when you move the scene...also even at 1600x1200 the jaggies are noticable. > >ie: Lack of good FSAA becomes a smaller problem at 1280x1024x32 or >1600x1200x32, with games/sims using HUGE textures, that V5 won't >support, etc. It looks damn nice.. :) Whatever are you talking about...? V5 supports extremely large textures...And lets not forget that it plays Nascar 4 at 1600x1200 x2 FSAA faster than the Geforce 3. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

Nope, it ain't the Duron, it's the limitations of the 32 megs of SDR showing here-I built a box awhile ago for someone with a Duron 800+Radeon DDR 32 and gaming-wise it's only a little short 'n' curly hair slower than this box here before I swapped the Radeon DDR 64 VIVO into the Athlon 1.1 box next to me and the GF3 from the Athlon box into here. This box has an Asus P2B-F (BX) with a slocketed P3 1G, 256 megs running on a 133 MHz bus with an 89 MHz AGP 2x port. It should be a little faster than the Duron, in fact it is, but not by all that much. The Kyro2 in the box behind me with the P3 933 is just about as fast with that box as one was with yet another Duron, an 850, in a box I built for someone else, so it seems to start to run out of scaling room around 800-850 MHz or so, and it seems to do fine with slower CPUs as well until the CPU becomes a serious limiting factor. 32-bit is usually a whole whopping three or four FPS slower than 16-bit, sometimes not even that. Opfor flies, so does HL, UT, Q3, Deus Ex, etc.---it's faster than the Radeon DDR in most gaming even though it does miserably at "NvidiaMark" 2000 and 2001, and it's under a hundred bucks too, the DVD HWMC works well, though you might want to use WinDVD because PowerDVD does not allow for brightness, color and contrast adjustments when using h/w acceleration, and I dunno about the latest drivers because I haven't installed them yet, but the last latest release and all prior ones have no such provisions in a display properties tab or applet. Shame Pierre wasted all that time on just two video cards (where's the Kyro 2 and ATI hiding during this?), honestly all I really got out of that was that the V5 ain't so bad, which I could have walked fifteen feet over to the living room where one lives in another box, and told you myself...also running a benchmark with (especially critical) features disabled is inane no matter what you're trying to prove. My house-mate's Honda Accord will run as fast as my Chevy Silverado with the 300 HP 305 I built for it too...if I pull three or four plug wires, or retard the timing, take off the headers/dual exhaust and put the stock potato-trying-to-have-kids of an exhaust back on and lean the bejeezus out of the fuel/air mix near the point of piston damage---or put the TH350C that started slipping badly within a month back in...Didn't want to try "Giants" either? Why not? It's a Nvidiot's wet dream! Ohh, that's why. Gotcha. Sorry, Pierre, ya lost me there, even if it was a pretty good read with some solid info. Truly a lack of objectivity if ever I did see one. One can devise an experiment to prove one's desired results, certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but this does nothing to provide a definitive overview. Yes, the V5 does great in flight sims. Its FSAA is indeed the best of the lot. It is also arguably the best non-AGP card to ever occupy this slot, though the 64-meg Kyro2 is serious competition here (it doesn't use AGP either). It is certainly the best PCI 3d card you can get on a consumer level as well. But this is yesterday's news, and 4x FSAA is generally unuseable with the V5 in newer titles because of...drumroll, please...fillrate. Important to note is that the V5 does not do trilinear, nor aniso, nor does it have ANYTHING in the way of DVD hardware assist. No HWMC, certainly no IDCT. It doesn't like overclocking the AGP bus either, which is really your only option running a P3 EB on a BX board. Most I've seen get a little bit flaky at 75 MHz and puke entirely after minutes of operation above this AGP rate. This wasn't anywhere in the review, was it? This doesn't make me dislike the card, I'd be awfully hard-pressed not to like it, but it is not even REMOTELY the card the GF3 is, no matter how you try to skew results. I have both here as well as a Herc Kyro 2, a Radeon DDR 64 VIVO, numerous lower end cards of all shapes and sizes, you can extol the virtues of the V5 until you're blue in the face, pontificate all you want, take a long swim in De Nile, argue with Hans, but that does not change the bare facts as I see them, right in front of me, right here, right now. "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FgF28.24237$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Sven" <cmdr_sven@{nospam}.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:G2E28.7356$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > I personally still run a V3 2000 and 3000 as well as a Radeon and > Rage128 > > > card and the old Voodoos still hold their own even in WinXP. I am > toying > > > with buying a Kyro II card but am hesitant right now as the Kyro II > Ultra > > > and maybe even the Kyro III are around the corner. I do not feel like > > > paying $200 for an 8500 but that's my other option. Any idea how a

Kyro

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > II > > > might fare running RTCW and Opfor? Im thinking my Radeon 32 SDR can't > > > handle it well in 1024x768x32 and figure a Kyro II would deal with it. > > > Think I should wait? > > > > I have a kyro II 64mb(the hercules one) > > With this base system > > athlon 1.4ghz > > 512 Mb SDR RAM > > > > > > Runs rtcw brilliantly, can't give you an fps score(don't know the

command) > > but at 1024x768x32 with everyting on high detail, except light maps(kyro > > doesn't handle light sources too well), > > LOL! Yeah, the Radeon doesn't like smoke too well either so it's a trade > off. I think we can all agree that there is no perfect 3D card. Each one > has it's own limiting factors. You just have to match it to what you playI

Quoted text (9 lines)

> guess. > > > it goes above the refresh rate of > > the monitor i.e. 75hz. I know this coz v-synch is off, and you get that > > cutting on the screen. > > > > It doesn't score too highly on 3dmark 2001, > > Well 3Dmark is just an Nvidia PR tool anyway, although I have read that

the > 8500 cards rip it apart LOL. > > > it gets around 2300(if tweaked). > > But actual in game performance is excellent. The medal of honor demo,max > > payne, rtcw, avp2 and homeworld cataclysm(for a bit of variation) allrun

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > excellently. > > > > BUT it is twitchy, i.e. prepare to have to tweak it and mess around with > > drivers a lot before everyting is happy. > > That's always the fun part of owning a 3D card anyway. > > > Having said that, i would wait for the Kyro 3, this will have hardware

t&l > > support. Which the kyro2 doesn't. Although not a problem now, in the > future > > with games like unreal 2 it will help no end. > > Just wish I knew how long it would take for the KIIU or KIII to apear. My > Radeon is an excellent card but the fact that I purchased the dirt cheapSDR > version is starting to show AFAIK. It could also be that I only have an > 800MHz Duron though. Not sure if an XP 1.6 GHz CPU would increase the > Radeon's life or not. Wish I knew. With that said, I am still verytempted > to buy a Prophet 4500 but only if I have some extra disposable income. I > purchased my used V3 2000 AGP for $15 recently and put it on one of myspare > machines. At that price I was tickled to death. Talk about a great deal. > > > Cheers > > Sven > > Thanks for the info Sven.

"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Well, you're wrong there, dude. What product was around when V5 was > released that was better? Please don't say TNT-1. TNT1? Ehhhh, which year do you think the V5 was released anyway? :-) Naturally, I was thinking of the GF2 GTS. If the V5 hadn't been so rediculously delayed it would easily have been the overall, one-and-only champion, but its schedule slipped behind too much and it lost it's chance at true glory. And that wasn't even the beginning of the end of the company either, they had by all accounts lost it long before that. Sad for 3dfx, but true... Bye! /HB.

> If the V5 hadn't been so rediculously delayed it would easily have beenthe > overall, one-and-only champion, but its schedule slipped behind too muchand > it lost it's chance at true glory. And that wasn't even the beginning ofthe > end of the company either, they had by all accounts lost it long before > that. Sad for 3dfx, but true... Yeah...almost as sad as that pathetic comparison of the V5 to a GF3....hehe

> Runs rtcw brilliantly, can't give you an fps score(don't know the command) > but at 1024x768x32 with everyting on high detail, except light maps(kyro Yeah..so does my V2...lol

> I don't agree. I'm doing 1600x1200 2D-CAD work 8h/day and I just can not Yeah...well PapaDoc thinks his V5 is better and faster than a GF3 so....hehe > It's so important that I am right now looking for a used Millennium I/II > *PCI* card to use for 2D, since I want to keep my GTS for 3D. Sounds like a plan if you really think the Matrox is so much better.... > I'm not so sure about this either...I think Nvidia is cutting corners.With > so many transistors, no wonder they have to cut somewhere... Yeah...that's it...those cheap bastards...lol > Agreed. Unless it's a V5 PCI for legacy Glide games :) But now our compliant OpenGL/DirectX 8 cards could run Glide in emulation...hehe I was checking out some programs ported to OpenGL from Glide.....it's the way it should have been from the start. Glide hurt the industry because it was not an open standard......

Just for info on anyone considering a Matrox. The company no longer is supporting 3d. They make great cards...spectacular 2d, but if you are looking for ONE card to run, the Matrox is NOT it. This is coming from a gamers point of view...autocad types etc will probably be very pleased with the rig but gamers...avoid. dave henrie "Jimmy Nilzohn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7rI28.5890$[email hidden]... > [[snipped the Flashpoint NG because of exceeding stupid ISP's limitationof > crossposting of 5 NG's]]

Dave Henrie wrote in message <1R_28.1090$l61.1239@rwcrnsc54>... > Just for info on anyone considering a Matrox. The company no longer is >supporting 3d. They make great cards...spectacular 2d, but if you are >looking for ONE card to run, the Matrox is NOT it. > This is coming from a gamers point of view...autocad types etc will >probably be very pleased with the rig but gamers...avoid. Well said (although it's top posted ;P)

Quoted text (8 lines)

>dave henrie > >"Jimmy Nilzohn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:7rI28.5890$[email hidden]... >> [[snipped the Flashpoint NG because of exceeding stupid ISP's limitation >of >> crossposting of 5 NG's]] >

.. Jimmy Nilzohn

"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote: > But Glide didn't hurt the Glide -games- which were far superior > to DX/D3D/OGL at the time. Maybe you haven't ever been able to > see both a Glide version of a game and compare it to the D3D version. > If you did, you may not feel the way you do. Uh, dude... I'd have agreed with you on that had you limited yourself to D3D. According to those in the know, all previous D3D versions to DX6 or something like that seemed to have been put together by a team of drunken monkeys. However, OGL is by far the more competent and powerful API of the two, and trying to pass off BS that Glide is/was superior is just plain bullshit. Of course, back then like nobody wrote any PC games in OGL so your point isn't even valid from THAT point of view either. It took a certain Carmack guy to put OGL firmly on the roadmap for driver development teams (and if memory serves me correctly, 3dfx was one of the last to offer a proper implementation instead of just a minidriver). Bye! /HB.

hehe.. > >Yeah...almost as sad as that pathetic comparison of the V5 to a GF3....hehe >Its not as pathetic as you lemmings buying the latest greatest from Nvidia because you believe them....thats pathetic. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

> Oops, I forgot, you're a blind zealot. OOps..maybe you haven't seen some Glide games AFTER being ported to OpenGL...hehe

> Its not as pathetic as you lemmings buying the latest greatest from > Nvidia because you believe them....thats pathetic. There is a difference of reading about it actually using it.....hehe I had a TI200 but now have a TI500......Kneel!

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:A%%28.16181$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > "rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > But Glide didn't hurt the Glide -games- which were far superior > > to DX/D3D/OGL at the time. Maybe you haven't ever been able to > > see both a Glide version of a game and compare it to the D3D version. > > If you did, you may not feel the way you do. > > Uh, dude... I'd have agreed with you on that had you limited yourself to > D3D. According to those in the know, all previous D3D versions to DX6 or > something like that seemed to have been put together by a team of drunken > monkeys. However, OGL is by far the more competent and powerful API of the > two, and trying to pass off BS that Glide is/was superior is just plain > bullshit. > > Of course, back then like nobody wrote any PC games in OGL so your point > isn't even valid from THAT point of view either. It took a certain Carmack > guy to put OGL firmly on the roadmap for driver development teams (and if > memory serves me correctly, 3dfx was one of the last to offer a proper > implementation instead of just a minidriver).

If the point was that the Glide/3DFX combination was the best thing in PC gaming and what put it on the map, then Ed is right. That 3DFX optimized its hardware through the use of a proprietary API and made 3D a reality that started a revolution should hardly be criticized. And their miniGL driver worked great on Quake-based games, which was about all there was out there at the time - the only complaints I recall from people at the time I was using a Voodoo3 was that some OpenGL screensavers didn't work too well. Even now how many games are out there that were designed to run in OpenGL and aren't Quake-based? Anyway, perhaps another example of one of the things that separated 3dfx and nVidia - 3dfx didn't seem very inclined to spend their money, which meant their customer's money, on things that had little or no practical application. While nVidia has made their reputation on doing that.

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > That 3DFX optimized its > hardware through the use of a proprietary API and made 3D a reality that > started a revolution should hardly be criticized. Why not? They did fracture the market and attempted to monopolize it. They also held back that very revolution you claim they started by releasing competent but technically outdated products time and time again. >And their miniGL driver > worked great on Quake-based games, which was about all there was out there > at the time - the only complaints I recall from people at the time I was > using a Voodoo3 was that some OpenGL screensavers didn't work too well. ...Except, if you were a developer. Then complaints were a bit more specific than that. Again, see my point about holding back progress. > Even > now how many games are out there that were designed to run in OpenGL and > aren't Quake-based? Certainly not as many as there are d3d, but the number isn't few either. > Anyway, perhaps another example of one of the things > that separated 3dfx and nVidia - 3dfx didn't seem very inclined to spend > their money, which meant their customer's money Actually, it meant THEIR money. You make it sound as if they were a government or something... :-) Ever heard a company boast, "buy our stuff because we spend YOUR money prudently!"? No, I didn't think so. > on things that had little or no practical application. Which is why they developed the T-buffer or FXTC texture compression, I suppose. Umm...yeah. That sounds about right. > While nVidia has made their reputation on doing that. Would you mind very much listing the things Nvidia has developed that has little or no practical application? Bye! /HB.

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> There has been NO "flip-flop". The POINT is that 2D quality is MUCH >> more important, VASTLY more important, than small differences in 3D >> quality. Always has been, always will be. It is NOT WORTH trading 2D >> quality for 3D quality OR for 3D frame rates! GET IT? > >You really do represent the bottom of the gene pool, don't ya.....hehe >Have you ever even seen a GF3 yet? >Dumbass....hehe

Thanks for proving me right again, Zod, by failng to address a single one of my points. And of course the mere fact that you disagree with me proves me right.

> Thanks for proving me right again, Zod, by failng to address a single > one of my points. And of course the mere fact that you disagree with > me proves me right. You are assuming you actually have any valid points...hehe

> They weren't converted at the time that Glide was in development. ...and your point would be...?

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You are assuming you actually have any valid points...hehe My point is that once again, you're a proven idiot and newsgroup clown, Zod. You said, and I quote, "there has been such a flip-flop in the 3dfx-nVidia comparisons". No such "flip-flop" occurred. All along, from day one, has been the same stance that 2D quality should not be sacrificed for 3D quality or speed. So get it through your head, stop being such a dumbass, and stop lying to make your favorite brand of video hardware look better. hehe.

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> What?? You really think so? I was hoping that a GF3 or Radion 8500 >> would suffice! >> When's Doom3 due out, anyway? > >You 3dfx sheep are such idiots....hehe Shut up, you twit. Neither GF3 or Radian 8500 is a 3dfx card. hehe.

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> >Doom3 hits the stands my GF3 will be obsolete >> What?? You really think so? > >Carmack has mentioned he expects a GF3 to run Doom3 at 30fps-ish I believe, >and while it may be playable it's certainly not pretty nor comfortable...

Gads.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> I was hoping that a GF3 or Radion 8500 would suffice! > >Radeon 8500 might fare better, since it features more advanced pixel shaders >which cuts down on the number of rendering passes needed from 2-3 on GF3 to >possibly just one. > >> When's Doom3 due out, anyway? > >I don't think it will happen this year, but I really don't know. I suppose >it'll hit the stands right around the same time Duke Nukem Forever does, >LOL! ;-)

I thought I heard once that it would be this Spring. But that was a long time ago, and schedules always slip...

> in the 3dfx-nVidia comparisons". No such "flip-flop" occurred. All SO...you are saying that 3dfx sheep have never put speed over quality? [Oh...please say yes.....hehe]

> I thought I heard once that it would be this Spring. But that was a > long time ago, and schedules always slip... Not the only thing that slips....hehe

> Shut up, you twit. Neither GF3 or Radian 8500 is a 3dfx card. hehe. You moron...get a clue...hehe

"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Carmack has mentioned he expects a GF3 to run Doom3 at 30fps-ish Ibelieve, > >and while it may be playable it's certainly not pretty nor comfortable... > Gads. Well, I don't think it's due to code-bloat... :-) No prerendered lightmaps, everything with their own proper realtime shadows and highlights, it really taxes the vidcard. > I thought I heard once that it would be this Spring. id hasn't set a date for the game, it's like with all their previous work; "when it's done". > and schedules always slip... Well, if you don't have a (public) schedule to refer to, how would you know it's slipping? ;-) Except, if the title is DNF of course, coming from Mr. Big-Mouth Broussard of course who slammed a certain Romero with his Daikatana title for spending too much in development limbo... Heh, look who's talking... ;-) Bye! /HB.

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wK938.16299$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > That 3DFX optimized its > > hardware through the use of a proprietary API and made 3D a reality that > > started a revolution should hardly be criticized. > > Why not? > > They did fracture the market and attempted to monopolize it. They also

held > back that very revolution you claim they started by releasing competentbut > technically outdated products time and time again. Are you saying the Voodoo2 was a technically outdated product at its release? Or the original Voodoo board? I think they were pretty clearly the whole ballgame at that time. If you're talking about the V3 and V4/5 stuff, there was very little about the V3 that held anything back. The (PR, at least) position that they took with the V3 was that there were no games rendered in 32-bit color and that 32-bit was really too slow to be useful anyway, so why pay more for the extra, faster memory? They didn't support larger textures (more than 256x256) when they weren't used in games anyway, and no AGP texturing when that was too, too slow. But you paid notably less for a card that performed well with what was out there to play. The last round was in large part effected by their impending failure, I think, at least the delay in getting it out. But what were they failing to include? Hardware T&L, something that was hardly used by game developers at the time of the V5 release (and not at all if the card had gone to market on schedule) and even remains so today? AGP texturing, something that brought any GF256 with only 32mb of memory to a crawl? The reviewers preached "future protection" on all this stuff, since it all had little or no current value, but did there end up being much validity in that? I don't think so. > > Even > > now how many games are out there that were designed to run in OpenGL and > > aren't Quake-based? > > Certainly not as many as there are d3d, but the number isn't few either. Yes? What were they? Just name a handful on the market by the time of the V3 release, 4/99.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Anyway, perhaps another example of one of the things > > that separated 3dfx and nVidia - 3dfx didn't seem very inclined to spend > > their money, which meant their customer's money > > Actually, it meant THEIR money. You make it sound as if they were a > government or something... :-) Ever heard a company boast, "buy our stuff > because we spend YOUR money prudently!"? No, I didn't think so.

3dfx wasn't so profitable that you could say their money wasn't their customer's money. The money they spent for R&D and manufacturing was their customer's money in the end. > > on things that had little or no practical application. > > Which is why they developed the T-buffer or FXTC texture compression, I > suppose. Umm...yeah. That sounds about right. Some T-buffer features weren't worth much, but their FSAA implementation certainly was. And FXTC, an open standard that they hoped MS would incorporate into DirectX, would have been very worthwhile if it was as superior to S3's TC as advertised. That has made a huge difference in optimizing memory use on current boards, and it's a shame that nVidia has chosen to mothball FXTC, I think. > > While nVidia has made their reputation on doing that. > > Would you mind very much listing the things Nvidia has developed that has > little or no practical application? The two biggest things associated with nVidia are hardware T&L and the programmable shaders stuff in the GF3s. Hardware T&L didn't turn out to be much of anything in the end, and the other is just now coming on line, so we don't know where that will go. But beyond that, look back to when nVidia made its bones in this business, when they went head-to-head with 3dfx during the V3/TNT2 generation in '99. That was when nVidia made its reputation and became viewed as the leading manufacturer of 3D hardware. And what made that reputation? The ravings of the hardware press, extolling the virtues of the stuff the TNT had and the V3 didn't - 32-bit color, 32mb of memory, large texture support, AGP texturing functionality, an OpenGL ICD. While 3dfx sold shitloads of V3s anyway, this stuff probably meant they lost ground with OEMs and new or more casual gamers, and that was likely a critical issue in the longer run. A perfect example of this is an article I came across recently on Tom's Hardware, a gamer's guide to video hardware posted in April '99, right after the release of the ATi Rage Fury, the Voodoo3 2k and 3k, and the TNT2 and TNT2 Ultra, and just before the V3 3500 and Matrox G400s - http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/99q2/990426/index.html. Among the card requirements Mr. Pabst cited were: 1) An OpenGL ICD and Direct3D support. He cites the importance of OGL, naming games run with this API, including, if you can believe it, Unreal and UT, both native Glide games. There is no mention of Glide at all, and remember that this was April '99. 2) Fill rates in excess of 300megapixels/texels. States "The color depth, Z-buffer and particularly rendering quality varies significantly in between the vendors. A good example for this is TNT2, which has a lower theoretical fill rate than Voodoo3, but it scores higher frame rates in complex 3D scenes." 3) Up to 32mb of onboard memory. Accurately but vaguely states that this is really a 32-bit color issue. 4) 32-bit rendering. He seems to overstate the existence of 32-bit games at that time, although he at least states that the current hardware was only "starting to be capable of" handling that color depth. 5) RAMDAC of at least 250mhz. This covers all new boards, but fails to mention that the V3's RAMDAC is faster than the TNT's. 6) State-of-the-art AGP support. States "the 3D-chip should also be able to do AGP-texturing, which is one of the things that Voodoo3 is not able to." 7) Supports textures of at least 2048x2048. Rather vague on why (future requirement), but points out that the V3 only supports 256x256. He also cites multitexturing, anisotopic filtering and hardware bump mapping, which were either provided across the board or not at all in the boards of that time. In any case, this could have been an advertisement written by nVidia. If you took this guide literally, the Rage Fury would pass with flying colors but the Voodoo3 would not. Every single mention of the V3 was negative, and every mention of the TNT2 positive. The direct reviews were much the same. I don't know if these guys were really taken in by this stuff - dazzled by the technology, desiring to support the company that seemed to be moving 3D gaming forward, damning 3dfx for their disappointment, or just paid off by nVidia. That the V3 3k was generally as fast as a TNT2 Ultra in 16-bit, that TNT2 32-bit performance dropped off considerably, that the V3's 2D and 16-bit 3D image quality was better, that Glide still mattered to some, that the V3s were notably cheaper than the TNT2s was hardly mentioned. Pretty clearly an agenda here, and that went on with the GF256's hardware T&L vs. the V5, then the GF3's programmable shaders vs. anyone else left (ATi and Kryo). At least by the time the GF3 came out they were getting a clue and talking about how it didn't make all that much sense to spend all that money on a card that wasn't really faster than the GF2 Ultra, that had as its distinction a feature that wasn't usable at the time, and that might be a tad slow when it eventually was. But 3dfx is gone now, so it's all about how crappy ATi's Radeon drivers are. So what has nVidia brought to the table that has made a big difference in 3D gaming or anything else? ATi put out the first semi-viable 32-bit card, AGP texturing has never really worked, T&L came to almost nothing after all the talk of revolutionizing 3D and making CPU speed almost a non-issue, they killed FXTC, their FSAA is inferior to what 3dfx did and even what ATi is doing, they copied ATi's HyperZ, the DX8 stuff hasn't really happened yet, they've done little to enhance 2D or 3D image quality. But after the TNTs, they did lead the way in producing higher and higher priced cards, topping out with the $500 GF2 Ultras. Sure, they've made some chips with very nice architecture that were very fast, but that's not much of a legacy considering their exalted position in the minds of many and the price of those cards.

