Jason <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:6V%M4.8570$[email hidden]...
> TNT2 is a way faster card than the V3 3000
Not in F1 2000. Maybe in a vacuum.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
>
> <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8e139a$vi7$[email hidden]...
> > Which card has the best performance in F1 2000 : Voodoo3 3000 vs TNT2
> > (150/175) ?
> > My system : Cel550 with 128MB
> >
> > Thanks,
> > cj.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
i have a voodoo3 2000 not quite the same but it dosnt preform well in f12000
and it dosnt anti alias
Iain Mackenzie <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:uQ0N4.1740$[email hidden]...
> That is cetainly arguable, but from my experience of the comments fromusers
> of F12K on this ng, I would say that TNT2 and Geforce don't perform aswell
Quoted text (11 lines)
> in F12K as V3 3000. > I hope that helps. > Iain > > Jason <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6V%M4.8570$[email hidden]... > > TNT2 is a way faster card than the V3 3000 > > > > >Which card has the best performance in F1 2000 : Voodoo3 3000 vs TNT2
(150/175) ?
My system : Cel550 with 128MB
Thanks,
cj.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
[email hidden] wrote:
From what I've seen in here combined with my own experience, I'd
strongly suggest the Voodoo3. Unless you can wait a little longer for
the Voodoo5's. ;-)
--
Chuck Kandler #70
K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195
Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at:
http://topgear.dhs.org/ Come on & join the fun!
They'll call you names
And spit in your face,
But legends never die. --Gene Simmons
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > Which card has the best performance in F1 2000 : Voodoo3 3000 vs TNT2 > (150/175) ? > My system : Cel550 with 128MB > > Thanks, > cj. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.In article <6V%M4.8570$[email hidden]>, "Jason" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>TNT2 is a way faster card than the V3 3000
First, from reading various benchmarks, that isn't necessarily accurate.
Second, he asked about a specific game where all bets based on a generality as
the above are off.
Third, quoting from Anandtech, a widely cited hardware website:
"Many readers suggested we use flight simulators in addition to our usual set
of first person shooter benchmarks, but from our experiences with flight
simulators, the limiting factor there is CPU power and not the fill rate of
the video card.
It is for this reason that a TNT2 or Voodoo3 would be just as desirable as a
GeForce to a gamer that only plays flight simulators; you are better off
getting a TNT2 or Voodoo3 and a faster CPU than sheeling out the big bucks
for a GeForce.
Racing games such as NFS 5: Porsche Unleashed are also not very demanding when
it comes to a video card with high fill rates..."
Now, he might be overstating the case, but I think his general premise that a
CPU investment is a better idea. As important is the implication that
extrapolating performance from the myriad of First Person Shooter benchmarks
every site uses (which I'm pretty tired of seeing), is specious.
I'm not saying that you won't see a difference between a V3, TNT2, GeForce, or
upcoming V4/5/6. But that a one-liner saying the TNT2 is way faster is
questionable at best. Go by the experiences of those in this ng who have
tried both. From my reading, the voodoo folk seem generally more satisfied
than the TNT'rs with this title's performance. Though not conclusive.
Quoted text (13 lines)
><[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8e139a$vi7$[email hidden]... >> Which card has the best performance in F1 2000 : Voodoo3 3000 vs TNT2 >> (150/175) ? >> My system : Cel550 with 128MB >> >> Thanks, >> cj. >> >> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ >> Before you buy. > >TNT2 is a way faster card than the V3 3000
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8e139a$vi7$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Which card has the best performance in F1 2000 : Voodoo3 3000 vs TNT2 > (150/175) ? > My system : Cel550 with 128MB > > Thanks, > cj. > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.That is cetainly arguable, but from my experience of the comments from users
of F12K on this ng, I would say that TNT2 and Geforce don't perform as well
in F12K as V3 3000.
I hope that helps.
Iain
Jason <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:6V%M4.8570$[email hidden]...
> TNT2 is a way faster card than the V3 3000
>
Sorry! I should have provided more info as to why..
I agree with you that CPU investment is a better way of increasing
performance.
When I had a V3 3000 I was playing SCGT a lot and then I replaced it with a
CL TNT2 Ultra and noticed a significant increase in performance when you
have the maximum number of cars on the grid.Although in certain games the V3
would run 10 fps faster than the TNT once you put a few more objects in
front of it it would noticeably slow down where as the TNT2 wouldn't.
I also agree that if you have a half decent system there's currently no real
advantage in getting a higher spec card, I've not seen a great deal of
difference between my Ge-Force DDR and my G400 Max DH.