Just wanted to say that Im sorry to anyone who has tried to get to my site. In 7 days I had a total of 16,000 visitors to my video card review V5 vs GF3 and it caused me to exceed my transfer limits. Wifey doesnt think its a good idea to pay .04 per mb so the site will remain down till the end of the month. THANK YOU FOR VISITING...its extremely gratifying to know that you all found it useful. Its the only reward for the work of the review and its great to know it was appreciated. Thanks again....see you when we open up again. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 We Will Find You www.papadoc.net

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:06:08 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:47:12 GMT, "Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >>Uh, dude... I'd have agreed with you on that had you limited yourself to >>D3D. According to those in the know, all previous D3D versions to DX6 or >>something like that seemed to have been put together by a team of drunken >>monkeys. However, OGL is by far the more competent and powerful API of the >>two, and trying to pass off BS that Glide is/was superior is just plain >>bullshit. > >Glide WAS superior in the games that supported it. >Too bad you don't agree.

Glide was superior mainly due to the fact that the implementation in the games was better, not so much that the API was better then OpenGL. In fact, the whole idea of Glide was just to make an API similar to OpenGL but much simpler and specifically for games. It was easier to implement and faster, but only because it was really limited to games, while OpenGL was designed as a much more general purpose 3D application. D3D was a very late-comer to the game, and took quite a few revisions before it was really playing a role in this area. >>3dfx was one of the last to offer a proper >>implementation instead of just a minidriver). >> > >So what? Ford probably doesn't install a lot of >Chevrolet engines, either. Uhh, that was a completely meaningless parallel. The lack of a proper OpenGL implementation kept 3dfx's cards to a fairly small section of the market, ie gamers, and it didn't even work with all games. There WERE games that came out that used OpenGL which did not work (or worked poorly) with the miniGL driver that 3dfx provided. Still, all that being said, it has virtually nothing to do with the reason why 3dfx went out of business. The reason that 3dfx went under is simply that nVidia just blew them away in their core market and 3dfx didn't have a niche to drop back on. S3 also got wiped out and was sold off. Matrox got blown away but was able to fall back on their niche of high-end 2D graphics. ATI was the only company that kept within shooting range, though for a while they were only holding on due to their strong OEM ties and low cost. nVidia simply set a development pace that no one else could match. Everyone else kept planning on building a "TNT killer" or "GeForce killer", but by the time they got to market, nVidia had already moved on by two generations. What's more, nVidia Unified Driver approach gained them some popularity with OEMs and also meant that they were able to quickly develop really good drivers for ALL their operating systems (nVidia to this date remains the only company with really good 3D drivers for Linux, being more then twice as fast as their next competitors on just about everything). ATI was especially bad for this, where their drivers might have worked ok for Win98, but simply sucked for Win2K for quite some time (and under Linux a TNT2 m64 will beat out a Radeon 8500 any day). In short, I don't think that many people can really fault 3dfx that much for their demise, it was really just that nVidia did a LOT of things right and, perhaps more importantly, they did them right now, not two years from now. Even Intel, who many feared would totally dominate the graphics industry in short order was completely blown over by nVidia in the separate graphics chipset market and was relegated to the integrated graphics market (where nVidia is already making a push at as it is).

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Are you saying the Voodoo2 was a technically outdated product at its > release? Or the original Voodoo board? Naturally, you would pick the two groundbreaking products, avoiding all the turkeys that came later... To quote Zod the idiot child: "hehe". :-) Rush was maybe not outdated, but at least...hm...poorly thought out. Banshee, outdated. V3, outdated. V4/5, outdated. They either did not advance 3D graphics at all, or at best caught up with competition as it existed two product generations ago - with the notable exception of FSAA, which even though exceptional even today quality-wise (if not speed-wise) does not change the overall picture however. > there was very little about the V3 that held anything back. Of course no, since they were still the market leaders, and developers aimed at voodoo-level performance. That meant 16-bit everything and blurry 256*256 textures. That's exactly what I meant by holding back the revolution, since 3dfx refused to change with the times feature-wise apart from a few insignificant details from the first voodoo graphics in 96, all the way up until the V5 in spring 99. John Carmack publically lamented the fact in his .plan that features he discussed with the company back when the V2 was in development had YET TO SHOW UP in a 3dfx chipset when the company went bust in 2000! I think that pretty much proves my point. > The (PR, at least) > position that they took with the V3 was that there were no games renderedin > 32-bit color and that 32-bit was really too slow to be useful anyway, sowhy > pay more for the extra, faster memory? The chicken and the egg syndrome. 3dfx was not evolving, hence software did not evolve, hence no need for 3dfx - in their mind - to evolve... Stamp "Voodoo" on it and people will automatically buy it. 3dfx vastly overestimated the strength of their brand name and when this evil circle finally was cracked with the rise of Nvidia, it brought down the entire company. And for that I actually think we should all be thankful, we don't need no lazy bums clinging on to past fame in the 3D chip biz... > But what were they failing to include? Like ANY of the big DX7 features (and some from DX6 too), including dot3 and e.m. bumpmapping, cube mapping, pixel shaders (yes, these existed back in DX7, if in a more primitive form than GF3, Radeon 8500), hardware T&L, just to mention the most prominent. I might have overlooked something or other. > AGP texturing, something that brought any GF256 with only > 32mb of memory to a crawl? How about even fundamental AGP support? 3dfx treats the AGP slot much like a 66MHz PCI interface, thus missing out not only on DiME (which nobody likes), but also AGP2x/4x transfer speeds, sidebanding, fastwrites etc. > The reviewers preached "future protection" on all > this stuff, since it all had little or no current value, but did there end > up being much validity in that? I don't think so. People still buy lots of GF2s of various speed grades, and they run today's software well. You don't think that is a sign of looking ahead, future-proofing oneself? These things have basically been around since autumn 98, that's not too shabby eh? Of course, clock speed has increased and GF2 does a few things better than the original GF256, so it's not EXACTLY the same chip. > Yes? What were they? Just name a handful on the market by the time of theV3 > release, 4/99. You and I were talking about the market as it exists TODAY. My memory doesn't stretch back to mid-ish 1999, I'm sorry to say. The original Homeworld might be one of them, I'm not sure which API it runs in. Other than that, you have to research this yourself. :-) I'm not contending that there weren't many OGL games back then, what I'm saying is that 3dfx contributed to this situation by trying to push Glide on developers and dragging their heels at developing a full OGL implementation. It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to see there is a connection here... > 3dfx wasn't so profitable that you could say their money wasn't their > customer's money. The money they spent for R&D and manufacturing was their > customer's money in the end. No, it was THEIR money. Once the money stops being yours (when you buy something), it automatically becomes theirs. Besides, 3dfx lived on borrowed money for like six consecutive quarters (they posted big losses for a long time before biting the dust), so in a way you're right - it WASN'T their money after all. :-) But it wasn't their customers' cash, it was their investors'... > Some T-buffer features weren't worth much, but their FSAA implementation > certainly was. 3dfx's FSAA could well have been implemented in another way instead of wasting cash on a feature they must have known would recieve limited impact. > And FXTC, an open standard that they hoped MS would > incorporate into DirectX, would have been very worthwhile if it was as > superior > to S3's TC as advertised. However, it still is universally unsupported many years later, and user installed base was ZERO when it was released, so one must think if that really was the smartest way of spending money. > > Would you mind very much listing the things Nvidia has developed thathas > > little or no practical application? > The two biggest things associated with nVidia are hardware T&L and the > programmable shaders stuff in the GF3s. EEEEEE! I believe you confuse "limited software support" with "little or no practical application". Besides, T&L is well supported these days, there is a page on Nvidias site that lists titles, and it is quite extensive. Virtually all new software uses the DX or OGL transformation pipelines which means automatic support of T&L. The only widespread gaming engine NOT supporting either is the Unreal (Tournament) engine, but I think all games licensed for that engine has been released now, so we're finally through with that crap. One exception: Duke Nukem Forever (Waiting :-) ), and that title was retrofitted with T&L and possible pixel shader support according to the devs. So I don't agree with your assessment at all. And besides, one simply HAS to release a product with support for feature X in order to generate software support for it. Doing it 3dfx-loser-style claiming there is no need because no games use it is completely backward. Thinking like that will make sure it NEVER happens! Or you go bankrupt because customers flock to some other manufacturer wich is far less backwards and inept than you are... > While 3dfx sold shitloads of V3s anyway But those "shitloads" didn't help them in the end. The company was in the reds the entire time the V3 was on the market, they were constantly BLEEDING MONEY! And then they went the way of the dodo, so clambering to the idea it was a smart move not to move along with the times - lack of software support for new ooh-aah crowdpleasing features or not - is hardly the smartest thing anyone could do I would think! > 5) RAMDAC of at least 250mhz. This covers all new boards, but fails to > mention that the V3's RAMDAC is faster than the TNT's. He also failed to mention that monitors supporting such a pixel clock cost as much as a good computer system back then, and virtually nobody owned such a beast outside a professional CAD studio or such... No point in owning a Ferrari that does 330kph if the speed limit is only a third of that. ;-) > In any case, this could have been an advertisement > written by nVidia. Well, who won in the end? And I don't just mean sales- and money-wise. Do we still play titles in all-16-bit with small textures, no bumpmapping etc, or...? It was an intellectual victory as much as anything else, showing that progress is indeed the way to go. > Every single mention of > the V3 was negative, and every mention of the TNT2 positive. You don't ACTUALLY mean to imply it's better to own a videocard that does not support feature X, even if software support still is in its infancy for said feature? It almost sounds like that's what you mean. > or just paid off by nVidia. "Ooh, Nvidia killed 3dfx!" "You bastards!" Drop the conspiracy theory hysteria please. That's just utterly prepostrous to suggest something like that, especially with zero evidence to back it up... > how it didn't make all that much sense to spend all > that money on a card that wasn't really faster than the GF2 Ultra But that changed later with new drivers. Yes sirree bob, that it did. And new stuff is always more expensive in the beginning you know that. Even if Tom Pabst tells you to go out and get a GF19 RIGHT NOW even though it costs $1200, you wouldn't actually do it would you? You do have a brain of your own don't you, capable of independent thought? > So what has nVidia brought to the table that has made a big difference in3D > gaming or anything else? An extremely successful series of 3D accelerators. Isn't that enough, really? > they copied ATi's HyperZ No they didn't! Ask me why and I'll tell you. > the DX8 stuff hasn't really happened yet, > they've done little to enhance 2D or 3D image quality. I could write a coupla paragraphs on this subject, but I'll pass. All things needed has already been said on this subject, and repeating them again would just be tedious and annoying. > But after the TNTs, > they did lead the way in producing higher and higher priced cards, topping > out with the $500 GF2 Ultras. Sure, they've made some chips with very nice > architecture that were very fast, but that's not much of a legacy > considering their exalted position in the minds of many and the price of > those cards. I can't take that very seriously at all, you simply come across as a sore loser refusing to give credit where it's due when you say things like that. Geez, it's just a goddamn videocard alright! "Legacy", my butt! What good is 3dfx's legacy now, with nothing left of the company? Just managing to stay in the top spot for several years is legacy enough, all until they get too bigheaded, mess up, and drop down a few notches. :-) Bye! /HB:

I think you're mostly right about this, but you characterization of what happened with 3dfx is a little too simplistic. They were a small specialty company that built add-on PCI 3D-only hardware for gaming and built and maintained an API to help make this happen. It was apparent that they'd have to make a move to AGP-based 2D/3D cards in order to grow beyond this, or even to maintain their position - the future of high-end graphics was on the AGP bus, which meant incorporating 2D, and other companies were beginning to make inroads into 3D from that position. nVidia was the principal competition, and the Riva TNT established them as a high-end OEM presence as well as a company that could make competent 3D hardware. So 3dfx put out the Banshee, which was a middling effort and really just a PCI card using the AGP bus, but not a bad start. Then they followed it with the similar but faster Voodoo3, a great real-world, bang-for-the-buck card - $130-180 srp for V2 SLI-level 3D performance and great 2D. But at the same time they were dealing with moving their boardmaking in house, were trying to develop an OEM base, Glide was dying, probably erred in putting together their 3500 flagship card, and weren't focusing enough on their next generation, which had to incorporate all those existing features found in competing cards and add new ones and even more speed. Meanwhile nVidia was putting out the TNT2, which really wasn't anything very new either, but it was much more at home in the AGP slot and the press jumped all over 3dfx once it became apparent that it could keep pace with the V3 in 16-bit benchmarks and could provide playable 32-bit. Then 3dfx wasn't doing anything right in their eyes, as I said in another post in this thread. The coup de grace was the GeForce, which was rushed out to follow up on the TNT2 momentum. The press acted like its hardware T&L was the biggest thing since the invention of 3D, and who could tell since there wasn't anything to actually run on it? Anyway, the actual hardware trickled out, starting with SDR, then DDR, then 64mb of it months later. It almost wasn't so much a piece of hardware as a symbol, and the press said if you didn't have T&L you might as well box up your PC and start watching TV in six months. The opposition didn't really help themselves at that point - the Rage Fury Maxx was too slow and flawed, the Savage 2000 sounded good but didn't deliver and then S3 was gone, Matrox was silent, and the announced Voodoo5 didn't show up at all. By the time the V5 did show, nVidia was ready for the GF2, which was the real deal. It was faster, it had enhanced features, the drivers had matured, and you could actually buy one. The too-little, too-late V4/5 didn't stand much of a chance, and it hardly was noticed that T&L games hadn't really showed yet. 3dfx was done already, and the 6000 never made it out of the lab. But the death knell had rung the generation before, when 3dfx couldn't make the transition from a boutique to a mainstream operation. That the GF2 GTS was very expensive didn't matter much - nVidia had fully established their name, so followed the aging TNT2 with the GF2 MX for mid-level buyers and the OEMs to spread their base. Since then nVidia has backed off their pace. The GF2 Ultra was just a faster and more expensive card ($500!) and anyone could have pulled that off, the GF3 came out a full year after the GF2 and didn't represent a quantum performance leap, and the Ti thing is just a juggling of speeds and prices to make it look like they've done something. In comparison, ATi increased the speed of their flagship Radeon64 Vivo last year and didn't even mention it - with nVidia that would have been a product cycle! The reality is that nVidia hasn't made massive progress in the last two years, much less than the two years prior to that. The competition hasn't done that well because its mostly gone - 3dfx and S3 out of business, and Matrox quietly having withdrawn from the high-end sector after dabbling with one card. But ATi has come farther in those two years than nVidia, having moved from the Rage 128-based RF Maxx to the Radeon 8500, every bit the card that the GF3 Ti 500 is and perhaps more. But they haven't gotten the driver and customer relations stuff together the way they should have for this market, and have lost a lot of ground to nVidia in the OEM, mobile and Mac sectors. So nVidia made their name by defeating 3dfx, a victory largely based on flashy features that wowed the press, and on ground that belonged to nVidia more than 3dfx. They have parlayed that to a broad base that now goes beyond PC video cards. But the image of them as this technological steamroller that cranked out new and better cards every six months is a little inaccurate, I think. "Tony Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> Still, all that being said, it has virtually nothing to do with the > reason why 3dfx went out of business. The reason that 3dfx went under > is simply that nVidia just blew them away in their core market and > 3dfx didn't have a niche to drop back on. S3 also got wiped out and > was sold off. Matrox got blown away but was able to fall back on > their niche of high-end 2D graphics. ATI was the only company that > kept within shooting range, though for a while they were only holding > on due to their strong OEM ties and low cost. nVidia simply set a > development pace that no one else could match. Everyone else kept > planning on building a "TNT killer" or "GeForce killer", but by the > time they got to market, nVidia had already moved on by two > generations. What's more, nVidia Unified Driver approach gained them > some popularity with OEMs and also meant that they were able to > quickly develop really good drivers for ALL their operating systems > (nVidia to this date remains the only company with really good 3D > drivers for Linux, being more then twice as fast as their next > competitors on just about everything). ATI was especially bad for > this, where their drivers might have worked ok for Win98, but simply > sucked for Win2K for quite some time (and under Linux a TNT2 m64 will > beat out a Radeon 8500 any day). > > In short, I don't think that many people can really fault 3dfx that > much for their demise, it was really just that nVidia did a LOT of > things right and, perhaps more importantly, they did them right now, > not two years from now. Even Intel, who many feared would totally > dominate the graphics industry in short order was completely blown > over by nVidia in the separate graphics chipset market and was > relegated to the integrated graphics market (where nVidia is already > making a push at as it is).

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> in the 3dfx-nVidia comparisons". No such "flip-flop" occurred. All > >SO...you are saying that 3dfx sheep have never put speed over quality? >[Oh...please say yes.....hehe] 3dfx's 3D "quality" has always been "fine" compared to the competition. PLENTY good for gaming. What IS VERY important is for a video card to produce quality 2D, something that the nVidia crowd likes to forget. 2D. Get it, moron? 2D.

rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:26:48 GMT, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>> They weren't converted at the time that Glide was in development. >> >>...and your point would be...? >> >Why did you snip my entire post, loser?

Because he's an idiot, and proud of it. He doesn't seem to mind that everyone knows this, so that everyone gives exactly zero weight to any of his opinions on the issues.

All this talk about 3Dfx "holding back" the 3D market/development is a joke IMO. Where exactly is the advancement since 3Dfx is now gone? Let's see, the industry now wants you to pay $300+ to get decent frame rates in newer and still in development games with all the eye candy turned up. IMO we would have better and faster advancement had 3dfx stayed in business. Where's the advancement?... I don't see it yet.

Ok, all of you bitches: Go and play with your V3/V4/V5/Vx, or Gspot_Force or whatever before I bitch-slap all of ya. Yo man, stop acting like a bitch and go play with ya games. :-) [email hidden] (The Enigmatic One) wrote in message news:<FQG18.2166$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> In article <m4n18.37001$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > > > >Hey, > > > >Only things that strike me as a bit odd... > > > >If you say our choices mean little to you, why the need to jump into the > >flamefest? > > > >The other thing, if, according to the first paragraph in your review, you > >don't want it to degenerate into a flamefest, again i ask, why the need to > >jump into it with everyone? > > Speaking as an observer, I'd say it's the brainless few that jumped > up to insist that everyone who doesn't overspend on the latest and greatest > like them obviously is much less potent. > > > -Tim

Zod I did not mean to imply its all Nvidias fault the 2D is not up to snuff. I did say the Canopus had great 2D which means its something in the card not the Gf3 chip. I too have seen them side by side. I have two 19 inch Hitachi superscan elites in the same room. Two CPUs w same MB. So I do compare from time to time. I have not seen them all though. I have tested a GF2, GF2MX, TNT2, ATI 8500, VooDoo 2, 3, 5 and several 2D only cards. The best of the lot for 2D were the Old ATI Rage, V5, and Matrox Millennium. At 800x600 no big deal. At 1280+ I could see a blur on some of the cards, the GFMX was the worst of the lot. Since most people don't do 1280+ the video card companies figure they can skimp. I have several in laws that have nice computers and are running 1024 tops with many even at 800x600. And they do have 17 or 19 inch monitors. If you get use to a certain level of blur you will think its normal ZOD. Don't be so myopic (near sighted) :) . Bob......... > >

Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3AB38.8972$[email hidden]... > All this talk about 3Dfx "holding back" the 3D market/development is ajoke

Quoted text (9 lines)

> IMO. Where exactly is the advancement since 3Dfx is now gone? Let's see, > the industry now wants you to pay $300+ to get decent frame rates in newer > and still in development games with all the eye candy turned up. IMO we > would have better and faster advancement had 3dfx stayed in business. > > Where's the advancement?... > > I don't see it yet. >

You're right, 3Dfx didn't hold back the market...because nVidia stepped in and took over. If you still don't see what nVidia has brought, i suggest you read Hans' post again. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com - Hi, I'm a sig virus. - Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world.

> Why did you snip my entire post, loser? Is there a problem?

> Because he's an idiot, and proud of it. He doesn't seem to mind that > everyone knows this, so that everyone gives exactly zero weight to any > of his opinions on the issues. Silence, WORM! HEhe....

> it - with nVidia that would have been a product cycle! The reality is that > nVidia hasn't made massive progress in the last two years, much less than > the two years prior to that. The competition hasn't done that well because The Gf3 is the best thing since the V1 and V2. How do you figure no massive progress? > So nVidia made their name by defeating 3dfx, a victory largely based on > flashy features that wowed the press, and on ground that belonged tonVidia > more than 3dfx. They have parlayed that to a broad base that now goesbeyond Uh.....you are really confused here too...hehe Nvidia made a name for themselves because they did thier homework...listened to their customers and actually worked hard at improving on what they had already done. It's too bad 3dfx didn't do any of the above.....

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The best of the lot for 2D were the Old ATI Rage, V5, and Matrox > Millennium. At 800x600 no big deal. At 1280+ I could see a blur on > some of the cards, the GFMX was the worst of the lot. > Since most people don't do 1280+ the video card companies figure they > can skimp. I have several in laws that have nice computers and are > running 1024 tops with many even at 800x600. And they do have 17 or > 19 inch monitors.

ATI rage? Oh come now...really funny..hehe You could be right about 1280 and beyond...I don't use those resolutions and neither does the mass market. I actually run at 1152x864...any higher and I would be squinting and it's not because it's blurry...hehe I really have to laugh at these goobers in here on how they need a 1600+ Windows Desktop.......for what? It's just comical.....I don't know who they think they are fooling...hehe > If you get use to a certain level of blur you will think its normal > ZOD. Don't be so myopic (near sighted) :) Doh....hey...was that a dig? Hehe......

> Thanks again....see you when we open up again. ...and you guys thought it was nVidia DOS'ing him huh? Hehe....

> 3dfx's 3D "quality" has always been "fine" compared to the > competition. PLENTY good for gaming. What IS VERY important is for > a video card to produce quality 2D, something that the nVidia crowd > likes to forget. Yeah...this GF3 2D is just crap.........MORON! Go get a clue.....

OMG nice post Mark! That pretty much sums it up. Nvidia knows how to market, they may be hard core, ruthless, hyped etc but they came out on top. Not to start anything new but I have been told by many how good the NVIDIA drivers are. But it seems to me everyone is using older NVIDIA drivers. I think its nice that they keep pumping new ones out but they seem to take 2 steps forward and one back. They fix some things and break some things. I had to go back a few versions to get some games to work that were giving me fits with the latest ones. On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:09:35 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (105 lines)

>I think you're mostly right about this, but you characterization of what >happened with 3dfx is a little too simplistic. They were a small specialty >company that built add-on PCI 3D-only hardware for gaming and built and >maintained an API to help make this happen. It was apparent that they'd have >to make a move to AGP-based 2D/3D cards in order to grow beyond this, or >even to maintain their position - the future of high-end graphics was on the >AGP bus, which meant incorporating 2D, and other companies were beginning to >make inroads into 3D from that position. nVidia was the principal >competition, and the Riva TNT established them as a high-end OEM presence as >well as a company that could make competent 3D hardware. So 3dfx put out the >Banshee, which was a middling effort and really just a PCI card using the >AGP bus, but not a bad start. Then they followed it with the similar but >faster Voodoo3, a great real-world, bang-for-the-buck card - $130-180 srp >for V2 SLI-level 3D performance and great 2D. But at the same time they were >dealing with moving their boardmaking in house, were trying to develop an >OEM base, Glide was dying, probably erred in putting together their 3500 >flagship card, and weren't focusing enough on their next generation, which >had to incorporate all those existing features found in competing cards and >add new ones and even more speed. > >Meanwhile nVidia was putting out the TNT2, which really wasn't anything very >new either, but it was much more at home in the AGP slot and the press >jumped all over 3dfx once it became apparent that it could keep pace with >the V3 in 16-bit benchmarks and could provide playable 32-bit. Then 3dfx >wasn't doing anything right in their eyes, as I said in another post in this >thread. The coup de grace was the GeForce, which was rushed out to follow up >on the TNT2 momentum. The press acted like its hardware T&L was the biggest >thing since the invention of 3D, and who could tell since there wasn't >anything to actually run on it? Anyway, the actual hardware trickled out, >starting with SDR, then DDR, then 64mb of it months later. It almost wasn't >so much a piece of hardware as a symbol, and the press said if you didn't >have T&L you might as well box up your PC and start watching TV in six >months. The opposition didn't really help themselves at that point - the >Rage Fury Maxx was too slow and flawed, the Savage 2000 sounded good but >didn't deliver and then S3 was gone, Matrox was silent, and the announced >Voodoo5 didn't show up at all. > >By the time the V5 did show, nVidia was ready for the GF2, which was the >real deal. It was faster, it had enhanced features, the drivers had matured, >and you could actually buy one. The too-little, too-late V4/5 didn't stand >much of a chance, and it hardly was noticed that T&L games hadn't really >showed yet. 3dfx was done already, and the 6000 never made it out of the >lab. But the death knell had rung the generation before, when 3dfx couldn't >make the transition from a boutique to a mainstream operation. That the GF2 >GTS was very expensive didn't matter much - nVidia had fully established >their name, so followed the aging TNT2 with the GF2 MX for mid-level buyers >and the OEMs to spread their base. > >Since then nVidia has backed off their pace. The GF2 Ultra was just a faster >and more expensive card ($500!) and anyone could have pulled that off, the >GF3 came out a full year after the GF2 and didn't represent a quantum >performance leap, and the Ti thing is just a juggling of speeds and prices >to make it look like they've done something. In comparison, ATi increased >the speed of their flagship Radeon64 Vivo last year and didn't even mention >it - with nVidia that would have been a product cycle! The reality is that >nVidia hasn't made massive progress in the last two years, much less than >the two years prior to that. The competition hasn't done that well because >its mostly gone - 3dfx and S3 out of business, and Matrox quietly having >withdrawn from the high-end sector after dabbling with one card. But ATi has >come farther in those two years than nVidia, having moved from the Rage >128-based RF Maxx to the Radeon 8500, every bit the card that the GF3 Ti 500 >is and perhaps more. But they haven't gotten the driver and customer >relations stuff together the way they should have for this market, and have >lost a lot of ground to nVidia in the OEM, mobile and Mac sectors. > >So nVidia made their name by defeating 3dfx, a victory largely based on >flashy features that wowed the press, and on ground that belonged to nVidia >more than 3dfx. They have parlayed that to a broad base that now goes beyond >PC video cards. But the image of them as this technological steamroller that >cranked out new and better cards every six months is a little inaccurate, I >think. > >"Tony Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Still, all that being said, it has virtually nothing to do with the >> reason why 3dfx went out of business. The reason that 3dfx went under >> is simply that nVidia just blew them away in their core market and >> 3dfx didn't have a niche to drop back on. S3 also got wiped out and >> was sold off. Matrox got blown away but was able to fall back on >> their niche of high-end 2D graphics. ATI was the only company that >> kept within shooting range, though for a while they were only holding >> on due to their strong OEM ties and low cost. nVidia simply set a >> development pace that no one else could match. Everyone else kept >> planning on building a "TNT killer" or "GeForce killer", but by the >> time they got to market, nVidia had already moved on by two >> generations. What's more, nVidia Unified Driver approach gained them >> some popularity with OEMs and also meant that they were able to >> quickly develop really good drivers for ALL their operating systems >> (nVidia to this date remains the only company with really good 3D >> drivers for Linux, being more then twice as fast as their next >> competitors on just about everything). ATI was especially bad for >> this, where their drivers might have worked ok for Win98, but simply >> sucked for Win2K for quite some time (and under Linux a TNT2 m64 will >> beat out a Radeon 8500 any day). >> >> In short, I don't think that many people can really fault 3dfx that >> much for their demise, it was really just that nVidia did a LOT of >> things right and, perhaps more importantly, they did them right now, >> not two years from now. Even Intel, who many feared would totally >> dominate the graphics industry in short order was completely blown >> over by nVidia in the separate graphics chipset market and was >> relegated to the integrated graphics market (where nVidia is already >> making a push at as it is). > >

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: > ATI rage? Oh come now...really funny..hehe Oh cut that hehe crap for once, Zod!!! ATI have some cards with really good 2D quality, my Rage128 Pro were certainly no slouch in that regard, I ran it 1600*1200 for 2+ years on a 19" monitor so I should know. > You could be right about 1280 and beyond...I don't use those resolutionsand > neither does the mass market. > I actually run at 1152x864...any higher and I would be squinting and it's > not because it's blurry...hehe 1152 is a really comfy res for a 17" monitor. I have my father's PC set to that res, and he hasn't changed it since 98 so I guess he's comfortable with it too...lol. > I really have to laugh at these goobers in here on how they need a 1600+ > Windows Desktop.......for what? Fit more windows on it of course. You know, you're really a dumbass n00b if you have nothing except a maximized IE window open. When I ran 1600 (new flatscreen only goes up to 1200, bit of a disappointment but one cant have everything), I could easily have OE open, a stack of large explorer windows, Winamp squirreled away in the top right-hand corner plus double columns of desktop icons on the left. 1600 = plenty space = niice for the power user. You wouldn't know anything about that, though... ;-) Bye! /HB.

"Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1QC38.6813$[email hidden]... > > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3AB38.8972$[email hidden]... > > All this talk about 3Dfx "holding back" the 3D market/development is a > joke > > IMO. Where exactly is the advancement since 3Dfx is now gone? Let'ssee, > > the industry now wants you to pay $300+ to get decent frame rates innewer

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > and still in development games with all the eye candy turned up. IMO we > > would have better and faster advancement had 3dfx stayed in business. > > > > Where's the advancement?... > > > > I don't see it yet. > > > > You're right, 3Dfx didn't hold back the market...because nVidia stepped in > and took over. If you still don't see what nVidia has brought, i suggest

you > read Hans' post again. Who? nVidia most not have brought much since you do not seem to even want to comment on it. Sometimes silence can be more revealing than words huh?

Hans you make some good points but so does Pierre. His article is pretty accurate as far as I can tell and many people out there have just enough money to get a new CPU or CPU/MB/RAM but that extra 250.00+ for the video card is going to blow the budget. I was in the same situation but was lucky enough that a buddy traded me a Radeon 8500 for a TNT2. Yes he knew it was a rip off but he is loaded and it was his office cpu which was crashing. I fixed the crash and got a new card for the work. Anyway, I found out through testing that the ATI offered me zero gains in performance and a step backward in game compatibility and more crashes. If I were to fork out 300.00 for this card thinking it might boost my tired old PIII 650/256ram I would be for a major disappointment. I guess the question is which is better a V5 and say a PIII 1000+ or a ATI/GF3 and a PIII 650? Right now its the V5 + PIII1000+ (or maybe new mb and XP1800+ & V5). If I were to spend 300.00 right now there is no question as to where to put the beans. cpu, ram, mb then video. The said part is I still have the Radeon in the box. POS. I want new DRIVERS, ATI CAN YOU READ THIS??????? Ok ZOD time to chime in with "shudda got a GF3" I would have grabbed one in a heartbeat for the tnt2 but beggars can't be choosey, hehe.... On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 01:28:56 GMT, "Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (42 lines)

> >"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> hehe...Operation Flashpoint genius is one of the top selling games in >> the US and its a Glide game... > >Yeah, tell me when you see a pattern emerging of great, best-selling Glide >games coming out on the market. There's always the oddball example to make a >grab for when you're a zealot, isn't there? > >> oopsy those facts slapping you upside >> the head again. > >Flukes aren't facts dude. But you wouldn't understand, since you're a zealot >blind to all things fact. > >> In regards to what you read, admitting you have read the article is >> makes it worse for you not better. Because now you admit to no >> comprehension of what you have read. > >I think it's you showing lack of comprehension. You attack me for pointing >out your "article" was not about if 3dfx's FSAA is the best or not, when >even the quotes you fling at me say nothing of the sort. You're a rather >bizarre person methinks. Go grow a brain, and some manners. > >> Both ripped directly from the review...goof. > >Yeah, so what? I read em both the first time round. If you're gonna go on >with these silly personal attacks, at least be logical and consistent about >it. > >> I would respond to the rest of your drivel but its to much effort. > >Yeah, I wouldn't expect a zealot like you being able to accept any facts not >agreeing with your personal religion. Go get a life, video cards aren't >deities you know. > > > Bye! >/HB. > >

Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ygG38.10005$[email hidden]... > "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:1QC38.6813$[email hidden]... > > > > > > You're right, 3Dfx didn't hold back the market...because nVidia steppedin

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > and took over. If you still don't see what nVidia has brought, i suggest > you > > read Hans' post again. > > Who? > > nVidia most not have brought much since you do not seem to even want to > comment on it. Sometimes silence can be more revealing than words huh? > >

Silence? Hardly...it's called, "why should i have to type it all out when someone else already has". But...since you've failed to read previous posts in this thread, i'll copy|paste a little portion of what was said... Hans Bergengren wrote: "Of course no, since they [3Dfx] were still the market leaders, and developers aimed at voodoo-level performance. That meant 16-bit everything and blurry 256*256 textures. That's exactly what I meant by holding back the revolution, since 3dfx refused to change with the times feature-wise apart from a few insignificant details from the first voodoo graphics in 96, all the way up until the V5 in spring 99. John Carmack publically lamented the fact in his .plan that features he discussed with the company back when the V2 was in development had YET TO SHOW UP in a 3dfx chipset when the company went bust in 2000! I think that pretty much proves my point." Enter nVidia, who intruduces 32 bit color, larger texture support and more...suddenly games start coming out with those features and are now mainstream. It is unfortunate that 3Dfx seemed to take the stance that they were invincible and refused to make much progress with their cards as they had some very good hardware. I think something even as simple as 32 bit color and larger textures would have helped them out tremendously. At this point, this thread has wondered so far off topic, it's pretty funny. lol. The point Pierre was making, i believe, still stands. For more people who have the V5, an upgrade isn't totally essential. It runs a decent portion of games adequately still. However, IMO, people coming from any other card would be foolish to buy a V5 over the current crop of cards. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com - Hi, I'm a sig virus. - Please add me to the end of your sig and help me take over the world.

Taking a moment from the Fredricks catalog, "Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> spake thusly >Oh cut that hehe crap for once, Zod!!! ATI have some cards with really good >2D quality, my Rage128 Pro were certainly no slouch in that regard, I ran it >1600*1200 for 2+ years on a 19" monitor so I should know. I'm running a GF2/MX200, and see NO difference from an ATI Radeon (from what little time I could GET it to run without locking up!). I've used several ATI cards, and some looked slightly better than the TNT2 I also used, but mostly the look exactly the same. And I AM running at 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor. To reply by email, remove the XYZ. Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

Taking a moment from the Fredricks catalog, Robert Jones <[email hidden]> spake thusly >Anyway, I found out through testing that the ATI offered me zero >gains in performance and a step backward in game compatibility and >more crashes. And you're certainly not the first to find that. To reply by email, remove the XYZ. Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

"Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QtH38.7485$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ygG38.10005$[email hidden]... > > "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:1QC38.6813$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > You're right, 3Dfx didn't hold back the market...because nVidia

stepped > in > > > and took over. If you still don't see what nVidia has brought, isuggest

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > you > > > read Hans' post again. > > > > Who? > > > > nVidia most not have brought much since you do not seem to even want to > > comment on it. Sometimes silence can be more revealing than words huh? > > > > > > Silence? Hardly...it's called, "why should i have to type it all out when > someone else already has". But...since you've failed to read previous

posts

Quoted text (7 lines)

> in this thread, i'll copy|paste a little portion of what was said... > > Hans Bergengren wrote: > > "Of course no, since they [3Dfx] were still the market leaders, and > developers aimed > at voodoo-level performance. That meant 16-bit everything and blurry

256*256 > textures. That's exactly what I meant by holding back the revolution,since > 3dfx refused to change with the times feature-wise apart from a few > insignificant details from the first voodoo graphics in 96, all the way up > until the V5 in spring 99. John Carmack publically lamented the fact inhis > .plan that features he discussed with the company back when the V2 was in > development had YET TO SHOW UP in a 3dfx chipset when the company wentbust > in 2000! I think that pretty much proves my point." > > Enter nVidia, who intruduces 32 bit color, larger texture support and > more...suddenly games start coming out with those features and are now > mainstream. It is unfortunate that 3Dfx seemed to take the stance thatthey > were invincible and refused to make much progress with their cards as they > had some very good hardware. I think something even as simple as 32 bit > color and larger textures would have helped them out tremendously. > > At this point, this thread has wondered so far off topic, it's prettyfunny. > lol. The point Pierre was making, i believe, still stands. For more people > who have the V5, an upgrade isn't totally essential. It runs a decent > portion of games adequately still. However, IMO, people coming from any > other card would be foolish to buy a V5 over the current crop of cards. I just love it when people use the semi-knowledgable postings from others to "try" and make a point rather than stand up for themselves post their own observations. First of all, ATI is the one that made the first real 32bit color card with the Rage 128, not Nvidia and S3 had the first texture compression AFAIK, not Nvidia. Second of all, if you had bothered to actually read my posting you would have understood that my question was in regards to the post-3Dfx era and big textures and 32 bit color are OLD news in that regard. Third, The V3 had 22bit color not 16 and the V5 had 32bit color before it went under so big deal. So please try tell me again what wonderfull advancements has Nvidia given us in this post 3dfx era besides $300+ price tags. Ill assume that you can do that without quoting somebody else. Ill be waiting...

> Ok ZOD time to chime in with "shudda got a GF3" I would have grabbed > one in a heartbeat for the tnt2 but beggars can't be choosey, hehe.... Hehe.....It could have been worse, I suppose (a V5....lol)

> Oh cut that hehe crap for once, Zod!!! ATI have some cards with reallygood > 2D quality, my Rage128 Pro were certainly no slouch in that regard, I ranit > 1600*1200 for 2+ years on a 19" monitor so I should know. Sorry.....I have been around too long for that crap to wash...hehe I really hated all those ATI's....all the different driver versions for the different cards (pre-rage pro). > 1152 is a really comfy res for a 17" monitor. I have my father's PC set to > that res, and he hasn't changed it since 98 so I guess he's comfortablewith > it too...lol. Dude......ok..I won't make any cracks about your dad's vision or your mothers looks...hehe Please...spare me the BS.......that is NOT normal......1152 on a 17"? Give me a break... > 1600 = plenty space = niice for the power user. You wouldn't know anything > about that, though... ;-) Just like with the 23.11's....you're just plain wrong again....hehe (hey...maybe clock yer GF3 down a little..hehe)

> And I AM running at 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor. At what DPI?

> First of all, ATI is the one that made the first real 32bit color cardwith > the Rage 128, not Nvidia and S3 had the first texture compression AFAIK,not > Nvidia. Oh really? Better check that again...hehe > Third, The V3 had 22bit color not 16 and the V5 had 32bit color before it > went under so big deal. Psudo - 22bit .......dumbass.... > So please try tell me again what wonderfull advancements has Nvidia givenus > in this post 3dfx era besides $300+ price tags. Ill assume that you cando > that without quoting somebody else. Ill be waiting... Why don't you get your facts straight and try again loser...hehe

Oh really? Better check that again...hehe Psudo - 22bit .......dumbass.... Why don't you get your facts straight and try again loser...hehe

Taking a moment from the Fredricks catalog, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> spake thusly >> And I AM running at 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor. > >At what DPI? .26, I think. KDS VS19SN. To reply by email, remove the XYZ. Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

In article <ScF38.6857$Fh4.634795 @newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > The best of the lot for 2D were the Old ATI Rage, V5, and Matrox > > Millennium. At 800x600 no big deal. At 1280+ I could see a blur on > > some of the cards, the GFMX was the worst of the lot. > > Since most people don't do 1280+ the video card companies figure they > > can skimp. I have several in laws that have nice computers and are > > running 1024 tops with many even at 800x600. And they do have 17 or > > 19 inch monitors. > > ATI rage? Oh come now...really funny..hehe

Ok... > You could be right about 1280 and beyond...I don't use those resolutions and > neither does the mass market. Perhaps not, but I do. History shows that the mass market follows the leader. More is better. > I actually run at 1152x864...any higher and I would be squinting and it's > not because it's blurry...hehe So you buy crappy tools. Buy a decent graphics card and monitor! DOn't assume the rest of us have no class! > I really have to laugh at these goobers in here on how they need a 1600+ > Windows Desktop.......for what? Work! Hey goober, I run 3200x1200 at work. The primary display is my laptop's 15" and the secondary is a 20" CRT. It works *very* well. Just because you haven't a clue, don't project your ignorance on others. > It's just comical.....I don't know who they think they are fooling...hehe I think you're ready for the funny-farm, where life is beautiful, hehe-hoho... > > If you get use to a certain level of blur you will think its normal > > ZOD. Don't be so myopic (near sighted) :) > > Doh....hey...was that a dig? No, a statement of fact. > Hehe...... Hoho..... ---- Keith

In article <3c4e5844.85009443@news>, [email hidden] says... > Just wanted to say that Im sorry to anyone who has tried to get to my > site. In 7 days I had a total of 16,000 visitors to my video card > review V5 vs GF3 and it caused me to exceed my transfer limits. Perhaps DeanK can help you out? You won't have to worry about your transfers and might make a small buck. ---- Keith

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Sorry.....I have been around too long for that crap to wash...hehe > I really hated all those ATI's....all the different driver versions forthe > different cards (pre-rage pro). Tell me what drivers have to do with 2D quality. Anyway, you may have been around for a while, but you certainly haven't learned from your experiences. Even when inundated with proof, you still maintain your idiotic ideas. By the way, never did see you comment that post I made in the iNHELL newsgroup about the P4 Xeon being totally crushed, mauled and mangled by the Athlon MP... I expected at least a "hehe" out of you, but not a peep. Seems I shut you up GOOD that time, LOL! > Dude......ok..I won't make any cracks about your dad's vision or your > mothers looks...hehe You better not, I tell ya...! ;-) > Please...spare me the BS.......that is NOT normal......1152 on a 17"? What would you run on a 17" then? 1440 is rarely available and would be way too small. 1280 is okay-ish, but unless it's a sharp tube things will get fuzzy. 1024 isn't big enough. 1152 is a good compromise, I think. > Just like with the 23.11's....you're just plain wrong again....hehe Excuse me, plain wrong? The problems with the 23.11:s are well documented on the web, so shuddap. Just shuddap. Okay? > (hey...maybe clock yer GF3 down a little..hehe) It runs steady as a rock at 255/515 now... Dunno what happened, maybe I had sidebanding active last time I tried to find the sweet-spot and that tricked me into believing the thing wouldn't o/c well... This generic GF3 rocks the house, who needs to pay premium prices for brand-name crap when plain green cards rule this much? :-D With better cooling I bet this could be increased even more, maybe an orange orb and some Thermaltake ramsinks, and a slot cooler... Mmm, that is certainly food for thought! Bye! /HB.

In article <GhF38.6880$Fh4.636361 @newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > 3dfx's 3D "quality" has always been "fine" compared to the > > competition. PLENTY good for gaming. What IS VERY important is for > > a video card to produce quality 2D, something that the nVidia crowd > > likes to forget. > > Yeah...this GF3 2D is just crap.........MORON! > Go get a clue.....

Is there something you'd like to add to this group? Please do! ---- Keith

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:f5F38.6843$[email hidden]... > > it - with nVidia that would have been a product cycle! The reality isthat > > nVidia hasn't made massive progress in the last two years, much lessthan > > the two years prior to that. The competition hasn't done that wellbecause > > The Gf3 is the best thing since the V1 and V2. How do you figure nomassive > progress? Well, I didn't say no progress, that would be a ridiculous claim. At its release the GF3 was the best commercial card ever, but marginally so - considering features, framerate, drivers, games that utilize its capabilities, it wasn't that much better than a GF2 Ultra. But looking over the two periods I was speaking of, nVidia went from the GF256 DDR to the GF3 Ti 500, but prior to that went from the Riva128 to the GF256 DDR. I think that earlier period represented a much greater advancement than the last two years. Just think about playing UT or Q3A on a Riva 128, then think about playing RTCW or Max Payne on a GF256 - which is more viable? A GF3 T5 running Quake3 can do 165 fps at 1024x768 and 32-bit on a 1.33gig Athlon, a GF256 in the same game, color depth and resolution could do 70 fps on a P3 550 - and a Riva 128 running Quake2 could do 20 fps at 640x480 and 16-bit on a P2 300 (benchmarks courtesy of TH).