IMO if you want out and out performance the fastest card I've owned is the
ATI Maxx 64Mb Dual 128Pro's, but I prefer the image quality of the G400.
,Jason
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8e2472$hu6$[email hidden]...
> In article <6V%M4.8570$[email hidden]>, "Jason"<[email hidden]> wrote:
> >TNT2 is a way faster card than the V3 3000
>
> First, from reading various benchmarks, that isn't necessarily accurate.
>
> Second, he asked about a specific game where all bets based on agenerality as
> the above are off.
>
> Third, quoting from Anandtech, a widely cited hardware website:
>
> "Many readers suggested we use flight simulators in addition to our usualset
> of first person shooter benchmarks, but from our experiences with flight
> simulators, the limiting factor there is CPU power and not the fill rateof
> the video card.
>
> It is for this reason that a TNT2 or Voodoo3 would be just as desirable asa
> GeForce to a gamer that only plays flight simulators; you are better off
> getting a TNT2 or Voodoo3 and a faster CPU than sheeling out the bigbucks
> for a GeForce.
>
> Racing games such as NFS 5: Porsche Unleashed are also not very demandingwhen
> it comes to a video card with high fill rates..."
>
> Now, he might be overstating the case, but I think his general premisethat a
> CPU investment is a better idea. As important is the implication that
> extrapolating performance from the myriad of First Person Shooterbenchmarks
> every site uses (which I'm pretty tired of seeing), is specious.
>
> I'm not saying that you won't see a difference between a V3, TNT2,GeForce, or
> upcoming V4/5/6. But that a one-liner saying the TNT2 is way faster is
> questionable at best. Go by the experiences of those in this ng who have
> tried both. From my reading, the voodoo folk seem generally moresatisfied
Quoted text (16 lines)
> than the TNT'rs with this title's performance. Though not conclusive. > > > ><[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8e139a$vi7$[email hidden]... > >> Which card has the best performance in F1 2000 : Voodoo3 3000 vs TNT2 > >> (150/175) ? > >> My system : Cel550 with 128MB > >> > >> Thanks, > >> cj. > >> > >> > >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > >> Before you buy. > > > >
> and at least they'll get into the
> 32bit colour market with the V4/5's
Having seen the difference I can wholeheartedly say I could live without
32-bit for approximately forever :-) There are times when it's noticeable,
but I'll have a few extra fps rather than a little less dithering in
graduated fills. In fact hardware antialiasing ought to make 32-bit even
less important... It'd be interesting to see some side by side comparisons
between x2/4 16/32-bit
Andrew McP
> TNT2 is a way faster card than the V3 3000
Can't speak for F1 2000, but I have both cards and you are mistaken in
every other case.
Andrew McP
I Also had both cards and if you read my post 24/04 20:57 you'll see where I
found the difference between them. You'll also see that I did state that
with some games the V3 produced a higher benchmark but when it came down to
greater detail and more objects the TNT2 Ultra didn't take as much of a
performance hit, I take it you have the Ultra version and not the M64 TNT2
which is about as fast as a decent TNT1/Voodoo 2 :) .
I'm not trying to start an argument here as each card has its own merits ,
Voodoo's main one has to compatibility, and at least they'll get into the
32bit colour market with the V4/5's, which with any luck I'll be testing a
V5 5500 next month.
Andrew MacPherson <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> > TNT2 is a way faster card than the V3 3000
>
> Can't speak for F1 2000, but I have both cards and you are mistaken in
> every other case.
>
> Andrew McP
Lol ! Yeah! I'd have to go along with that one! :O)
Andrew MacPherson <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Having seen the difference I can wholeheartedly say I could live without
> 32-bit for approximately forever :-)
Lol ! Yeah! I'd have to go along with that one! :O)
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Having seen the difference I can wholeheartedly say I could live without >32-bit for approximately forever :-) There are times when it's >noticeable, but I'll have a few extra fps rather than a little less >dithering in graduated fills. In fact hardware antialiasing ought to >make 32-bit even less important... It'd be interesting to see some side >by side comparisons between x2/4 16/32-bit >I don't think anyone expects them to be free. I expect half frame rates
for x2, quarter for x4. But, for example, I'm flying CH at 1600x1200
pretty smoothly... plenty of room there to swap resolution for aliasing.
The point is that these days cards are capable of some serious fps and,
while I'd like 60fps in everything I play I can live with 25+ if the
tradeoff's worth it. I certainly don't expect FSAA to be practical in
everything though!
Andrew McP