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > So nVidia made their name by defeating 3dfx, a victory largely based on > > flashy features that wowed the press, and on ground that belonged to > nVidia > > more than 3dfx. They have parlayed that to a broad base that now goes > beyond > > Uh.....you are really confused here too...hehe > Nvidia made a name for themselves because they did thier

homework...listened > to their customers and actually worked hard at improving on what they had > already done. > It's too bad 3dfx didn't do any of the above..... Translation: they did their homework, isolated themselves from their customer's complaints by using 3rd party board makers, built good, fast chips that sold more on "gotta have, but can't really use" 3D features touted by the press than their unquestionable gaming capability, and their higher prices, less impressive 2D, image quality and feature breadth didn't matter much in the end. Too bad 3dfx focused on making fast cards with 3D features that only worked on games one could actually play - and ALL games one could actually play...

> Too bad 3dfx focused on making fast cards with 3D >features that only worked on games one could actually play - and ALL games >one could actually play... Whistful wishing. 3DFX screwed an entirely different pooch. They wet their own bed, and then slept in it good and proper. C//

> Is there something you'd like to add to this group? Please do! Yawn......

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Too bad 3dfx focused on making fast cards with 3D > features that only worked on games one could actually play - and ALL games > one could actually play... Here's another guy that believes NOT having features is better than having them. What's with these people anyway, are they on drugs or something? :-) The day a piece of software comes along that interests you and uses cube environment maps or dot3 bumpmapping for example, wouldn't it be great if your videocard actually was equipped to handle it - unlike the V5 and previous incarnations??? Geez! No, these men are not from Mars, they must be from outside this solar system entirely! ;-) Bye! /HB.

>Here's another guy that believes NOT having features is better than having >them. Neither here nor there anyway. 3DFX went down because they buggered their entire distribution channel. Anyone could have seen that one coming a mile away. The market doesn't respond well to a good buggering. Go figure, C//

> Tell me what drivers have to do with 2D quality. Anyway, you may have been > around for a while, but you certainly haven't learned from yourexperiences. You think drivers can't impact 2D quality? Hehe.... > By the way, never did see you comment that post I made in the iNHELL > newsgroup about the P4 Xeon being totally crushed, mauled and mangled bythe > Athlon MP... I expected at least a "hehe" out of you, but not a peep.Seems > I shut you up GOOD that time, LOL! Uh..I've been busy...hehe > What would you run on a 17" then? 1440 is rarely available and would beway > too small. 1280 is okay-ish, but unless it's a sharp tube things will get > fuzzy. 1024 isn't big enough. 1152 is a good compromise, I think. 1024 not big enough on a 17"? Are you ok? Seek professional help, ok...hehe > Excuse me, plain wrong? The problems with the 23.11:s are well documentedon > the web, so shuddap. Just shuddap. Okay? Yeah.....I have seen no such documentation. Please share...hehe > It runs steady as a rock at 255/515 now... Dunno what happened, maybe Ihad Gee.....wonder why you are having issues with drivers...hehe Maybe you just don't know how to install them properly...hehe

> Translation: they did their homework, isolated themselves from their > customer's complaints by using 3rd party board makers, built good, fast > chips that sold more on "gotta have, but can't really use" 3D features > touted by the press than their unquestionable gaming capability, and their > higher prices, less impressive 2D, image quality and feature breadthdidn't Yeah.....that's why they are #1 Wow....hehe > matter much in the end. Too bad 3dfx focused on making fast cards with 3D > features that only worked on games one could actually play - and ALL games > one could actually play... YEah...and that's why 3dfx is the company it is today....doh HEhe...

didn't Yeah.....that's why they are #1 Wow....hehe YEah...and that's why 3dfx is the company it is today....doh HEhe...

> .26, I think. KDS VS19SN. No.....that's dot pitch...I meant DPI.....

> Perhaps not, but I do. History shows that the mass market > follows the leader. More is better. Yada..yada...hehe > So you buy crappy tools. Buy a decent graphics card and monitor! > DOn't assume the rest of us have no class! GF3 Ti 500.....22" Viewsonic...I would call that decent, wouldn't you? See what happens when you assume...hehe Of course you must be used to assuming the position...hehe > Work! Hey goober, I run 3200x1200 at work. The primary display > is my laptop's 15" and the secondary is a 20" CRT. It works > *very* well. Just because you haven't a clue, don't project your > ignorance on others. Yawn...hehe > I think you're ready for the funny-farm, where life is beautiful, > hehe-hoho... I take it you've been there a few times? Hehe.... > No, a statement of fact. Yeah..I see your facts... > Hoho..... Green giant? Hehe.....

Just a few comments, since this becoming an increasingly massive task ;<) "Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:04t38.8847$[email hidden]... > Of course no, since they were still the market leaders, and developersaimed > at voodoo-level performance. That meant 16-bit everything and blurry256*256 > textures. That's exactly what I meant by holding back the revolution,since > 3dfx refused to change with the times feature-wise apart from a few > insignificant details from the first voodoo graphics in 96, all the way up > until the V5 in spring 99. Actually, the V5 didn't come out until spring '00. I don't think 3dfx was really holding much of anything back in early '99 with the V3. First, it was sort of a refresh of the Banshee, but with somewhat better features and much more speed. What it gave people was very good performance in the standards of the time - 16-bit color, smaller textures, etc. The hope at that time on the games playable was the Quake2 60-80 fps at 1024x768 in 16-bit kind of thing, which really wasn't close to possible prior to the V3 unless you had a $600 V2 SLI setup - a Banshee did 30, and a Rage Fury or TNT did 40 in 16-bit. This necessity for features not yet practical or usable was something new, and was it really worth paying $50-70 more for rather slow 32-bit performance in 16-bit games, AGP texturing at 10 fps, and some vague hope of "future protection" - the TNT2 Ultra could match a V3 3k in 16-bit, but 32-bit put them back to that 40 fps level, and I'd bet the V3's "22-bit" looked better than the TNT2's 16-bit while creating very little performance hit. Anyway, a very real question, I think. > The chicken and the egg syndrome. 3dfx was not evolving, hence softwaredid > not evolve, hence no need for 3dfx - in their mind - to evolve... Stamp > "Voodoo" on it and people will automatically buy it. 3dfx vastly > overestimated the strength of their brand name and when this evil circle > finally was cracked with the rise of Nvidia, it brought down the entire > company. And for that I actually think we should all be thankful, we don't > need no lazy bums clinging on to past fame in the 3D chip biz... I doubt that 3dfx not including some of these theoretically necessary future features did much to hold software back. The hardware of late '98 and early '99 couldn't support the games out there then - for instance, you almost had to have an SLI rig to do Unreal justice at its release, which just meant 16-bit at 10x7. Some of this advancement stuff would have just brought any pre-GF generation card to a crawl, so it was raw speed that was necessary. And nVidia played the speed game as well as anyone. That's why they still work so hard to maximize 16-bit framerates, something ATi doesn't do. There's no reason that hardware and software can't be developed in concert - you don't have to have the hardware out on the market first. Games were clearly going to go to higher color depth, larger resolution textures and greater poly counts, as they already had been, and the V3s delivered on that level - they made the stuff out there playable, so the game designers could continue to move forward. Because a TNT2 or a dog-slow Rage 128 could technically support 32-bit color and 2048x2048 textures didn't signal the game designers that they could start using them - they would do so anyway, as soon as hardware was fast enough that it was worthwhile, and 3dfx was making plenty of noise on that level. And we aren't better off with 3dfx gone, just as we are worse off with Matrox out of the 3D game, or S3 gone. The more competition and the more heads doing the R&D, the more advancement is made. Only an nVidia stockholder would look at it that way. > People still buy lots of GF2s of various speed grades, and they runtoday's > software well. You don't think that is a sign of looking ahead, > future-proofing oneself? These things have basically been around since > autumn 98, that's not too shabby eh? Game design has stagnated, witnessed by the continued use of Q3 as a benchmark, a late '99 release. The GF2 was a mid-'00 release, so isn't that old. That it runs just fine on today's games in comparison to the GF2 Tis says something about the slowed development of nVidia's hardware as well. But a funny thing that game development has stagnated just when, according to you, all of nVidia's advancements should have been pushing it forward. Hmm... > > The two biggest things associated with nVidia are hardware T&L and the > > programmable shaders stuff in the GF3s. > > EEEEEE! > I believe you confuse "limited software support" with "little or no > practical application". Besides, T&L is well supported these days, thereis > a page on Nvidias site that lists titles, and it is quite extensive. > Virtually all new software uses the DX or OGL transformation pipelineswhich > means automatic support of T&L. > > The only widespread gaming engine NOT supporting either is the Unreal > (Tournament) engine, but I think all games licensed for that engine hasbeen > released now, so we're finally through with that crap. One exception: Duke > Nukem Forever (Waiting :-) ), and that title was retrofitted with T&L and > possible pixel shader support according to the devs. > > So I don't agree with your assessment at all. I read somewhere recently, in an article about DX8 programmable shaders, that hardware T&L hadn't gone over very big with game designers because of its limitations and inflexibility. I don't know which engines use it and which don't, and more importantly to what extent, but I certainly don't see a revolution of nearly the magnitude of that predicted by the hardware press and nVidia at the release of the GF256. I think it's mostly the changes to the basic hardware design and clock speeds in the GFs and Radeons that have made for their greater capability in comparison to the '99 card class - it's increases in fill rates and memory bandwidth that matter, just like in the old days. "You've got a Pentium3 600? You're good for the next five years", that was the claim. Well, reviewers have all but stopped doing CPU scaling benchmarks, but it's not because it no longer matters. > > how it didn't make all that much sense to spend all > > that money on a card that wasn't really faster than the GF2 Ultra > > But that changed later with new drivers. Yes sirree bob, that it did. And > new stuff is always more expensive in the beginning you know that. Even if > Tom Pabst tells you to go out and get a GF19 RIGHT NOW even though itcosts > $1200, you wouldn't actually do it would you? You do have a brain of your > own don't you, capable of independent thought? Yes I do, and that's why I returned my 32mb, 32-bit, AGP-capable, large texture-supporting, OpenGL ICD $200 Rage Fury (we all make mistakes:) in early '99 and replaced it with an old school $180 Voodoo3 3000 instead of a $250 TNT2 Ultra crammed with future protection, and then sat down and played Unreal and Grand Prix Legends to my heart's contentment. And then waited until I could spend the same $180 for a Radeon64 DDR Vivo early last year to abandon that archaic, development-stifling card. Well, not entirely - I still rev up my old P2 400 rig (now mostly my Linux box) now and again and slap in GPL for a few quick laps... I wonder what I can get next for that $180? Probably a Radeon 8500, since nVidia isn't likely to be selling their top stuff for that kind of price anytime soon. But I have to hand it to nVidia for reversing their traditional pricing pattern with the Ti's, and hope this is a sign of things to come. If they can bring ATi to their knees next, that certainly won't continue, though. Think about it.

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:92M38.17287$[email hidden]... > > "Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Too bad 3dfx focused on making fast cards with 3D > > features that only worked on games one could actually play - and ALLgames > > one could actually play... > > Here's another guy that believes NOT having features is better than having > them. > > What's with these people anyway, are they on drugs or something? :-) Theday > a piece of software comes along that interests you and uses cubeenvironment > maps or dot3 bumpmapping for example, wouldn't it be great if yourvideocard > actually was equipped to handle it - unlike the V5 and previous > incarnations??? Geez! Yeah, like the guys who bought TNTs in late '98 and then got their copy of Quake3 a year later, slapped it in and cranked up the quality to utilize those detailed textures and 32-bit color, and then fragged away at 5 frames per second. Just because you have certain capabilities in hardware doesn't mean you'll be able to use them when the software eventually comes out. But people like you who buy into this crap, primarily shoveled by the hardware press, are the reason nVidia rules the business now. "You gotta have programmable shaders, and nVidia will give it to you" translates to "nVidia is the best, by far", which translates to some neophyte buying a GF2 MX, because he can't afford to spend $400 on a video card, and probably with 400mb of (SDR) memory, too, because you gotta have that as well. You know, like the guys who were buying all those TNT2 M64s when the GeForce first came out, because nVidia was best then as well. I'd think that people who populate the hardware newsgroups would know better. But I guess I can't complain if you guys spend $400 on a card that perhaps helps in the development of better software that I can actually run when released a year or two later on my new, faster (but no longer cutting edge) $200 card...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:30:54 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Forget it Pop, >The very content of the subject line of this thread is enough to bring every >uninformed idiot out of the woodwork just to jump on your butt. > Which is exactly why he posted in the first place >The first time I saw you bring up this subject again I knew you were in for >a long flame war with a bunch of lemmings. dunno about lemming but if the guy wants to post stuff and not expect to get responses then he souldn't post but as I already said he knew exactly what sort of response he was going to get hence the "I don't care what anybody says" line in his post > >Some of us fortunately are not conditioned to always buy the corporate line >and highly appreciate unbiased REAL WORLD evaluations. Yeah right "Real World" if you think all this BS and my dicks better than your disk BS is the real world then boy do you need help

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >I personally still run a V3 2000 and 3000 as well as a Radeon and Rage128 >card and the old Voodoos still hold their own even in WinXP. I am toying >with buying a Kyro II card but am hesitant right now as the Kyro II Ultra >and maybe even the Kyro III are around the corner. I do not feel like >paying $200 for an 8500 but that's my other option. Any idea how a Kyro II >might fare running RTCW and Opfor? Im thinking my Radeon 32 SDR can't >handle it well in 1024x768x32 and figure a Kyro II would deal with it. >Think I should wait? >

Personally I think you should buy whatever makes YOU happy and take absolutley NO notice of whatever anybody else says or does. It's your $$$ spend them how you like do your own research. if you can do your own side by side comparisons come to your own conclusions. If you take all "reviews" with a pinch of salt then you wont go far wrong. My opinion of the comparison done on said webpage is this The author very obviously cherry picked the numbers from his test to give the answers he needed to put forward his own personal tastes/opinions. Anybody could quite easily do other tests that could make it seem like NOT upgrading from a V5 to a GF3 is the equivelent of suicide. I would not question the numbers he obtained as I have not do the same tests. but the slant on the review is so blatent that a 5yr old could see it coming. Again I say anybody who buys anything relying on somebody elses opinion without doing some legwork of their own is a fool and deserves to end up with a pile of junk. >PS, be aware that somebody is cross posting this thread into the Nvidia >newsgroup to incite flames so I have taken the liberty of removing it from >my reply. L8r. I dont think he cares if he didn't want a "flame war" he wouldn't have posted in the first place. Ego's just love attention and they really don't care about the source. > >"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Third, The V3 had 22bit color not 16 and the V5 had 32bit color before it >went under so big deal. Yes, and 3dfx's 22/16 bit color was virtually indistinguishable from 32-bit. Certainly VASTLY better looking (and just as fast) than the straight 16-color that the nVidia crowd was forced to use (for performance reasons) in that time frame. When I got my Radian, I was shocked to see how bad straight 16-bit color looked. GROSSLY inferior to the 22/16-bit of my V3... Ironically, even though the Voodoo had better looking graphics in practice (because 32-bit was just too slow), it still took knocks from the nVidia children, just graduating from their Super Nintendos, just because Voodoo didn't have 32-bit color in the check-off box.

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yeah, like the guys who bought TNTs in late '98 and then got their copy of >Quake3 a year later, slapped it in and cranked up the quality to utilize >those detailed textures and 32-bit color, and then fragged away at 5 frames >per second. Oh, but you HAD to have 32-bit color! 32 is better than 16, right??? And don't forget T&L! >Just because you have certain capabilities in hardware doesn't >mean you'll be able to use them when the software eventually comes out. But >people like you who buy into this crap, primarily shoveled by the hardware >press, are the reason nVidia rules the business now. Exactly. A stupid, immature market was there for the FUDing.

Never anonymous Bud <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Taking a moment from the Fredricks catalog, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> spake thusly > >>> And I AM running at 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor. >> >>At what DPI? > >.26, I think. KDS VS19SN.

Cheapest monitor you can buy.

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Just a few comments, since this becoming an increasingly massive task ;<) Good post. Nice to read someone with a brain.

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Here's another guy that believes NOT having features is better than having >them. > >What's with these people anyway, are they on drugs or something? :-) The day >a piece of software comes along that interests you and uses cube environment >maps or dot3 bumpmapping for example, wouldn't it be great if your videocard >actually was equipped to handle it - unlike the V5 and previous >incarnations??? Geez!

Well, that just depends, doesn't it? If the features are FREE, in both dollars and time-to market, sure - bring them on! But they're not free, are they. And if said feature only gets used on a small fraction of games, that themselves do not become available until you've had the card for a year (so you're already thinking of upgrading again), it's not a very good value, now is it?

"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Third, The V3 had 22bit color not 16 and the V5 had 32bit color beforeit

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >went under so big deal. > > Yes, and 3dfx's 22/16 bit color was virtually indistinguishable from > 32-bit. Certainly VASTLY better looking (and just as fast) than the > straight 16-color that the nVidia crowd was forced to use (for > performance reasons) in that time frame. > > When I got my Radian, I was shocked to see how bad straight 16-bit > color looked. GROSSLY inferior to the 22/16-bit of my V3... > > Ironically, even though the Voodoo had better looking graphics in > practice (because 32-bit was just too slow), it still took knocks from > the nVidia children, just graduating from their Super Nintendos, just > because Voodoo didn't have 32-bit color in the check-off box.

Yep, I was in the same boat. Had a perfectly running V3 (still do) but I was lured in by all the 32bit hype and purchased a Radeon. Although I do not regret my purchase I do regret it's ugly 16bit color and now wish I had purchased a Kyro II instead. I would actually still be running my V3 in my main machine it it were properly supported in newer games but now even the Radeon is starting to show it's age. I think it's ironic that you can still read postings from G3 owners having fram rate problems in MOHAA and RTCW. Make you wonder if our OLD cards are really the problem at all.

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Yeah, like the guys who bought TNTs in late '98 and then got their copy of > Quake3 a year later, slapped it in and cranked up the quality to utilize > those detailed textures and 32-bit color, and then fragged away at 5frames > per second. Uhhh... Not exactly, no. Tell me which feature will make today's video cards frag away at 5 fps, please. You aren't really painting a true picture of the situation here, dude. Things have happened since the TNT was released, mebbe it's time to realize that for die-hard 3dfx fans? > Just because you have certain capabilities in hardware doesn't > mean you'll be able to use them when the software eventually comes out.But > people like you who buy into this crap, primarily shoveled by the hardware > press, are the reason nVidia rules the business now. Here we see it again, sore loser syndrome. ;-) <sarcasm>Otoh, 3dfx was a fair company, THEY DECIDED FOR YOU when a particular feature was "needed" and released a card supporting that feature years and years after the competition did. Yeah, that's a much better approach than that Evil Nasty Nvidia. If only all companies competed fairly by making sure they lagged behind 3dfx, I'm sure the state of the gaming market would be MUCH BETTER today...!</sarcasm> > like the guys who were buying all those TNT2 M64s when the GeForce first > came out, because nVidia was best then as well. I have no idea what people you're referring to, but one has to remember that everyone is responsible for making their own decisions (and doing proper research in order to make the right one for them). > I'd think that people who > populate the hardware newsgroups would know better. But I guess I can't > complain if you guys spend $400 on a card that perhaps helps in the > development of better software that I can actually run when released ayear > or two later on my new, faster (but no longer cutting edge) $200 card... Not sure what you're talking about. I got my GF3 in november, it wasn't particulary new by then, it did not cost $400 either, that's just wishful thinking on your behalf. Nor have I preached the virtues of getting $400 video cards, that's just another example of wishful thinking on your behalf. Seems the only defense left for the aging 3dfx fanboys are accusing others of mindlessly and needlessly buying $3-400 (and sometimes more) video cards, that's just SO pathetic. Get real, will ya! Bye! /HB.

"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Well, that just depends, doesn't it? If the features are FREE, in > both dollars and time-to market, sure - bring them on! But they're > not free, are they. Chris, how much is a GF3 200Ti in dollars and cents today? It's not THAT much is it! If you find another video card that in your eyes presents a better value per $, by all means go ahead and buy it. A quick search on Pricewatch shows numerous entries around the $150 mark. Maybe you think that represents poor value? > And if said feature only gets used on a small > fraction of games, that themselves do not become available until > you've had the card for a year (so you're already thinking of > upgrading again), it's not a very good value, now is it? That is certainly a factor that should be considered when thinking of byuing a new video card. Otoh, even IF a certain feature will be under-utilized in the lifespan of proposed video card, your new video card would still run your existing (and upcoming) library of titles faster and better than your current one. With the exception of mebbe Deus Ex and some ancient Glide-only titles which precious few people still play... ;-> Bye! /HB.

> I think it's ironic that you can still read postings from G3 owners having > fram rate problems in MOHAA and RTCW. Make you wonder if our OLD cardsare If people are having framerate problems with RTCW...maybe they should look to see what their system is lacking instead of blaming the GF3...... A computer system needs to have balanced components and throwing a GF3 in a system that is not really able to handle it is folly....but you would know about that.....(Kyro...lol)...hehe

"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Good post. Nice to read someone with a brain. Subtle as always, ChrisV... You go ahead and have a nice day you too. :-/ Bye! /HB.

Taking a moment from the Fredricks catalog, chrisv <[email hidden]> spake thusly >Cheapest monitor you can buy. Not even close. I had a choice of about 10 units in my price range, the KDS looked best and cost almost $90 more than the lowest priced monitor I saw. I could have spent twice as much, and gotten a noticeably better unit, but WHY?? This is a home system, not something I'm doing CAD or photoshop on all day long. To reply by email, remove the XYZ. Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

Wow, that's a great post. -Tim "Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3du38.317262$[email hidden]... > I think you're mostly right about this, but you characterization of what > happened with 3dfx is a little too simplistic. They were a small specialty > company that built add-on PCI 3D-only hardware for gaming and built and > maintained an API to help make this happen. It was apparent that they'dhave > to make a move to AGP-based 2D/3D cards in order to grow beyond this, or > even to maintain their position - the future of high-end graphics was onthe > AGP bus, which meant incorporating 2D, and other companies were beginningto > make inroads into 3D from that position. nVidia was the principal > competition, and the Riva TNT established them as a high-end OEM presenceas > well as a company that could make competent 3D hardware. So 3dfx put outthe > Banshee, which was a middling effort and really just a PCI card using the > AGP bus, but not a bad start. Then they followed it with the similar but > faster Voodoo3, a great real-world, bang-for-the-buck card - $130-180 srp > for V2 SLI-level 3D performance and great 2D. But at the same time theywere > dealing with moving their boardmaking in house, were trying to develop an > OEM base, Glide was dying, probably erred in putting together their 3500 > flagship card, and weren't focusing enough on their next generation, which > had to incorporate all those existing features found in competing cardsand > add new ones and even more speed. > > Meanwhile nVidia was putting out the TNT2, which really wasn't anythingvery > new either, but it was much more at home in the AGP slot and the press > jumped all over 3dfx once it became apparent that it could keep pace with > the V3 in 16-bit benchmarks and could provide playable 32-bit. Then 3dfx > wasn't doing anything right in their eyes, as I said in another post inthis > thread. The coup de grace was the GeForce, which was rushed out to followup > on the TNT2 momentum. The press acted like its hardware T&L was thebiggest > thing since the invention of 3D, and who could tell since there wasn't > anything to actually run on it? Anyway, the actual hardware trickled out, > starting with SDR, then DDR, then 64mb of it months later. It almostwasn't

Quoted text (9 lines)

> so much a piece of hardware as a symbol, and the press said if you didn't > have T&L you might as well box up your PC and start watching TV in six > months. The opposition didn't really help themselves at that point - the > Rage Fury Maxx was too slow and flawed, the Savage 2000 sounded good but > didn't deliver and then S3 was gone, Matrox was silent, and the announced > Voodoo5 didn't show up at all. > > By the time the V5 did show, nVidia was ready for the GF2, which was the > real deal. It was faster, it had enhanced features, the drivers had

matured, > and you could actually buy one. The too-little, too-late V4/5 didn't stand > much of a chance, and it hardly was noticed that T&L games hadn't really > showed yet. 3dfx was done already, and the 6000 never made it out of the > lab. But the death knell had rung the generation before, when 3dfxcouldn't > make the transition from a boutique to a mainstream operation. That theGF2 > GTS was very expensive didn't matter much - nVidia had fully established > their name, so followed the aging TNT2 with the GF2 MX for mid-levelbuyers > and the OEMs to spread their base. > > Since then nVidia has backed off their pace. The GF2 Ultra was just afaster > and more expensive card ($500!) and anyone could have pulled that off, the > GF3 came out a full year after the GF2 and didn't represent a quantum > performance leap, and the Ti thing is just a juggling of speeds and prices > to make it look like they've done something. In comparison, ATi increased > the speed of their flagship Radeon64 Vivo last year and didn't evenmention > it - with nVidia that would have been a product cycle! The reality is that > nVidia hasn't made massive progress in the last two years, much less than > the two years prior to that. The competition hasn't done that well because > its mostly gone - 3dfx and S3 out of business, and Matrox quietly having > withdrawn from the high-end sector after dabbling with one card. But ATihas > come farther in those two years than nVidia, having moved from the Rage > 128-based RF Maxx to the Radeon 8500, every bit the card that the GF3 Ti500 > is and perhaps more. But they haven't gotten the driver and customer > relations stuff together the way they should have for this market, andhave > lost a lot of ground to nVidia in the OEM, mobile and Mac sectors. > > So nVidia made their name by defeating 3dfx, a victory largely based on > flashy features that wowed the press, and on ground that belonged tonVidia > more than 3dfx. They have parlayed that to a broad base that now goesbeyond > PC video cards. But the image of them as this technological steamrollerthat > cranked out new and better cards every six months is a little inaccurate,I

Quoted text (36 lines)

> think. > > "Tony Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Still, all that being said, it has virtually nothing to do with the > > reason why 3dfx went out of business. The reason that 3dfx went under > > is simply that nVidia just blew them away in their core market and > > 3dfx didn't have a niche to drop back on. S3 also got wiped out and > > was sold off. Matrox got blown away but was able to fall back on > > their niche of high-end 2D graphics. ATI was the only company that > > kept within shooting range, though for a while they were only holding > > on due to their strong OEM ties and low cost. nVidia simply set a > > development pace that no one else could match. Everyone else kept > > planning on building a "TNT killer" or "GeForce killer", but by the > > time they got to market, nVidia had already moved on by two > > generations. What's more, nVidia Unified Driver approach gained them > > some popularity with OEMs and also meant that they were able to > > quickly develop really good drivers for ALL their operating systems > > (nVidia to this date remains the only company with really good 3D > > drivers for Linux, being more then twice as fast as their next > > competitors on just about everything). ATI was especially bad for > > this, where their drivers might have worked ok for Win98, but simply > > sucked for Win2K for quite some time (and under Linux a TNT2 m64 will > > beat out a Radeon 8500 any day). > > > > In short, I don't think that many people can really fault 3dfx that > > much for their demise, it was really just that nVidia did a LOT of > > things right and, perhaps more importantly, they did them right now, > > not two years from now. Even Intel, who many feared would totally > > dominate the graphics industry in short order was completely blown > > over by nVidia in the separate graphics chipset market and was > > relegated to the integrated graphics market (where nVidia is already > > making a push at as it is). > > >

You mean Dots Per Inch? That is not a monitor measurement, that's printer/scanner measurement. Do you mean to say color bit depth? -Tim "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2uM38.8675$[email hidden]... > > .26, I think. KDS VS19SN. > > No.....that's dot pitch...I meant DPI..... > > >

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:09:35 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>I think you're mostly right about this, but you characterization of what >happened with 3dfx is a little too simplistic. They were a small specialty >company that built add-on PCI 3D-only hardware for gaming and built and >maintained an API to help make this happen. It was apparent that they'd have >to make a move to AGP-based 2D/3D cards in order to grow beyond this, or >even to maintain their position - the future of high-end graphics was on the >AGP bus, which meant incorporating 2D, and other companies were beginning to >make inroads into 3D from that position. nVidia was the principal >competition, and the Riva TNT established them as a high-end OEM presence as >well as a company that could make competent 3D hardware. So 3dfx put out the >Banshee, which was a middling effort and really just a PCI card using the >AGP bus, but not a bad start.

Their first effort was actually the Voodoo Rush, which was piss poor and probably best forgotten. Banshee was their second attempt at things, and was a marked improvement over the Rush, but wasn't up to par with it's Voodoo2 counterpart.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Then they followed it with the similar but >faster Voodoo3, a great real-world, bang-for-the-buck card - $130-180 srp >for V2 SLI-level 3D performance and great 2D. But at the same time they were >dealing with moving their boardmaking in house, were trying to develop an >OEM base, Glide was dying, probably erred in putting together their 3500 >flagship card, and weren't focusing enough on their next generation, which >had to incorporate all those existing features found in competing cards and >add new ones and even more speed.

Yup, they had to do all the above and they had to do it FAST. They couldn't do it fast enough though.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Meanwhile nVidia was putting out the TNT2, which really wasn't anything very >new either, but it was much more at home in the AGP slot and the press >jumped all over 3dfx once it became apparent that it could keep pace with >the V3 in 16-bit benchmarks and could provide playable 32-bit. Then 3dfx >wasn't doing anything right in their eyes, as I said in another post in this >thread. The coup de grace was the GeForce, which was rushed out to follow up >on the TNT2 momentum. The press acted like its hardware T&L was the biggest >thing since the invention of 3D, and who could tell since there wasn't >anything to actually run on it?

nVidia was hardly the first company to do hardware Transform and Lighting, this was a mainstay of the high-end OpenGL graphics cards for many years prior to the release of the GeForce. What nVidia did was bring this high-end feature out in cards that cost $200-$300, while the professional OpenGL cards were costing $3000-$5000.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Anyway, the actual hardware trickled out, >starting with SDR, then DDR, then 64mb of it months later. It almost wasn't >so much a piece of hardware as a symbol, and the press said if you didn't >have T&L you might as well box up your PC and start watching TV in six >months. The opposition didn't really help themselves at that point - the >Rage Fury Maxx was too slow and flawed, the Savage 2000 sounded good but >didn't deliver and then S3 was gone, Matrox was silent, and the announced >Voodoo5 didn't show up at all.

Yup, that's about it. nVidia delivered, and they delivered MUCH faster then anyone else was able to. Sure, they had their weak points, but they had a lot of strong points to and each new revision of nVidia's cards fixed some of the previous versions weaknesses.

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Since then nVidia has backed off their pace. The GF2 Ultra was just a faster >and more expensive card ($500!) and anyone could have pulled that off, the >GF3 came out a full year after the GF2 and didn't represent a quantum >performance leap, and the Ti thing is just a juggling of speeds and prices >to make it look like they've done something. In comparison, ATi increased >the speed of their flagship Radeon64 Vivo last year and didn't even mention >it - with nVidia that would have been a product cycle! The reality is that >nVidia hasn't made massive progress in the last two years, much less than >the two years prior to that. The competition hasn't done that well because >its mostly gone - 3dfx and S3 out of business, and Matrox quietly having >withdrawn from the high-end sector after dabbling with one card. But ATi has >come farther in those two years than nVidia, having moved from the Rage >128-based RF Maxx to the Radeon 8500, every bit the card that the GF3 Ti 500 >is and perhaps more. But they haven't gotten the driver and customer >relations stuff together the way they should have for this market, and have >lost a lot of ground to nVidia in the OEM, mobile and Mac sectors.

The drivers are a major issue, and I think a large part of the reason why so many OEMs moved to nVidia in the first place. Whether or not they deserve it, ATI has managed to get a reputation for rather poor drivers. In fact, they earned this reputation quite a ways back with the Mach32 (quite possible the absolute WORST drivers for ANY PC component ever), and it hasn't helped that with every new chipset that they come out with its taken them at least 6 months before their drivers are up to par, particularly for anything other then Win9x. The Rage 128 based cards took forever before they had halfway decent drivers for Win2K. >So nVidia made their name by defeating 3dfx, a victory largely based on >flashy features that wowed the press, and on ground that belonged to nVidia >more than 3dfx. They have parlayed that to a broad base that now goes beyond >PC video cards. But the image of them as this technological steamroller that >cranked out new and better cards every six months is a little inaccurate, I >think. For a while, nVidia was a technological steamroller. Their cards might not have been a huge step forward, but they did bring out new models every 6-8 months, while everyone else was trying for huge leaps forward every 2-3 years. This meant that even if another company managed to catch up to nvidia with the release of a new product, 6 month later nVidia had something that was better by just enough to make the competition look like outdated technology. What's more, nVidia quickly expanded to fill all the segments of the PC market, while most others were concentrating on their niches. 3dfx was trying to milk the gamers for all it was worth, ATI was going after the OEMs, Matrox was trying for the 2D business users. nVidia went after them all, from the low-cost OEM cards like the TNT2 m64 (still a mainstay in OEM machines), through the mid-range gaming cards like the GeForce2 MX, up to the high-end gaming cards they're best known for, and they've recently managed to take over a HUGE chunk of the high-end 3D workstation cards with their Quadro line. They had very ambitious plans that were executed well enough that they beat out just about everyone else. I am, however, very glad that ATI is getting back into the swing of things, doing very much like what nVidia was doing in trying to bring out a lot of new products at a lot of different price points. On the lower end of things, ATI has some tremendous value in their older Rage 128 cards (good 2D business and OEM type cards), as well as their low-end Radeon products for the gamers on a budget. On the high-end, the Radeon 8500 has a lot of promise, though it needs better driver support IMO. They're even a really big name in the high-end 3D workstation market with the FireGL line that they recently acquired. Combine that with the fact that they've started selling their chips to third parties, and I think we're starting to see a real resurgence of competition on the graphics card front. This, I think, is a very good thing, because as you mentioned, nVidia hasn't been moving forward nearly as fast as they used to be (they simply haven't needed to). Mind you, the GeForce 4 is just around the corner.

> You mean Dots Per Inch? That is not a monitor measurement, that's > printer/scanner measurement. Do you mean to say color bit depth? What I was getting at is their are many people upping the screen size and then changing the fonts.....96dpi and 120dpi are common.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > You mean Dots Per Inch? That is not a monitor measurement, that's > printer/scanner measurement. Do you mean to say color bit depth? "ZOD" doesn't know what he means. Give it up, there is no one home there. ---- Keith =================

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > -Tim > > > "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2uM38.8675$[email hidden]... > > > .26, I think. KDS VS19SN. > > > > No.....that's dot pitch...I meant DPI..... > > > > > > > > >

In article <rzM38.8772$Fh4.754756 @newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Perhaps not, but I do. History shows that the mass market > > follows the leader. More is better. > > Yada..yada...hehe > > > So you buy crappy tools. Buy a decent graphics card and monitor! > > DOn't assume the rest of us have no class! > > GF3 Ti 500.....22" Viewsonic...I would call that decent, wouldn't you?

Evidently not, if it's fuzzy at 1200x1024, or less. > See what happens when you assume...hehe > Of course you must be used to assuming the position...hehe You are real funny nit-wit. If you have anything to say (no evidence of any lights on upstairs), I'm sure there is someone left to humor you. *PLONK* ---- Keith

"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Never anonymous Bud <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Taking a moment from the Fredricks catalog, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> spakethusly

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > >>> And I AM running at 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor. > >> > >>At what DPI? > > > >.26, I think. KDS VS19SN. > > Cheapest monitor you can buy. > >

And the best deal too. I have two of them and am very impressed. I run a 1600x1200 @ 75Hz desktop and it's sharper than the 19" monitors based on the crappy Trinitron tube (you know, the one with the mask wires). Dot pitch doesn't mean doodly anymore. It's the bandwidth of the electronics and the KDS has a 220MHz bandwidth, which is pretty good (if you can believe printed specs). Just checked the web site. Looks like they stopped printing the bandwidth figure.

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:koY38.17723$[email hidden]... > > "Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Yeah, like the guys who bought TNTs in late '98 and then got their copyof

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Quake3 a year later, slapped it in and cranked up the quality to utilize > > those detailed textures and 32-bit color, and then fragged away at 5 > frames > > per second. > Uhhh... Not exactly, no. > > Tell me which feature will make today's video cards frag away at 5 fps, > please. You aren't really painting a true picture of the situation here, > dude. Things have happened since the TNT was released, mebbe it's time to > realize that for die-hard 3dfx fans?

Not following you, Hans. I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about late '99. I think it's true that hardware has caught up to the games today as compared to then, so it takes longer for this effect to take place. But it still happens - look at the article at AnandTech today on cards running the beta Unreal2/UT2 engine. There are development issues that will make the cards run better when the games do come out, but you can see the framerates dropping. If you look at 12x10 32-bit, no current card even hits 35fps, GF2 Pro/Ti's do 16, my Radeon 14 (sob!). > > Just because you have certain capabilities in hardware doesn't > > mean you'll be able to use them when the software eventually comes out. > But > > people like you who buy into this crap, primarily shoveled by thehardware > > press, are the reason nVidia rules the business now. > > Here we see it again, sore loser syndrome. ;-) > > <sarcasm>Otoh, 3dfx was a fair company, THEY DECIDED FOR YOU when a > particular feature was "needed" and released a card supporting thatfeature > years and years after the competition did. Yeah, that's a much better > approach than that Evil Nasty Nvidia. If only all companies competedfairly > by making sure they lagged behind 3dfx, I'm sure the state of the gaming > market would be MUCH BETTER today...!</sarcasm> Regarding 3dfx, if they hadn't been in the financial condition they were in '99 and had stayed viable, I have no doubt that the state of gaming hardware would be better than it is now. I think their approach was somewhat different than nVidia, moreso than ATi, and a third competitor would have done a lot to spur development. Without their financial difficulty, 3dfx would have gotten their V5 generation out earlier, including the 6000. Since they were still on a .25mu process, their next, die-shrunk generation would have been much faster. Continuing the multichip solution would have changed what the card could do, and things like FSAA at very high resolutions was possible very soon, and other effects as well. There are those who say (and I'm not talking about 3dfx diehards) that the only very good thing to come out of the featureset of the last few generations of cards is FSAA, and 3dfx and ATi have contributed as much as nVidia in this area. As 3dfx faded away nVidia's development slowed and the prices went up - the $200-250 TNTs were followed by the GF256 32mb SDR at $250-300, the GF 32mb DDR at $300-350, the $350-400 GF 64mb DDR, the GF2 GTS at about $350, then the 64mb version at $400-450, and finally the GF2 Ultra at $500 after 3dfx was long gone.They've backed down to the $400 level with the GF3 and Ti 500, probably realizing what the limit was that even gaming fanatics would pay, no longer having to pay so much for 64mb of fast DDR memory, and realizing that they still have a competitor in ATi. But have the advancements in performance over those last two years been worth the bucks? Would the picture have been the same if 3dfx was pushing them all the time? Regarding 3dfx' product decisions. It's not like I bought the card a year or two before its release and then got stuck with their development decisions. I made that decision based on what it could do, my assessment of what it couldn't, and the price. Anyone was free to do that, and it would have been nice if the press coveyed that message. But they didn't, rather they coveyed the type of message that you do, that 3dfx was almost evil, that they were truly bad for gaming, that one would really regret getting one of their cards only six months or so after buying it. I think that kind of bias hurt 3dfx in very real ways, and ultimately lead many people to... > > like the guys who were buying all those TNT2 M64s when the GeForce first > > came out, because nVidia was best then as well. > > I have no idea what people you're referring to, but one has to rememberthat > everyone is responsible for making their own decisions (and doing proper > research in order to make the right one for them). ...buy cards that didn't perform very well at all but had that TNT2 name that the press touted so much. It's that low-end base in OEM and retail boards that has benefitted nVidia greatly in terms of profits, name recognition, wider OEM penetration. That's a big part of the reason ATi decided to redouble their efforts in the high-end gaming arena, I think, to help protect their low-end and OEM base.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > I'd think that people who > > populate the hardware newsgroups would know better. But I guess I can't > > complain if you guys spend $400 on a card that perhaps helps in the > > development of better software that I can actually run when released a > year > > or two later on my new, faster (but no longer cutting edge) $200 card... > > Not sure what you're talking about. I got my GF3 in november, it wasn't > particularly new by then, it did not cost $400 either, that's just wishful > thinking on your behalf. Nor have I preached the virtues of getting $400 > video cards, that's just another example of wishful thinking on your

behalf. > > Seems the only defense left for the aging 3dfx fanboys are accusing others > of mindlessly and needlessly buying $3-400 (and sometimes more) videocards, > that's just SO pathetic. The prices I mention are suggested retail at release, since that's about the best relative measure I can think of. Your GF3 purchase came after the release of the Ti "generation", so should have been less, and you may not have bought it off the shelf in a typical retail outlet. No matter - I paid $180 for my Radeon64 DDR Vivo early last year, but I would refer to it as a $400 card since that's what SRP was at release. I don't really care what you paid for your card, I'm just indicating prices to show relative measurements, between nVidia cards and others, between generations of nVidia cards. And I'm not some bitter 3dfx fanboy living in the past. I think they made some very good cards, did a lot for 3D gaming in the early days, and I do wish they were still around for everyone's sake. I could easily say that you and the other "nVidiots" love to crow over your victory over 3dfx that was measured by a company going out of business, love to cite benchmarks and wiz-bang features, but ignore the price of admission to the nVidia club, the lack of real, measurable benefit from those features you tout, and the cost of the loss of competition to everyone. But I won't. Finally, I'll leave you with a few words from John Carmack early last year on your precious GF3's programmable shaders: "Now we come to the pixel shaders, where I have the most serious issues. I can just ignore this most of the time, but the way the pixel shader functionality turned out is painfully limited, and not what it should have been. "DX8 tries to pretend that pixel shaders live on hardware that is a lot more general than the reality. "Nvidia's OpenGL extensions expose things much more the way they actually are: the existing register combiners functionality extended to eight stages with a couple tweaks, and the texture lookup engine is configurable to interact between textures in a list of specific ways. "I'm sure it started out as a better design, but it apparently got cut and cut until it really looks like the old BumpEnvMap feature writ large: it does a few specific special effects that were deemed important, at the expense of a properly general solution. "Yes, it does full bumpy cubic environment mapping, but you still can't just do some math ops and look the result up in a texture. I was disappointed on this count with the [original] Radeon as well, which was just slightly too hardwired to the DX BumpEnvMap capabilities to allow more general dependent texture use. "Enshrining the capabilities of this mess in DX8 sucks. Other companies had potentially better approaches, but they are now forced to dumb them down to the level of the GF3 for the sake of compatibility. Hopefully we can still see some of the extra flexibility in OpenGL extensions." Kinda looks like the same ol' story...

Taking a moment from the Fredricks catalog, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> spake thusly >What I was getting at is their are many people upping the screen size and >then changing the fonts.....96dpi and 120dpi are common. I'm using the default 96dpi font. Most of my friends think it's WAY too small, but it works for me. To reply by email, remove the XYZ. Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

> "ZOD" doesn't know what he means. Give it up, there is no one > home there. Yada...yada....go crawl back under that rock, wormboy..hehe

> Evidently not, if it's fuzzy at 1200x1024, or less. I never said it was fuzzy...just too small for my liking. Pay attention...hehe > You are real funny nit-wit. If you have anything to say (no > evidence of any lights on upstairs), I'm sure there is someone > left to humor you. And you are a total moron.......hehe > *PLONK* Yeah...I got yer 3200x2000 right here! Hehe.....

"Tony Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Their first effort was actually the Voodoo Rush, which was piss poor > and probably best forgotten. Banshee was their second attempt at > things, and was a marked improvement over the Rush, but wasn't up to > par with it's Voodoo2 counterpart. Right, I forgot the Rush, probably because it was so damned forgettable. I didn't mention the nVidia Riva 128 either, which was much the same and also paled in comparison to the V2. > > Anyway, the actual hardware trickled out, > >starting with SDR, then DDR, then 64mb of it months later. It almostwasn't

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >so much a piece of hardware as a symbol, and the press said if you didn't > >have T&L you might as well box up your PC and start watching TV in six > >months. The opposition didn't really help themselves at that point - the > >Rage Fury Maxx was too slow and flawed, the Savage 2000 sounded good but > >didn't deliver and then S3 was gone, Matrox was silent, and the announced > >Voodoo5 didn't show up at all. > > Yup, that's about it. nVidia delivered, and they delivered MUCH > faster then anyone else was able to. Sure, they had their weak > points, but they had a lot of strong points to and each new revision > of nVidia's cards fixed some of the previous versions weaknesses.

The first GeForce256 wasn't really all that much faster in terms of framerates in its first version, with 32mb of SDR memory, than a TNT2 Ultra. The chip was slower (120mhz vs. 150 to 175) but the expanded pipelines more than offset that, and the memory was at 166mhz, SLOWER than the Ultra's 183. It was adding DDR memory and, since texture compression wasn't in play, then later 64mb of it that really made the card, which is the same old basic story - high fill rate (via the core structure) and high memory bandwidth. 3dfx was staggering under all of their changes and losing money, and had gone down the road of a multichip solution, in part to deal with the memory bandwidth issue. On top of all of that they couldn't add DDR to the mix while trying to get the delayed V5 out, and had nothing left after that. But it might have been close - what if the 5500 had come out in the late fall of '99 against the first GF, and the 6000 against the GF 64mb DDR in early '00? The 6000 was absurdly priced but at that not much more than the high-end GF, would have crushed any GF in benchmarks, and the 5500 beat the GF SDR and was about equal to a DDR. Then maybe another round, probably coming up against the GF2 Ultra, and a V6 might have been a lot faster, have DDR memory, texture compression offsets the 32mb per chip price limitation, T&L to placate the press, and even a twin chip card could have badly beaten the Ultra. Then what? Didn't happen, of course, but could have changed everything. Maybe we'd be playing at 1600x1200 with 16X FSAA at 100fps if it had, Voodoo, Radeon, GeForce or whatever...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> What's more, > nVidia quickly expanded to fill all the segments of the PC market, > while most others were concentrating on their niches. 3dfx was trying > to milk the gamers for all it was worth, ATI was going after the OEMs, > Matrox was trying for the 2D business users. nVidia went after them > all, from the low-cost OEM cards like the TNT2 m64 (still a mainstay > in OEM machines), through the mid-range gaming cards like the GeForce2 > MX, up to the high-end gaming cards they're best known for, and > they've recently managed to take over a HUGE chunk of the high-end 3D > workstation cards with their Quadro line. They had very ambitious > plans that were executed well enough that they beat out just about > everyone else.

I don't know that I'd see it quite that way. nVidia had a notable OEM share as early as the Riva 128 but no real 3D rep, while 3dfx didn't really seriously try to move out of the 3D add-on or upgrade sector until they started making their own boards with the V3 - they came from different sectors. During the V3/TNT battle, nVidia was much more successful at moving into the 3D gamers scene than V3 was at moving into the OEM market, in part because nVidia had already made inroads with the TNT and in part because OEMs won't switch allegances as quickly as gamers, and I don't know if the Voodoo name and rep meant good things to them. Matrox was and is a 2D business market company, and dabbled in higher-end 3D stuff only once, with the G400. ATi started seriously trying for the gaming sector with the Rage128/Rage Fury, which was supposed to go up against the TNT and Banshee but was late to market, and then the RF Pro and RF Maxx with the same results. They only scored with the Radeon, but weren't terribly far off (outside of the drivers) prior to that, maybe six months. But they had all the other consumer bases covered already - OEM, Mac, mobile. They've expanded into mobo chipsets and consoles the same as nVidia, and now are moving into 3D workstation. But nVidia's gains in every sector are impressive any way you look at it. > I am, however, very glad that ATI is getting back into the swing of > things... Combine that with the fact that they've started selling theirchips to > third parties, and I think we're starting to see a real resurgence of > competition on the graphics card front. This, I think, is a very good > thing, because as you mentioned, nVidia hasn't been moving forward > nearly as fast as they used to be (they simply haven't needed to). > Mind you, the GeForce 4 is just around the corner. Agreed. We just need a third player to make it all really work for us.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 06:28:31 GMT, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> "ZOD" doesn't know what he means. Give it up, there is no one >> home there. > >Yada...yada....go crawl back under that rock, wormboy..hehe Hey CLOD, why do your posts just hang there like week old shit matted into the fur around a poodle's asshole? Enquiring minds, etc. -- xaodox <[email hidden]> Slurps me big time in Message-ID: <T1Ff5.78$[email hidden]> Trent Worthington, is a God a warrior and a gent, we are not fit to suck his feet or dine on his excrement. At night we crune by the light of the moon of his courage and his creed, long live the Worthington seed. Trent Trent, top of the hero class, Trent, Trent we live to kiss his ass. Visit a web page dedicated to me by my newest leg-humper: Ste Jones <[email hidden]> AKA [email hidden] http://www.geocities.com/da_stoned_monkey_2000/

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:38:26 -0800, "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Wow, that's a great post. Let me guess, you just graduated from AOL. Eat the barrel of a shotgun, moron <snip 105 line post that Timmy top-posted to and quoted, just to say "ME TOO!"> -- xaodox <[email hidden]> Slurps me big time in Message-ID: <T1Ff5.78$[email hidden]> Trent Worthington, is a God a warrior and a gent, we are not fit to suck his feet or dine on his excrement. At night we crune by the light of the moon of his courage and his creed, long live the Worthington seed. Trent Trent, top of the hero class, Trent, Trent we live to kiss his ass. Visit a web page dedicated to me by my newest leg-humper: Ste Jones <[email hidden]> AKA [email hidden] http://www.geocities.com/da_stoned_monkey_2000/

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 06:31:11 GMT, "CLOD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> Evidently not, if it's fuzzy at 1200x1024, or less. > >I never said it was fuzzy...just too small for my liking. >Pay attention...hehe > >> You are real funny nit-wit. If you have anything to say (no >> evidence of any lights on upstairs), I'm sure there is someone >> left to humor you. > >And you are a total moron.......hehe > >> *PLONK* > >Yeah...I got yer 3200x2000 right here! >Hehe.....

They say that nature abhors a vacuum, so how do you keep your cranium from imploding? -- xaodox <[email hidden]> Slurps me big time in Message-ID: <T1Ff5.78$[email hidden]> Trent Worthington, is a God a warrior and a gent, we are not fit to suck his feet or dine on his excrement. At night we crune by the light of the moon of his courage and his creed, long live the Worthington seed. Trent Trent, top of the hero class, Trent, Trent we live to kiss his ass. Visit a web page dedicated to me by my newest leg-humper: Ste Jones <[email hidden]> AKA [email hidden] http://www.geocities.com/da_stoned_monkey_2000/

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Subtle as always, ChrisV... > >You go ahead and have a nice day you too. :-/ Well, you made some good points, too, Hans. 8) I think we all agree with you that 3dfx's downfall was largely their own doing, the reasons which you stated. You don't lose that much of a lead in the market without being partially to blame. They were outdone by Nvidia, technically. One thing I will remind, however, is that 3dfx had a challenge that nVidia did not: they had to add all these fancy new features to a dated architecture while retaining backwards compatibility with the original Voodoo/Glide system. nVidia was under no such restraint, having started with a clean-sheet design later in the game.

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

>"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Well, that just depends, doesn't it? If the features are FREE, in >> both dollars and time-to market, sure - bring them on! But they're >> not free, are they. > >Chris, how much is a GF3 200Ti in dollars and cents today? It's not THAT >much is it! > >If you find another video card that in your eyes presents a better value per >$, by all means go ahead and buy it. A quick search on Pricewatch shows >numerous entries around the $150 mark. Maybe you think that represents poor >value? > >> And if said feature only gets used on a small >> fraction of games, that themselves do not become available until >> you've had the card for a year (so you're already thinking of >> upgrading again), it's not a very good value, now is it? > >That is certainly a factor that should be considered when thinking of byuing >a new video card. Otoh, even IF a certain feature will be under-utilized in >the lifespan of proposed video card, your new video card would still run >your existing (and upcoming) library of titles faster and better than your >current one. With the exception of mebbe Deus Ex and some ancient Glide-only >titles which precious few people still play... ;->

One thing I will concede: I don't think that adding rarely-used features is necessarily "bad". There is obviously a "chicken and egg" situation where the software for the feature won't get made until hardware is available, and vice-versa. nVidia deserves credit for being the one pushing out the hardware features, so that software will be written to take advantage of them, even if it's a couple years delay in-between.

> Voodoo/Glide system. nVidia was under no such restraint, having > started with a clean-sheet design later in the game. No...Nvidia chose to use an 'open' standard. Although 3dfx kicked off a revolution....they just started on the wrong foot. It's that same thinking that Apple has. Can you imagine how big Apple would be today if they had not been so greedy and controlling? People like to portray Gates that way but those same people say nothing about Jobs....amazing...hehe

http://www.omegacorner.com/ V3/4/5 WIN9X/ME OMEGA DRIVERS 1.02 "SPECIAL" DRIVERS [1.73MB] From: ����

Dialup accounts must suck, huh? <sniff sniff> "Trent Worthington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:38:26 -0800, "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Wow, that's a great post. > > Let me guess, you just graduated from AOL. > Eat the barrel of a shotgun, moron > > <snip 105 line post that Timmy top-posted to and quoted, just to say > "ME TOO!"> > > -- > > xaodox <[email hidden]> Slurps me big time in > Message-ID: <T1Ff5.78$[email hidden]> > > Trent Worthington, is a God a warrior and a gent, > we are not fit to suck his feet or dine on his excrement. > At night we crune by the light of the moon of his courage and his creed, > long live the Worthington seed. > Trent Trent, top of the hero class, > Trent, Trent we live to kiss his ass. > > Visit a web page dedicated to me by my newest leg-humper: > Ste Jones <[email hidden]> AKA [email hidden] > http://www.geocities.com/da_stoned_monkey_2000/

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:39:05 -0800, "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Dialup accounts must suck, huh? <sniff sniff> It's not a matter of whether I'm on dialup or not, you worthless waste of carbon. It's a matter of how to post to usenet properly. Fuck, I'll bet you couldn't count your balls and get the same answer twice.

Trent Worthington <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > It's not a matter of whether I'm on dialup or not, you worthless waste > of carbon. It's a matter of how to post to usenet properly. Fuck, I'll > bet you couldn't count your balls and get the same answer twice. Trent, can I get an autographed copy of your upcoming book of insults?

"Trent Worthington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:39:05 -0800, "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Dialup accounts must suck, huh? <sniff sniff> > > It's not a matter of whether I'm on dialup or not, you worthless waste > of carbon. It's a matter of how to post to usenet properly. Fuck, I'll > bet you couldn't count your balls and get the same answer twice.

Thank you for the 'how to post to newsgroups' lesson dickhead. I now know how to properly reply to messages from fuckwits like you. Fuck you very much! -Tim

"SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:yE_08.932$[email hidden]... > Whatever. Your boring insults don't hide the fact that the GeForce3 is an > upgrade for the Voodoo5 in each and every category. > > Visual Quality, Speed, Ease of use and Price. It certainly is an upgrade in Price!

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > They say that nature abhors a vacuum, so how do you keep your cranium > from imploding? By not understanding the words? "Cranium" and "imploding" are three syllables, you know. ---- Keith

"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... One thing I will concede: I don't think that adding rarely-used > features is necessarily "bad". There is obviously a "chicken and egg" > situation where the software for the feature won't get made until > hardware is available, and vice-versa. nVidia deserves credit for > being the one pushing out the hardware features, so that software will > be written to take advantage of them, even if it's a couple years > delay in-between. There's something to be said for this, but the problem is that I don't like having to pay for them, particularly ones that have absolutely no application whatsoever. I simply don't want to pay my money for cards that include stuff that may or may not be at all usable down the road on that card, or that may not ever be of any use on any card. Gaming isn't some charity. So I'd like a choice between spending a shitload of money on a card that includes this stuff and considerably less for a card that may or may not age quite as gracefully, may or may not contribute to the greater good of the future of gaming in some way, but just does the best job on the stuff that's out there to play. I don't really think most gamers want to spend hard-earned dollars on that stuff either, but I think a lot of people don't know any different, so buy those features anyway. I also think a lot of nVidia defenders tote this line because that's what nVidia and its supporters in the press have been spouting for years now. Do these guys defend buying a Pentium 4 over a cheaper Athlon because someday the chip's structure will pay off, once it gets fast enough and apps are written for it? I doubt it. The problem now is that ATi does much the same thing as nVidia (although not quite as bad), and I'm sure what happened to 3dfx and how nVidia has succeeded doing this is the main reason why. All I want is a choice.

> and I'm sure what happened to 3dfx and how nVidia has >succeeded doing this is the main reason why. It certainly didn't help when 3dfx decided to give all of their distributors an unfriendly rim job. C//

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KNh48.14236$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Voodoo/Glide system. nVidia was under no such restraint, having > > started with a clean-sheet design later in the game. > > No...Nvidia chose to use an 'open' standard. > Although 3dfx kicked off a revolution....they just started on the wrong > foot. > It's that same thinking that Apple has. Can you imagine how big Apple

would > be today if they had not been so greedy and controlling? > People like to portray Gates that way but those same people say nothing > about Jobs....amazing...hehe Don't quite agree. I do agree with what Tony H. said about Glide, it was built on the basics of OpenGL but simplified and optimized for games. This was a critically important part of the beginning of 3D PC gaming - a company that built very good hardware and also made it possible for software designers to build software that would run well on that hardware by designing and maintaining an API. Most of the other 3D pretenders not only didn't make very good 3D hardware but also weren't committed enough to make sure that there would be stuff to run on it - D3D was a mess and OGL wasn't much of anything in gaming until Carmack and GLQuake/Quake2. nVidia was just trying to make it as a mainstream board maker, decided that the high-end approach that included 3D was the route that they were going to take, saw OpenGL and particularly D3D potentially coming of age and other graphics chip brands like ATi, 3DLabs, PowerVR and S3 depending on these open standards as well, so stayed that course. 3dfx did have an issue over time with this. They did have to maintain Glide and tried to encourage designers to use it, because it had become an advantage to them - a huge game base in Glide would discourage anyone from buying from a competitor. Over time that became a liability, however, because the effort wasn't worth the results in terms of new games or card sales - in part because people like Tom Pabst tried to pretend it didn't exist or wasn't much of an issue when it still was (and I think Glide was the real reason these reviewers had it in for 3dfx). Eventually they open-sourced it, but just mere weeks before they went under. But I think that any company which had invested in an API like 3dfx did and that then resulted in a competitive advantage would have hung onto it, including nVidia. The Apple comparison isn't really valid - 3dfx cards could run OGL and D3D games just like the others and they didn't end up running only Glide stuff in some small little corner of the gaming scene, while Macs couldn't run DOS and Windows software, so ended up being marginalized. Glide was bound to die once 3dfx lost that market dominance that they had with the Voodoo/V2 and the other APIs became well-supported standards, and that didn't have to take 3dfx down with it at all. But that problem came on top of a lot of others, and they did go down. In fact, I could see this whole thing happening all over again. If nVidia was to become truly dominant, what's to stop them from having their own proprietary API? They are in business with MS with the X-box, one of their primary competitors in the console sector is ATi, and the two could get together to make sure that D3D is optimized for nVidia hardware and not ATi, and that would push all other card makers out as well. One hand washes the other, and they both become dominant in both PC and console gaming, and we're all f*cked...

Ok, all of you bitches: Go and play with your V3/V4/V5/Vx, or Gspot_Force or whatever before I bitch-slap all of ya. Yo man, stop acting like a bitch and go play with ya games. :-) Andy Lee <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (65 lines)

> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:30:54 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Forget it Pop, > >The very content of the subject line of this thread is enough to bring every > >uninformed idiot out of the woodwork just to jump on your butt. > > > > Which is exactly why he posted in the first place > > >The first time I saw you bring up this subject again I knew you were in for > >a long flame war with a bunch of lemmings. > > dunno about lemming but if the guy wants to post stuff and not expect > to get responses then he souldn't post but as I already said he knew > exactly what sort of response he was going to get hence the "I don't > care what anybody says" line in his post > > > > >Some of us fortunately are not conditioned to always buy the corporate line > >and highly appreciate unbiased REAL WORLD evaluations. > > Yeah right "Real World" if you think all this BS and my dicks better > than your disk BS is the real world then boy do you need help > > > > >I personally still run a V3 2000 and 3000 as well as a Radeon and Rage128 > >card and the old Voodoos still hold their own even in WinXP. I am toying > >with buying a Kyro II card but am hesitant right now as the Kyro II Ultra > >and maybe even the Kyro III are around the corner. I do not feel like > >paying $200 for an 8500 but that's my other option. Any idea how a Kyro II > >might fare running RTCW and Opfor? Im thinking my Radeon 32 SDR can't > >handle it well in 1024x768x32 and figure a Kyro II would deal with it. > >Think I should wait? > > > > Personally I think you should buy whatever makes YOU happy and take > absolutley NO notice of whatever anybody else says or does. It's your > $$$ spend them how you like do your own research. if you can do your > own side by side comparisons come to your own conclusions. If you take > all "reviews" with a pinch of salt then you wont go far wrong. > > My opinion of the comparison done on said webpage is this > > The author very obviously cherry picked the numbers from his test to > give the answers he needed to put forward his own personal > tastes/opinions. Anybody could quite easily do other tests that could > make it seem like NOT upgrading from a V5 to a GF3 is the equivelent > of suicide. I would not question the numbers he obtained as I have not > do the same tests. but the slant on the review is so blatent that a > 5yr old could see it coming. > > Again I say anybody who buys anything relying on somebody elses > opinion without doing some legwork of their own is a fool and deserves > to end up with a pile of junk. > > >PS, be aware that somebody is cross posting this thread into the Nvidia > >newsgroup to incite flames so I have taken the liberty of removing it from > >my reply. L8r. > > I dont think he cares if he didn't want a "flame war" he wouldn't have > posted in the first place. Ego's just love attention and they really > don't care about the source. > > > > >"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> What would you run on a 17" then? 1440 is rarely available and would be >way >> too small. 1280 is okay-ish, but unless it's a sharp tube things will get >> fuzzy. 1024 isn't big enough. 1152 is a good compromise, I think. > >1024 not big enough on a 17"? Are you ok? >Seek professional help, ok...hehe

Then what do you run on a 17" or your 22"? The little lost angel & her featherhead's 2 cents worth of dreaminess.

"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Thank you for the 'how to post to newsgroups' lesson dickhead. Trent is a well-known internet troll (who likely does not have much "real" life, and get an automatic addition to my killfile in every ng I see him). Since trolls feed on replies, don't reply to him. ;-) Bye! /HB.

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Over time that became a liability, however, > because the effort wasn't worth the results in terms of new games or card > sales - in part because people like Tom Pabst tried to pretend it didn't > exist or wasn't much of an issue when it still was Oh yeah, let's all BLAME TOM PABST shall we! Please note that even though Tom may consider himself influential, he only reaches those overclocking geek-ish people that actually spend considerable time reading hardware websites such as his own, and possibly their friends. That's not a very large percentage of the people of planet Earth, you know! ;-) Let's ignore the fact that 3dfx boards were sold almost exclusively retail, and the retail computer market is not very big. After they started up their own boardmaking, 3dfx could brag about being the best-selling retail brand even up to its not very unfortunate demise. However, since by then, 3dfx was the ONLY brand selling 3dfx boards, that meant they got far outsold by the competition (mainly Nvidia) that was spread across a multitude of brands. > (and I think Glide was > the real reason these reviewers had it in for 3dfx). Glide WAS limited, it lacked all forms of expandability and had a habit of being slightly incompatible even with the extremely minor upgrades (apart from speed increases) to their own hardware that 3dfx did release. Had glide been as flexible as the opengl it was based on, and 3dfx actually spent time improving other aspects of their boards than simply speed, then the situation might have been different. And, of course, it only ran on 3dfx boards. 3dfx had a nasty habit of sending angry lawyer letters to people attempting to develop glide wrappers, thus helping to ensure glide would stay entrenched on their hardware only. As for me personally, the thing that ticked me off about glide was that every glide-only game was a game I could not play. I don't like people that makes themselves intentionally incompatible with the rest of the universe and then tries to use that incompatibility as an advantage and a sales-tool. Microsoft's behaviour I more or less *had* to accept, but not 3dfx's. Glad they're gone. > In fact, I could see this whole thing happening all over again. If nVidia > was to become truly dominant, what's to stop them from having their own > proprietary API? Uh, DUHHH. The market is. Where would this new miracle Nvidia API come from? Who would support it? No developer in their right mind would support an API that they have to: A - learn themselves from the ground up and figure out how to best utilize. B - only runs on one brand's products. C - has zero installed user base at launch. Nvidia knows this, they're not stupid you know. ;-) That's why they're not tried to take over the world with their own API. Besides, it would just mean even more driver development costs for them. > They are in business with MS with the X-box, one of their > primary competitors in the console sector is ATi, and the two could get > together to make sure that D3D is optimized for nVidia hardware and notATi, > and that would push all other card makers out as well. Except, they'd be slapped with an anti-competition lawsuit in an instant or less. Something like that would definitely not help MS in their ongoing battle with the DoJ for example. Bye! /HB.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:27:32 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum" >"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >3dfx did have an issue over time with this. They did have to maintain Glide >and tried to encourage designers to use it, because it had become an >advantage to them - a huge game base in Glide would discourage anyone from >buying from a competitor. 3DFX tried to make effective 3D a private fiefdom much as DOS-era sound was for Creative's "Sound Blaster". Any fallout from this would be richly deserved, IMO - that the PC dominates personal computing is more through a revulsion of proprietary lock-in than inherent beauty. >------------ ----- --- -- - - - -Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n) >------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 3DFX tried to make effective 3D a private fiefdom much as DOS-era > sound was for Creative's "Sound Blaster". Any fallout from this would > be richly deserved, IMO - that the PC dominates personal computing is > more through a revulsion of proprietary lock-in than inherent beauty. Huh? Hate to jump into this debate but have you ever heard of Direct 3D? You do know that all 3Dfx cards are D3D compatible right? Nobody shoved Glide down anybody's throat. YOU and I had a choice and those of us that chose a Glide card or Glide compatible game did so out of consideration of performance vs cost. No conspiracy there. BTW, thanks for getting ZOD past my two year old anti-Zod killfile.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:17:23 GMT, "Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Thank you for the 'how to post to newsgroups' lesson dickhead. > >Trent is a well-known internet troll Troll? Moi? >(who likely does not have much "real" >life, Ahh, the "he doesn't have a life lame." I haven't heard *that* one before. *yawn* > and get an automatic addition to my killfile in every ng I see him). SPANK! >Since trolls feed on replies, don't reply to him. ;-) Your dad should have pulled out. -- xaodox <[email hidden]> Slurps me big time in Message-ID: <T1Ff5.78$[email hidden]> Trent Worthington, is a God a warrior and a gent, we are not fit to suck his feet or dine on his excrement. At night we crune by the light of the moon of his courage and his creed, long live the Worthington seed. Trent Trent, top of the hero class, Trent, Trent we live to kiss his ass. Visit a web page dedicated to me by my newest leg-humper: Ste Jones <[email hidden]> AKA [email hidden] http://www.geocities.com/da_stoned_monkey_2000/

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:19:55 -0800, "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>"Trent Worthington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:39:05 -0800, "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> >> wrote: >> >> >Dialup accounts must suck, huh? <sniff sniff> >> >> It's not a matter of whether I'm on dialup or not, you worthless waste >> of carbon. It's a matter of how to post to usenet properly. Fuck, I'll >> bet you couldn't count your balls and get the same answer twice. > >Thank you for the 'how to post to newsgroups' lesson dickhead.

You're very welcome. I know it's probably wrong of me to attack such a helpless moron, whose posts are redolent of a small, frightened bunny transfixed by the glare of a juggernaut's headlights, but I'll just have to live with that. >I now know >how to properly reply to messages from fuckwits like you. Hey, That's a wonderful achievement, seeing as how we're talking about a guy (you) who's still trying to make two-letter words fit into ten spaces in the TV Guide crossword puzzle. Stay tuned for tomorrow's lesson: How to NOT make a fool of yourself on usenet. >Fuck you very >much! Thanks for the offer, but I don't go for the wart-ridden dwarf look. HAND. -- xaodox <[email hidden]> Slurps me big time in Message-ID: <T1Ff5.78$[email hidden]> Trent Worthington, is a God a warrior and a gent, we are not fit to suck his feet or dine on his excrement. At night we crune by the light of the moon of his courage and his creed, long live the Worthington seed. Trent Trent, top of the hero class, Trent, Trent we live to kiss his ass. Visit a web page dedicated to me by my newest leg-humper: Ste Jones <[email hidden]> AKA [email hidden] http://www.geocities.com/da_stoned_monkey_2000/

> Then what do you run on a 17" or your 22"? I run 1024 on a 17" and up to 1280x1024 on a 22"......

> Trent is a well-known internet troll (who likely does not have much "real" > life, and get an automatic addition to my killfile in every ng I see him). > Since trolls feed on replies, don't reply to him. ;-) Now that's a shocker..hehe

> BTW, thanks for getting ZOD past my two year old anti-Zod killfile. Stupid little muppet....hehe

> Don't quite agree. I do agree with what Tony H. said about Glide, it was > built on the basics of OpenGL but simplified and optimized for games. This > was a critically important part of the beginning of 3D PC gaming - acompany > that built very good hardware and also made it possible for software > designers to build software that would run well on that hardware by ....and run on that hardware only...that is not what OpenGL is about dude...hehe > much of anything in gaming until Carmack and GLQuake/Quake2. nVidia wasjust True... > buying from a competitor. Over time that became a liability, however, > because the effort wasn't worth the results in terms of new games or card Look at the MAC platform.....it has almost stood still compared to the PC..... This is a direct result of using non-open standard hardware/software. This approach will never win..... > But I think that any company which had invested in an API like 3dfx didand > that then resulted in a competitive advantage would have hung onto it, > including nVidia. The Apple comparison isn't really valid - 3dfx cardscould > run OGL and D3D games just like the others and they didn't end up running My point is that 3dfx had the power and influence to go to an open standard but chose the easy way instead. The fact is they knew they could not compete on an even playing field and hence the choices they made...hehe They wanted that edge Glide gave them and so what if gamers suffer because all the new open standard hardware suffered because of their non-open standard. > In fact, I could see this whole thing happening all over again. If nVidia > was to become truly dominant, what's to stop them from having their own Yeah, that's logic there......dude...you are really confused...hehe Nvidia has helped pc gaming and dev more than any graphics hardware maker to date...bar none!

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Trent is a well-known internet troll > > Since trolls feed on replies, don't reply to him. ;-) > Now that's a shocker..hehe Well, you should know, you little Zod-troll. "hehe" The reason why I haven't bothered to killfile you yet is that Trent, despite all his other shortcomings (mainly in the personality and behaviour aspects), is a lot smarter than you and hence much more annoying. With you, one knows you'll get a simple knee-jerk insult if one criticizes iNHELL or Nvidia, usually with a "hehe" tagged on at the end. That's more like a minor nuisance in comparison... Bye! /HB.

> The reason why I haven't bothered to killfile you yet is that Trent,despite > all his other shortcomings (mainly in the personality and behaviour > aspects), is a lot smarter than you and hence much more annoying. Withyou, Now now Hans...just because my 23.11's work great doesn't mean you need to insult my intelligence...hehe

"Hans Bergengren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:z%t48.11160$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote: > sales - in part because people like Tom Pabst tried to pretend it didn't > > exist or wasn't much of an issue when it still was > Please note that even though Tom may consider himself influential, he only > reaches those overclocking geek-ish people that actually spend

considerable > time reading hardware websites such as his own, and possibly theirfriends. > That's not a very large percentage of the people of planet Earth, youknow! That's true, but people like that have a ripple effect. If Pabst, Sharky Ross, Anand Lal Shimpi, et al made certain statements about the benefits and liabilities of cards, those would get regurgetated in discussion groups and would seem to be relied upon by more mainstream PC sources such as PC Mag and PC World, who just take cursory looks at things like graphic cards, and eventually the word spread and more casual buyers would get the message that what they said in the beginning was gospel. I think it has a real effect. There are those you see every day here that were interested in buying a new card that includes gaming capability, post a general opinion question, get a reference to a site like Pabst's, go to the article, would have seen things like UT D3D benchmarks, saw a GeForce running at about the same speed as a V5, but were never told that running the game in Glide would make it both faster and better looking on the V5, and anyone owning one would never run it in D3D. Or they would read that article I cited earlier, would be told in effect that Glide meant nothing, that Glide games are actually OGL games. I think it's irrisponsible jourmalism, that it had an impact, and we know who it helped and hurt. > Let's ignore the fact that 3dfx boards were sold almost exclusivelyretail, > and the retail computer market is not very big. After they started uptheir > own boardmaking, 3dfx could brag about being the best-selling retail brand > even up to its not very unfortunate demise. However, since by then, 3dfxwas > the ONLY brand selling 3dfx boards, that meant they got far outsold by the > competition (mainly Nvidia) that was spread across a multitude of brands. You're absolutely right about this, except that I believe during '99 the V3s outsold all TNT2s on a retail basis, at least until the cheapie M64s flooded the market. But what you point out is important - by '99 3dfx was a small company working in a limited area and nVidia was a much larger company that had significant OEM contracts which built their profits and R&D budget. Both were dwarfed by ATi, however, which not only had a huge OEM base but also had the mobile, Mac and multimedia sectors as well. So the David vs. Goliath aspect of this is often backward in the minds of many, even though nVidia caught and passed 3dfx in retail gaming boards at that point. I don't think 3dfx ever got any farther than about 5-7% of all boards sold for PCs (retail and as sold PC components). > > (and I think Glide was > > the real reason these reviewers had it in for 3dfx). > > Glide WAS limited, it lacked all forms of expandability and had a habit of > being slightly incompatible even with the extremely minor upgrades (apart > from speed increases) to their own hardware that 3dfx did release. Hadglide > been as flexible as the opengl it was based on, and 3dfx actually spenttime > improving other aspects of their boards than simply speed, then the > situation might have been different. I retrospect you might be right. But a more complex API wasn't necessary and in fact probably a liability at the time 3dfx (or 3DFX at that time) built Glide. OpenGL was out there and was open source, so would have been easier to use in that respect, but no one decided to use it until Carmack. I would guess that Glide's limitations probably did effect the development path of 3dfx cards, but look at when that happened - their decisions weren't made in '99, but rather much earlier, at the time that Voodoo cards were unquestionably the best on the market, that cards in general were just too slow, and that the realities of gaming just didn't include some of those features. The lesson 3dfx learned was that rendering speed was the key, and you can't argue that this was true - and is today as well. The feature set nVidia was praised for in '99 arose out of their 2D AGP experience, I think. 32-bit color, large textures, high resolutions, AGP texturing all came out of this. 4mb cards of that day like the Riva 128 were capable of using 32-bit and 1600x1200 resolution, and needed to use the AGP bus even in 2D. Some of these cards supported these features in 3D as well - a Riva 128 or ATi Rage Pro could do 3D at 1600x1200 at 16-bit and even 1280x1024 in 32-bit, I think. At least in theory - if games actually supported that they would be far too slow to actually play at those settings. So the nature of the boards that went head-to-head in '99 arose out of their precursors and the necessities of their roots, and not just clean-sheet design decisions made just prior to their release. I say it again - the jump that 3dfx was making from PCI-based 3D-only cards was tougher than the move to front-line 3D that nVidia was making. nVidia really just had to get faster, the very thing you criticize 3dfx for focusing on, and that's the bulk of what they accomplished over the Riva128-TNT-TNT2 period. That Glide was dying and D3D and OpenGL were maturing only served to help them further in the end. > And, of course, it only ran on 3dfx boards. 3dfx had a nasty habit of > sending angry lawyer letters to people attempting to develop glidewrappers, > thus helping to ensure glide would stay entrenched on their hardware only. > > As for me personally, the thing that ticked me off about glide was that > every glide-only game was a game I could not play. I don't like peoplethat > makes themselves intentionally incompatible with the rest of the universe > and then tries to use that incompatibility as an advantage and asales-tool. > Microsoft's behaviour I more or less *had* to accept, but not 3dfx's. > > Glad they're gone. This is the heart of the matter, isn't it? 3dfx had made the effort to build and maintain an API to enhance their card's performance and help give it stuff to run, and the result was a real advancement in 3D gaming. I don't think any company would have just given away a competitive advantage like that became. What was 3dfx supposed to do back in '98, ditch Glide and go with crappy D3D or untested, professional graphics-focused OpenGL and just hand Glide over to the masses or kill it? Get real. They built drivers that supported D3D, they built drivers that supported the few Open GL games out there (and not the only one who took this approach), and they continued to support Glide. And they defended something with the law that they had invested in and was their property. When I bought my V3 I didn't like the idea that I had to buy a certain brand in order to play certain games either. But it was a reality, and when I looked at what I wanted from a card, what games I wanted to play, how much money I wanted to spend, there was very little question which card to get. Would I like to have had a card that supported 32-bit color and some of that other stuff? Sure, why not, but if that meant sacrificing 16-bit speed and/or image quality, losing the ability to play games I wanted to play, and paying considerably more money for the card, then I'd pass. And I did. > > In fact, I could see this whole thing happening all over again. IfnVidia > > was to become truly dominant, what's to stop them from having their own > > proprietary API? > > Uh, DUHHH. The market is. > > Where would this new miracle Nvidia API come from? Who would support it?No > developer in their right mind would support an API that they have to: A - > learn themselves from the ground up and figure out how to best utilize.B - > only runs on one brand's products. C - has zero installed user base at > launch. > Nvidia knows this, they're not stupid you know. ;-) That's why they're not > tried to take over the world with their own API. Besides, it would justmean > even more driver development costs for them. Times are different now, but this is exactly what 3dfx did, and it benefitted them greatly for some time. But building one from scratch isn't what I was suggesting, rather the D3D thing with M$.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > They are in business with MS with the X-box, one of their > > primary competitors in the console sector is ATi, and the two could get > > together to make sure that D3D is optimized for nVidia hardware and not > ATi, > > and that would push all other card makers out as well. > > Except, they'd be slapped with an anti-competition lawsuit in an instant

or > less. Something like that would definitely not help MS in their ongoing > battle with the DoJ for example. Maybe, but how many times have we seen this happen in this business? How well does MS support things made by other companies that compete directly with their stuff? At the moment MS doesn't seem to be engaging in much of a battle with the DOJ, with a Republican in the WH, the economy on the rocks, terrorism to distract everyone. A handful of States are the ones holding up that terrible resolution on the last deal, not the feds. Anyway, it would likely be a very underhanded sort of thing, sharing certain information, very close development coordination and optimization. MS could decide to incorporate in DX feature functionality coming from nVidia and not from ATi or others, could screw up functionality that doesn't work with nVidia cards. If the PC interface and hardware mirrors that of X-Box, it would be to both parties' benefit, and would hurt anyone else. It could happen.

"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:19A48.19247$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 3DFX tried to make effective 3D a private fiefdom much as DOS-era > > sound was for Creative's "Sound Blaster". Any fallout from this would > > be richly deserved, IMO - that the PC dominates personal computing is > > more through a revulsion of proprietary lock-in than inherent beauty. > > Huh? Hate to jump into this debate but have you ever heard of Direct 3D? > You do know that all 3Dfx cards are D3D compatible right? > > Nobody shoved Glide down anybody's throat. YOU and I had a choice and

those > of us that chose a Glide card or Glide compatible game did so out of > consideration of performance vs cost. No conspiracy there. > What he said made perfect sense. 3DFX *tried* to get a lock on 3D, but didn't succeed. He is apparently suggesting that if they had their way that Glide would have produced "prettier" games. I doubt that. Probably would have produced less choice and more expensive graphics boards.

Glide is 3dfx's attempt to be similar to OpenGL. 3dfx was really ahead of its time, back years ago, but the problem is, they never advanced forward and lead the pack. Instead, everyone else moved ahead of them in capability. Cheers to the now deceased 3dfx for them being the first to make the first low cost, feasable textured triangle engine (as that's all it is, is a perspective correct textured triangle engine which 3dfx made which had nothing really to do with 3D graphics). The only time 3D chips started to do real 3D is when Nvidia came out with the T&L engine. The T in T&L means transform as in the movement and rotation of objects in 3D space. Allot of people aren't aware that the Transform engines in today's video chips, actually can grab their own chunks of vertices and treat it as entire objects and the Transform engine sees these blocks of vertices as objects and moves them around in the 3D world which is also recognized as a global object that the Transform engine has a pointer to. This all means that indeed, the matrix multiplication, and the 3D to 2D conversion need to project 3D images on 2D CRT's is now done not in the game's engine, but in the CPU's hardware! This is great when using simple to program for graphics languages like OpenGL! In Direct3D though, it's a living hell to program for as D3D is a living hell in general. That's why you see your fancy, very powerful, and very capable engines which use your hardware as your 3D engine, is always programmed in OpenGL. Also, you can make DOS Command like OpenGL programs which run completely accelerated under Windows, unlike D3D programs which have to be dependant on Windows handles and tons of code just to setup it's rendering engine instead of a single function call which OpenGL requires. Anyhow, 3dfx was the first but they fell behind. Frankly, the founder of 3dfx became very arrogant. He thought that what he did 5 years ago, was still the greatest thing now. So he rested on his laurals and gloated about his ancient technology and all he did is increase the clock rate, and tack on some extra features but it was the same ancient core when needed to be completely redone. 3dfx instead of waking up and seeing that they were falling behind, decided to gloat and rest on it's laurals like it's founder and by the time they saw that they had a problem, their income was not big enough to completely develop a chip from scratch which would bust everyone's ass. Also, 3dfx's last creations were absolutely jokes. They made a chip which is again, the updated core of their ancient technology and suggested using 4,8,16 and even 32 of these chips running together! When people found out that their best boards required their own separate power supplies and realized that even with 32frigging 3dfx chips still wouldn't give the public the features everyone else had in features, 3dfx was a laughing stock and everyone was just rolling on the floor and couldn't stop laughing. 3dfx's customers, the deaf, dumb, blind kids I always referred to for even thinking 3dfx was still competitive, were even starting to see what a joke 3dfx had become. 3dfx finally gave up the Ghost when they were seen as the silly company who fell behind and were trying to flounder and stay alive by their silly, monster creations which still lacked what a single chip by Nvidia could beat in features and sometimes in speed. 3dfx had become and old, tiring, joke. "fly135" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZqD48.17752$[email hidden]... "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:19A48.19247$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 3DFX tried to make effective 3D a private fiefdom much as DOS-era > > sound was for Creative's "Sound Blaster". Any fallout from this would > > be richly deserved, IMO - that the PC dominates personal computing is > > more through a revulsion of proprietary lock-in than inherent beauty. > > Huh? Hate to jump into this debate but have you ever heard of Direct 3D? > You do know that all 3Dfx cards are D3D compatible right? > > Nobody shoved Glide down anybody's throat. YOU and I had a choice and

those > of us that chose a Glide card or Glide compatible game did so out of > consideration of performance vs cost. No conspiracy there. > What he said made perfect sense. 3DFX *tried* to get a lock on 3D, but didn't succeed. He is apparently suggesting that if they had their way that Glide would have produced "prettier" games. I doubt that. Probably would have produced less choice and more expensive graphics boards.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:43:57 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

><[email hidden]> wrote in message >> 3DFX tried to make effective 3D a private fiefdom much as DOS-era >> sound was for Creative's "Sound Blaster". Any fallout from this would >> be richly deserved, IMO - that the PC dominates personal computing is >> more through a revulsion of proprietary lock-in than inherent beauty. >Huh? Hate to jump into this debate but have you ever heard of Direct 3D?

Yep. It came later, though... "in the long run, we're all dead" >You do know that all 3Dfx cards are D3D compatible right? Now they are, yes. D3D did to Glide and OpenGL what DirectX did to "Sound Blaster Compatibility"; buldozed away a niche and levelled the playing field. 3DFX came in (from arcade hardware, as I recall) and made 3D something one could take seriously; prior to that were all those hopeless ATi Rage and S3 ViRGE stuff that simply didn't make enough difference over software 3D to bother with, IMO. >Nobody shoved Glide down anybody's throat. 3DFX tried to use Glide as a lever to make themselves indispensible, and it worked... for a while. >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - Memes don't exist - pass it on >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Huh?? What are you talking about?? ALL 3Dfx cards EVER made were D3D compatible. Glide was "indispensable" because Microsoft couldn't get D3D to work worth a crap and because hardware makers couldn't get their ViRGE and Mystique cards to run fast enough for D3D. Was that 3Dfx's fault?...No. Again, there was no conspiracy by 3Dfx to take over the world with Glide. They simply gave us a better solution than the (then) buggy and slow D3D and customers simply chose the better solution. Again, all 3Dfx cards are and were able to do D3D at any time and 3Dfx did not force anyone to use Glide. We did it simply because it was better at the time and some may still argue that it still is. You act as though 3Dfx put guns to our heads. Nothing could be further from the truth. They gave us real 3D when there was nothing else and we still had the choice of D3D and OpenGL on whatever other inferior card we wanted to buy. I think you are getting some misinformation from somewhere and spreading it around. Where are you getting this from? <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:43:57 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: > ><[email hidden]> wrote in message > > >> 3DFX tried to make effective 3D a private fiefdom much as DOS-era > >> sound was for Creative's "Sound Blaster". Any fallout from this would > >> be richly deserved, IMO - that the PC dominates personal computing is > >> more through a revulsion of proprietary lock-in than inherent beauty. > > >Huh? Hate to jump into this debate but have you ever heard of Direct 3D? > > Yep. It came later, though... "in the long run, we're all dead" > > >You do know that all 3Dfx cards are D3D compatible right? > > Now they are, yes. D3D did to Glide and OpenGL what DirectX did to > "Sound Blaster Compatibility"; buldozed away a niche and levelled the > playing field. 3DFX came in (from arcade hardware, as I recall) and > made 3D something one could take seriously; prior to that were all > those hopeless ATi Rage and S3 ViRGE stuff that simply didn't make > enough difference over software 3D to bother with, IMO. > > >Nobody shoved Glide down anybody's throat. > > 3DFX tried to use Glide as a lever to make themselves indispensible, > and it worked... for a while. > > > > >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - > Memes don't exist - pass it on > >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

"fly135" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZqD48.17752$[email hidden]... > What he said made perfect sense. How so? >3DFX *tried* to get a lock on 3D, No they didn't. The choice of D3D and OpenGL and alternate hardware were always there and ALL 3Dfx cards ran D3D and OpenGL so how could they have gotten a lock on anything. >but didn't succeed. He is apparently suggesting that if they had their waythat > Glide would have produced "prettier" games. I doubt that. I don't doubt it at all. I still prefer the look of UT on my V3 over my Radeon even considering the fact that Glide is now old. Im sure 3Dfx would have advanced Glide way past what MS or OpenGL has today but that's just my opinion and speculation, not that it matters anymore anyway. >Probably would have produced less choice and more expensive graphicsboards. How could it have when D3D and OpenGL were available to everyone? I will agree that D3D and OpenGL are a better more universal API but if you think about it, D3D itself is Proprietary to the Microsoft platform only whereas OpenGL is a crossplatform API. Ask any Linux gamer what API they think is better. AFAICR, Glide was even available to Linux but I could be wrong. All 3Dfx was guilty of IMO is giving us all another choice and nothing more. Saying that 3Dfx was trying to take over the API and 3D card industry is like trying to say that Redhat Linux was trying to take over the OS industry. The exact opposit is true IMO.

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Now now Hans...just because my 23.11's work great Did you try Diablo2 with them? FYI, I'm not the only one having poor performance in that title with the 23.11:s. > doesn't mean you need to > insult my intelligence...hehe Now, I hope you realize I didn't. I never said you were stupid, Zod. If you can't see the difference between 'xx is smarter than yy', and 'xx is a dumbass', then I guess you really ARE a dumbass! ;-) Bye! /HB.

stop laughing. 3dfx's customers, the deaf, dumb, blind kids I always referred to for even thinking 3dfx was still competitive, were even starting to see what a joke 3dfx had become. 3dfx finally gave up the Ghost when they were seen as the silly company who fell behind and were trying to flounder and stay alive by their silly, monster creations which still lacked what a single chip by Nvidia could beat in features and sometimes in speed. 3dfx had become and old, tiring, joke. Hehe....

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I run 1024 on a 17" and up to 1280x1024 on a 22"......!!! WHat a waste of monitor space :D Say, how about trading my 19" (which I'm running at 1280x1024) for your 22"? I would like the extra space to go up another two resolution steps so that I can have everything in view at once :P The little lost angel & her featherhead's 2 cents worth of dreaminess.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:32:34 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Again, there was no conspiracy by 3Dfx to take over the world with Glide. >They simply gave us a better solution than the (then) buggy and slow D3D and >customers simply chose the better solution. Again, all 3Dfx cards are and >were able to do D3D at any time and 3Dfx did not force anyone to use Glide. Time's the factor. When 3DFX came in to the picture, they more or less invented consumer 3D as something that was actually worth bothing with. Took heroic hardware to do it (2 x extra PCI cards with 3 core chips each, if you wanted to max out with V2) but made it possible. At the time, D3D was pretty whiffy and not that widely used; i.e. hadn't emerged as the no-brainder choice it may be now. So it was either that or OpenGL, or Glide, or program the 3D hardware directly on a per-chipset basis. Glide was an abstration of the last approach and as such made it easier to write for 3DFX cards than other vendors', but it wasn't a playing-field-levelling standard in the sense that D3D or OpenGL were or would grow to become in time. It could have been, if Glide wrappers were permitted, but 3DFX chose to play the petty zero-sum game and crunch such attempts rather than see value in growing everyone's market that a wider standard may have done. It is at this point I would consider Glide an attempt at brand lock-in that might ultimately be at the user's expense. The happy ending for 3DFX would have been if game developers adopted Glide as the de-facto standard and turned away from D3D and OpenGL. This would nullify the Windows concept of "any hardware as long as it has drivers will work with any Windows program", and re-create the Sound Blaster effect. 3DFX's niche could only hope to have lasted for a while anyway, just as Matrox's niche as being the best way to get fast 2D. As hware capabilities and speed improved, so it was that just about anything was adequate for 2D speed, and there are few who would buy Matrox for that reason alone today - now it would be for image quality on large monitors, or multi-monitor display management. So it is going with 3D; the days of having to spend motherboard-money to enjoy tolerable 3D gaming are over. A combination of improved DirectX and processing power can make even software rendering acceptable to the occasional gamer; I was amazed at how playable Clive Barker's Undying was with DirectX 8.1, Celeron-1000 and S3 ViRGE ! Today's question is (for me); does ATi's Raedon kick 3D butt enough to use as an alternative to TNT2 or GeForce, given the OEM swing in progress from TNT2 to Raedon at reasonable pricing? Can one have ATi's traditionally better video/TV interactivity with nVidia-level gaming without being hosed by bad drivers? Dual head support? Soon, budget buyers will need to buy SVGA/3D cards again, as they move off i815e to P4 motherboards (in-built SVGA without AGP slot is unsellable by my criteria). For most ocasional gamers, i815e's 3D was OK; only about 20% clients showed interest in add-on cards for better gaming 3D, in my experience here, generally going TNT2 or GeForce. That window of opportunity may in turn close mid-2002 when Intel brings out an i845 variant with built-in SVGA/3D. But ATi could enjoy a very nice half-year if they get thier timing right. I know there are other mobo chipsets with built-in SVGA/3D, but I avoid those. UIDE life blood is too precious to pump through beta-of-the-week 4-in-1 drivers IMO. >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - Memes don't exist - pass it on >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

> 3DFX came in (from arcade hardware, as I recall) and >made 3D something one could take seriously; prior to that were all >those hopeless ATi Rage and S3 ViRGE stuff that simply didn't make >enough difference over software 3D to bother with, IMO. >You forget Rendition. Nice hardware, and they had an 3D API, too. The difference between 3Dfx, Rendition and nVidia is really not that big, they all conglomerated from SGI dust. Just different implementations, even nVidia had its own API in 1996: That one failed miserably because it was really weird, feed your preferred search machine "NV1" and "NV2". IMO it is really strange that nVidia could recover from that total failure so fast. The only real alternative to SGI renderers was and still is PowerVR (which BTW is english, not US). Remember 1997, the nVidia Riva 128. Georgeous reviews, as print press parroted "fastest DX3 rendering", "superb 2D-3D combinition", etc.. In reality it costed at minimum like a Voodoo Graphics and sucked big time because DX and nVidia drivers were total crap, and the hardware wasn�t much more powerful than a V1 either if any. 3Dfx saw that the pres was unfair, saw that it got no OEM contracts, saw that the V2 was discredited by MS DX because DX ignores the second pixel chip. So 3Dfx began to aggressively protect their IP and to bark at anyone who came along the way - in D we have the saying "the scary dog barks the most". nVidia has never produced good hardware or software, that is because nVidia has been risen as a warrior of the dark sides. The PC game branche is the rudest and most superficial of them all, wonder why? Think about texture compression which has great impact on performance (memory bandwidth savings) and saves memory. Which manufacturer didn�t implement it at all and then implemented it so badly that this feature was even discredited? nVidia suscessfully promoted 32bit, but on that way to market dominance and beyond no consumer was informed of what 16 vs 32bit really means technologically. Any reasonable man would admit that 32bit linear (integer) is bandwidth waste, therefore 32bit colors should be used in conjunction with texture and framebuffer compression, e.g. the V3 used framebuffer compression and had working TC. Any reasonable man would admit that raw textures don�t need 32bit, as the bottleneck for visual quality is not textures but framebuffer access. Cut short that there is real technology to be implemented, not a few superficial marketing terms. Or take nVidias implementation of T&L, we could rip that apart just as easily, see also http://grassomusic.de/english/video.htm ! Grasso -- ------- http://grassomusic.de ------- ------ http://purepropaganda.de ----- ....... grasso at telebel.de ........

Good points, Grasso. The only problem is that most of the folks around here won't even listen. There seem to be two common threads running through this topic from most of the participants - they buy into all the nVidia marketing crap, they hate 3dfx, and the proof of the correctness of the first assumption is that the target of the second was driven out of business by the first. So it's tough to have a meaningful discussion on this general subject around here, unfortunately, but there are a few here who can. "Grasso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> The difference between 3Dfx, Rendition and nVidia is really not that > big, they all conglomerated from SGI dust. Just different > implementations, even nVidia had its own API in 1996: That one failed > miserably because it was really weird, feed your preferred search > machine "NV1" and "NV2". IMO it is really strange that nVidia could > recover from that total failure so fast. > > Remember 1997, the nVidia Riva 128. Georgeous reviews, as print press > parroted "fastest DX3 rendering", "superb 2D-3D combinition", etc.. In > reality it costed at minimum like a Voodoo Graphics and sucked big > time because DX and nVidia drivers were total crap, and the hardware > wasn�t much more powerful than a V1 either if any. 3Dfx saw that the > press was unfair, saw that it got no OEM contracts, saw that the V2 was > discredited by MS DX because DX ignores the second pixel chip. So 3Dfx > began to aggressively protect their IP and to bark at anyone who came > along the way - in D we have the saying "the scary dog barks the > most"... <snip>

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:47:31 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum" >Good points, Grasso. The only problem is that most of the folks around here >won't even listen. There seem to be two common threads running through this >topic from most of the participants - they buy into all the nVidia marketing Perhaps I should mention my build choice history at this point. Where gaming not an issue, has been: S3 Trio32, Tseng ET4000 W32P S3 Trio64, ATi Rage, S3 ViRGE, Tseng ET6000 S3 Trio3D, ATi Rage II, i740 i815e Where gaming was an issue, has been: 3DFX Voodoo and Voodoo 2 3DFx Banshee nVidia TNT2, Vanta nVidia GeForce or TNT2 "I've looked at cards from both sides now" >"Grasso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... > >> The difference between 3Dfx, Rendition and nVidia is really not that >> big, they all conglomerated from SGI dust. Was Rendition PowerVR? Never did those, but remember it in the selection boxes in the Quake 2 et al period. >> Remember 1997, the nVidia Riva 128. Georgeous reviews, as print press >> parroted "fastest DX3 rendering", "superb 2D-3D combinition", etc.. Never did nVidia at all until TNT2 dropped below Banshee pricing and appeared to give better performance. >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Our senses are our UI to reality >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>"chrisv" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> One thing I will concede: I don't think that adding rarely-used >> features is necessarily "bad". There is obviously a "chicken and egg" >> situation where the software for the feature won't get made until >> hardware is available, and vice-versa. nVidia deserves credit for >> being the one pushing out the hardware features, so that software will >> be written to take advantage of them, even if it's a couple years >> delay in-between. > >There's something to be said for this, but the problem is that I don't like >having to pay for them, particularly ones that have absolutely no >application whatsoever. I simply don't want to pay my money for cards that >include stuff that may or may not be at all usable down the road on that >card, or that may not ever be of any use on any card. Gaming isn't some >charity. So I'd like a choice between spending a shitload of money on a card >that includes this stuff and considerably less for a card that may or may >not age quite as gracefully, may or may not contribute to the greater good >of the future of gaming in some way, but just does the best job on the stuff >that's out there to play.

Oh, I agree, of course. Being a practical person, I went with the Voodoo. 8)

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I don't really think most gamers want to spend >hard-earned dollars on that stuff either, but I think a lot of people don't >know any different, so buy those features anyway. I also think a lot of >nVidia defenders tote this line because that's what nVidia and its >supporters in the press have been spouting for years now. Do these guys >defend buying a Pentium 4 over a cheaper Athlon because someday the chip's >structure will pay off, once it gets fast enough and apps are written for >it? I doubt it.

The high-end of anything, whether graphics cards or CPU's, is a bad value.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:47:31 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum" > > >Good points, Grasso. The only problem is that most of the folks aroundhere > >won't even listen. There seem to be two common threads running throughthis > >topic from most of the participants - they buy into all the nVidiamarketing > > Perhaps I should mention my build choice history at this point. Wasn't speaking of you, of course, rather the "3dfx really hurt 3D gaming, they got what they deserved and we're all better off with them gone" crowd. > >"Grasso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> The difference between 3Dfx, Rendition and nVidia is really not that > >> big, they all conglomerated from SGI dust. > > Was Rendition PowerVR? Never did those, but remember it in the > selection boxes in the Quake 2 et al period. At that time Rendition was selling the Verite 2200 and PowerVR the Permedia 2, I believe. > >> Remember 1997, the nVidia Riva 128. Georgeous reviews, as print press > >> parroted "fastest DX3 rendering", "superb 2D-3D combinition", etc.. > > Never did nVidia at all until TNT2 dropped below Banshee pricing and > appeared to give better performance. I think you're mixing your cards here. I doubt that the TNT2 ever got cheaper than the Banshee, which was of the generation that included the TNT. Unless you're talking about the cheapie Vanta, which I don't know much about - I don't think it used the 64-bit core that the M64 did, but was slower than a standard TNT2 and had only 16mb of memory, something like that. I don't think that card came out until the GeForce period, did it? Anyway, that card was unlikely to give better performance than any contemporary 3dfx card.

[email hidden] (L.Angel) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >>I run 1024 on a 17" and up to 1280x1024 on a 22"...... >!!! >WHat a waste of monitor space :D >Say, how about trading my 19" (which I'm running at 1280x1024) for >your 22"? I would like the extra space to go up another two resolution >steps so that I can have everything in view at once :P

I run 1280x1024 on a 21" also. I don't like nose-to-the-screen computing. By the way, the jump from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 is 1.46 times the pixels, while the area jump from a 19" to a 21/22" is only 1.23 times the area.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:13:00 GMT, "Mark Nusbaum"

Quoted text (7 lines)

><[email hidden]> wrote in message >> Never did nVidia at all until TNT2 dropped below Banshee pricing and >> appeared to give better performance. >I think you're mixing your cards here. I doubt that the TNT2 ever got >cheaper than the Banshee, which was of the generation that included the TNT.

It did, eventually. Banshee wasn't spotless in use, given that a lot of games saw "V2!" and then tried things Banshee couldn't do (much as games see Vanta and go "TNT2!", etc.) At the time, Banshee dropped to R 850 or so, then as choice of vendors dried up, climbed to R 950 at a time that TNT2 dropped to R 850 and then R 800. The Vanta was a kind of halfway between the R 450 or so for an S3 Savage and R 800 for TNT2; could often do a Vanta for R 575 or so. At the time, it was often "get 64M instead of 32M RAM and let the Vanta use AGP" for ocasional gamers who might have more benefit from more RAM in terms of non-gaming, etc. Currently, TNT2 can dip as low as R 650 while GeForce still looks too costly as a no-brainer at around R 1 100 or so. But with decent 3D bundled "free" as part of the i815e, it's seldom that anyone needs an add-on card, and when they do, I sometimes prefer GeForce in that TNT2 may be close enough to i815e for client to say "I don't see the difference" if I sell that as an i815e upgrade. Until Intel add 3D to i845xx, P4 systems based on Intel chipsets need additional SVGA, and as ppl buying up to P4 aren't likely to want worse graphics a la Trio3D or Rage II, TNT2 becomes the default. >Unless you're talking about the cheapie Vanta, which I don't know much >about - I don't think it used the 64-bit core that the M64 did, but was >slower than a standard TNT2 and had only 16mb of memory, something like >that. I don't think that card came out until the GeForce period, did it? When these chipsets first come out, they are usually too expensive to bother with for most of my clients, so Vanta may have came out when GeForce was still in the who-cares range. Initially, Vanta was 8M and reliant on AGP to get by, using a similar chipset as the TNT2 internally but probably with a shrunken bus or other lamerization. The 16M Vanta came later and was often so close to bottom-end TNT2 (there being so many vendors by now) that I never bothered with it. >Anyway, that card was unlikely to give better performance than any >contemporary 3dfx card. Banshee was the last 3DFX that looked relevanyt here - after that, 3DFX and nVidia had swapped price positions so that if you saw them as equivalent but bought on price, it wasn't 3DFX anymore. My impression was that the TNT2 was a bit prettier in 3D appearance than Banshee, and less likely to quibble with games in terms of stabiliity. Right now there are about 5 OEM brands building with TNT2, and that's how it's been since the Banshee faded out. There were never more than about 1-2 brands of V3 etc. on the same list at the time. What we are expecting to see is the number of nVidia dropping to about 3 lines, with ATi Raedon going up to 3-4 alternate OEM brands. The more competing OEM brands, the cheaper they get, the more sellable etc. Question is, ATi never really delivered competitive 3D at any given price point until now, compared to Banshee and TNT2. What I'd like to know is whether that has changed, or whether they are gaining OEM market share from nVidia for some other reason (i740-style low pricing that simply can't be ignored, etc.). In the near future, I expect to have to make a decision on this... >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Our senses are our UI to reality >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

> WHat a waste of monitor space :D > Say, how about trading my 19" (which I'm running at 1280x1024) for > your 22"? I would like the extra space to go up another two resolution > steps so that I can have everything in view at once :P Oh, come on now.....you might be fooling the people that don't have a 22" monitor in front of them....hehe

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> [email hidden] (L.Angel) wrote: > > >"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>I run 1024 on a 17" and up to 1280x1024 on a 22"...... > >!!! > >WHat a waste of monitor space :D > >Say, how about trading my 19" (which I'm running at 1280x1024) for > >your 22"? I would like the extra space to go up another two resolution > >steps so that I can have everything in view at once :P > > I run 1280x1024 on a 21" also. I don't like nose-to-the-screen > computing.

I have eyes, even at 31. I need lotsa desktop space. I'll trade that for small fonts anytime. Of course fonts are programmable (well WinBlow isn't perfect), so you can have the best of all worlds with more resolution. > > By the way, the jump from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 is 1.46 times the > pixels, while the area jump from a 19" to a 21/22" is only 1.23 times > the area. Calculate the numbers again based on usable screen space. It'll be a lot closer. ---- Keith

"Mark Nusbaum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<0Ud58.6968$[email hidden]>... > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... [SNIP] > > Was Rendition PowerVR? Never did those, but remember it in the > > selection boxes in the Quake 2 et al period. > > At that time Rendition was selling the Verite 2200 and PowerVR the Permedia > 2, I believe. > Rendition and PowerVR are certainly *not* the same. PowerVR (http://www.powervr.com) is a division of Imagination Technologies (http://www.imgtec.com). (Imagination Technologies was originally called Videologic.) The PowerVR products (at that time) were in the Matrox m3d, Videologic Apocalypse range, and a a number of cards in Japan. The latest chips include the the Kyro range produced in partnership with STM. I think Permedia was produced by 3DLabs. Simon

chrisv <[email hidden]> wrote: >I run 1280x1024 on a 21" also. I don't like nose-to-the-screen >computing. I don't do that even though I'm only on a 19", the distance from which I'm typing this is around 60cm? Well further than my hand can touch anyway. And my icons fonts are still default sizes. Probably because I got used to this sort of size ratio from the days I was running 1024x768 on a 15" :P >By the way, the jump from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 is 1.46 times the >pixels, while the area jump from a 19" to a 21/22" is only 1.23 times >the area. Two steps up I have 1600x1024 which is 1.25 times more :) I've weird resolution steps on this new system, 1280x1024, 1360x768, 1600x900, 1600x1024. The little lost angel & her featherhead's 2 cents worth of dreaminess.

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> WHat a waste of monitor space :D >> Say, how about trading my 19" (which I'm running at 1280x1024) for >> your 22"? I would like the extra space to go up another two resolution >> steps so that I can have everything in view at once :P > >Oh, come on now.....you might be fooling the people that don't have a 22" >monitor in front of them....hehe

Fooling the people about what? The little lost angel & her featherhead's 2 cents worth of dreaminess.

Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] says... >> >> By the way, the jump from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 is 1.46 times the >> pixels, while the area jump from a 19" to a 21/22" is only 1.23 times >> the area. > >Calculate the numbers again based on usable screen space. It'll >be a lot closer.

No. I already assumed 20" and 18" for the viewable diagonals. 20^2/18^2=1.23.

[email hidden] (L.Angel) wrote: >Two steps up I have 1600x1024 which is 1.25 times more :) >I've weird resolution steps on this new system, 1280x1024, 1360x768, >1600x900, 1600x1024. I have something like a 1440 x 1050 setting, which I might be tempted to use, but for some reason my monitor gets confused and won't hold the screen-size settings for this size seperately from my 1280x1024 settings. In other words, when I tweek my screen for this res, the other res gets screwed-up.

Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> :

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >WHat a waste of monitor space :D >> >Say, how about trading my 19" (which I'm running at 1280x1024) for >> >your 22"? I would like the extra space to go up another two resolution >> >steps so that I can have everything in view at once :P >> >> I run 1280x1024 on a 21" also. I don't like nose-to-the-screen >> computing. > >I have eyes, even at 31. I need lotsa desktop space. I'll trade >that for small fonts anytime. Of course fonts are programmable >(well WinBlow isn't perfect), so you can have the best of all >worlds with more resolution. >>

Why not use multiple monitors? Two 19 inch monitors are cheaper than a 21 anyway.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> : > > >WHat a waste of monitor space :D > >> >Say, how about trading my 19" (which I'm running at 1280x1024) for > >> >your 22"? I would like the extra space to go up another two resolution > >> >steps so that I can have everything in view at once :P > >> > >> I run 1280x1024 on a 21" also. I don't like nose-to-the-screen > >> computing. > > > >I have eyes, even at 31. I need lotsa desktop space. I'll trade > >that for small fonts anytime. Of course fonts are programmable > >(well WinBlow isn't perfect), so you can have the best of all > >worlds with more resolution. > >> > Why not use multiple monitors? Two 19 inch monitors are cheaper than a 21 > anyway.

I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but some applications refuse to run on both screens unless they're identical. ---- Keith

> I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely > set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but 1600x1200 on a 15" ..what an idiot...lol

In article <wrU58.7283$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely > > set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but > > 1600x1200 on a 15" ..what an idiot...lol That's its native resolution. Very clear and sharp. Don't knock it you can't afford to try it, idiot! ---- Keith

> Don't knock it you can't afford to try it, idiot! Hey...at least you got the newbies fooled..hehe

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Don't knock it you can't afford to try it, idiot! > Hey...at least you got the newbies fooled..hehe Well, you know what they say, Zod... "Talk is cheap." You should know! LOL "hehe" Bye! /HB.

In article <Mu068.22016$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > Don't knock it you can't afford to try it, idiot! > > > Hey...at least you got the newbies fooled..hehe > > Well, you know what they say, Zod... "Talk is cheap." You should know! > LOL

No question! > "hehe" My sentiments exactly. ---- Keith

> Well, you know what they say, Zod... "Talk is cheap." Not if you walk the walk...hehe

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> : >> I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely >> set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but > >1600x1200 on a 15" ..what an idiot...lol >A lot of laptop LCDs support that resolution. Dumbass.

Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> :

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Why not use multiple monitors? Two 19 inch monitors are cheaper than a 21 >> anyway. > >I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely >set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but >some applications refuse to run on both screens unless they're >identical. >

I havent run into that problem... yet. Are you stretching a window across both screens?

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> : > >> Why not use multiple monitors? Two 19 inch monitors are cheaper than a 21 > >> anyway. > > > >I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely > >set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but > >some applications refuse to run on both screens unless they're > >identical. > > > I havent run into that problem... yet. Are you stretching a window across > both screens?

No, just trying to move it to the secondary screen. It runs into a wall somewhere off the right of the primary and never gets to the secondary. The only way it'll move to the secondary is to have both displays set identically, right down to the color depth (the laptop also has to run at reduced color-depth). ---- Keith

Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> :

Quoted text (18 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... >> Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> : >> >> Why not use multiple monitors? Two 19 inch monitors are cheaper than a 21 >> >> anyway. >> > >> >I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely >> >set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but >> >some applications refuse to run on both screens unless they're >> >identical. >> > >> I havent run into that problem... yet. Are you stretching a window across >> both screens? > >No, just trying to move it to the secondary screen. It runs into a >wall somewhere off the right of the primary and never gets to the >secondary. The only way it'll move to the secondary is to have both >displays set identically, right down to the color depth (the laptop >also has to run at reduced color-depth).

Hmm, I guess it could be the way the app is coded. Does it happen with all apps or just one in particular? I still use some windows3.1-era apps that won't move off the primary.

>>1600x1200 on a 15" ..what an idiot...lol >A lot (sic) of laptop LCDs support that resolution. Dumbass. You misspelled the word "few". C//

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> : > >In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > >> Keith R. Williams <[email hidden]> : > >> >> Why not use multiple monitors? Two 19 inch monitors are cheaper than a 21 > >> >> anyway. > >> > > >> >I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely > >> >set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but > >> >some applications refuse to run on both screens unless they're > >> >identical. > >> > > >> I havent run into that problem... yet. Are you stretching a window across > >> both screens? > > > >No, just trying to move it to the secondary screen. It runs into a > >wall somewhere off the right of the primary and never gets to the > >secondary. The only way it'll move to the secondary is to have both > >displays set identically, right down to the color depth (the laptop > >also has to run at reduced color-depth). > > Hmm, I guess it could be the way the app is coded. Does it happen with all > apps or just one in particular? I still use some windows3.1-era apps that > won't move off the primary.

So far I've only found a few. The one that forced the issue is Hummingbird Exceed. It's kinda a gotta have for my job. Ok, I could put a RISC box in my office, but then I'd lose the huge desktop (and likely get crappy 60Hz refresh rates - I would go nuts!). ---- Keith

> You misspelled the word "few". LOL....

> desktop (and likely get crappy 60Hz refresh rates - I would go > nuts!). As if YOU would really notice....hehe

Courageous <[email hidden]> : > >>>1600x1200 on a 15" ..what an idiot...lol >>A lot (sic) of laptop LCDs support that resolution. Dumbass. > >You misspelled the word "few". >Is that the best you can do?

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> desktop (and likely get crappy 60Hz refresh rates - I would go >> nuts!). > >As if YOU would really notice....hehe Personally, it's quite obvious when something's running below 72~75Hz. I get physically sick looking at monitors that go below 75Hz so I don't see any reason why HE couldn't notice it. The little lost angel & her featherhead's 2 cents worth of dreaminess.

> Personally, it's quite obvious when something's running below 72~75Hz. > I get physically sick looking at monitors that go below 75Hz so I > don't see any reason why HE couldn't notice it. Yes..I am sure you would but we are talking about a total idiot that thinks a 15" should display 1600x1200...hehe

In article <nfD68.14037$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > Personally, it's quite obvious when something's running below 72~75Hz. > > I get physically sick looking at monitors that go below 75Hz so I > > don't see any reason why HE couldn't notice it. > > Yes..I am sure you would but we are talking about a total idiot that thinks > a 15" should display 1600x1200...hehe No, only a total idiot doesn't understand that LCDs are intended to be used at their native resolution. ...in the case of this system (ThinkPad A21p), that would be 1600x1200. ...and yes, it's quite readable at that resolution. Don't knock it if you can't afford it. Nitwit! hehe. ---- Keith

> (ThinkPad A21p), that would be 1600x1200. ...and yes, it's quite > readable at that resolution. Yeah...maybe with your beady eyes..hehe > Don't knock it if you can't afford it. Nitwit! hehe. Yada..yada.....keep smoking that stuff...hehe

Yeah...maybe with your beady eyes..hehe Yada..yada.....keep smoking that stuff...hehe

On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 02:42:18 GMT, "ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> (ThinkPad A21p), that would be 1600x1200. ...and yes, it's quite >> readable at that resolution. > >Yeah...maybe with your beady eyes..hehe Or maybe he just has a clue and knows how to increase the font size.

> Or maybe he just has a clue and knows how to increase the font size. LOL.........

lol. Well said :-) MR "Keith R. Williams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> In article <wrU58.7283$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > I do. A 15" Laptop LCD and a 20" CRT, both at 1600x1200. I'd likely > > > set the 20" somewhat lower to get the refresh and colorspace up, but > > > > 1600x1200 on a 15" ..what an idiot...lol > > That's its native resolution. Very clear and sharp. > > Don't knock it you can't afford to try it, idiot! > > ---- > Keith >