Can i run Thriller 3D and V3 together?

Slighty off your topic, but you should check out a few hardware site first about the V3, because for one, it's not head and shoulders above V2(SLI), and for another V3 doesn't support AGPx4. apart from Glide support(which is off course great for GPL)TNT2 Ultra (Hercules Dymamite) is a far better card. Better look at:: http:www..sharkyextreme.com http:www.tomshardware.com I am getting a TNT2 ultra from Hercules and keeping my Voodoo2 in SLI for Glide games.

My mistake. I remember now that I was looking at a TNT2 card that was pitching AGP 4X -Chris- ---Two wheels are better ---Proud owner of a 1998 ZX-9R Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Well.... First off, Tom's and Sharky's are not places I'd use in determining where my money goes. Just not enough depth to their reviews (not enough benchmarks on different games) and both were running around posting benchmarks of the has good reviews from a simmers standpoint (not a bunch of Quake benchmarks) - and www.anandtech.com is usually good too. V3 IS much faster than SLI in several games, GPL being one. Many others run better on the Voodoo3 or Banshee, and almost everything is at least a bit faster than SLI. The V3 looks a good bit better, and has excellent 2D. And NO card now can do AGP4x. Yes, they can support it, but NO motherboards use it at this time - a very, very moot point until then. Any TNT2 is a good card, and gives you 32-bit color support which MAY be nice to have in the future, but you're sacrificing up to 40% performance vs. 16-bit color - unless you are WAY into Quake3 it's not that big a deal yet. Other than this, it is NOT far and away a better card than the V3 - the V3 every benchmark I've seen, plus you get Glide support. Note, I'm not saying the TNT2 is not good to have, especially if you have a V2 or SLI to go along with it. But for bang for the buck and game compatibility it's hard to beat the Voodoo3 - especially if you look at the fact that TNT2 AND V3 are going to be old news when newer cards come out later this year. Better to kick out $100 for a V3 that'll hold you over than $250 for a TNT2 that you'll still need to upgrade the same time you would with the V3, IMHO. -- Ken's Sig 3.0 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi Go #43 and #44! volksy (at) geocities (dot) com volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com >Slighty off your topic, but you should check out a few hardware site first >about the V3, because for one, it's not head and shoulders above V2(SLI), >and for another V3 doesn't support AGPx4. >apart from Glide support(which is off course great for GPL)TNT2 Ultra >(Hercules Dymamite) is a far better card. >Better look at:: >http:www..sharkyextreme.com >http:www.tomshardware.com >I am getting a TNT2 ultra from Hercules and keeping my Voodoo2 in SLI for >Glide games.

Not yet, at least. What really pisses me off about this situation is that a)Diamond sold people on the V770 'lite' before they ever announced the ultra and b)the video-out port that was on pre-production cards has been de-contented out of the shipping versions. I guess someone else besides Diamond gets my money this time :( -Larry > First off, Tom's and Sharky's are not places I'd use in determining where my > money goes. Just not enough depth to their reviews (not enough benchmarks > on different games) and both were running around posting benchmarks of the

Ken, My big problem with the V3 is 3dfx's new marketing techniques, and the lack of competition their current methods have imposed. We now will pay whatever 3dfx wants us to pay :( That model just doesn't cut it in todays computing world. -Larry

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Any TNT2 is a good card, and gives you 32-bit color support which MAY be > nice to have in the future, but you're sacrificing up to 40% performance vs. > 16-bit color - unless you are WAY into Quake3 it's not that big a deal yet. > Other than this, it is NOT far and away a better card than the V3 - the V3 > every benchmark I've seen, plus you get Glide support. > Note, I'm not saying the TNT2 is not good to have, especially if you have a > V2 or SLI to go along with it. But for bang for the buck and game > compatibility it's hard to beat the Voodoo3 - especially if you look at the > fact that TNT2 AND V3 are going to be old news when newer cards come out > later this year. Better to kick out $100 for a V3 that'll hold you over > than $250 for a TNT2 that you'll still need to upgrade the same time you > would with the V3, IMHO.

> Ken, > My big problem with the V3 is 3dfx's new marketing techniques, and the > lack of competition their current methods have imposed. Lack of competition? No, just one company using 3dfx chips, but lots of companies selling boards with different chips. They are a lot cheaper than any TNT2 board, aren't they? Cuts like a new knife in my PC, unless you're talking about spreadsheets. Then I don't know, I don't use them... ;^) l8er ronny -- Ronald Stoehr Alcatel Telecom voice +49 711 821 46949 Lorenzstrasse 10 fax +49 711 821 42303 D-70435 Stuttgart

a) HUh? The V770 Ultra has been known about for as long as Diamond announced a TNT2 product. Heck, the first beta board ship to the media for review were Ultra boards. b) get a Hercules TNT2 Ultra then. :) > > First off, Tom's and Sharky's are not places I'd use in determining where my > > money goes. Just not enough depth to their reviews (not enough benchmarks > > on different games) and both were running around posting benchmarks of the Well Tom's I agree with...but Sharky's? Um, ok. Besides him and anandtech.com, ponit to a review site that actually has more depth! Btw, they do do a good selection of games on both sites. You don't really want to use GPL, Falcon4.0, etc for determining what a 3D card can and can not do as those games are more framerate dependent on CPU than say Quake2 and Quake3, Shogo, Forgiven, etc, etc, etc. And, FYI, if you read the review carefully from Sharky they DO say that what they were testing was a beta TNT2 Ultra card Diamond shipped that yes was running at the 175mhz level rather than the paltry 150 that Diamond decided to ship their Ultras at.

I disagree. I paid $300 for my Creative Voodoo2 the week they came out last Feb. or March. Diamond's 8 meg card came out a month later at $250, and both slowly dropped over the last year. The original Voodoo1 came out at $300. Voodoo3 was the fastest card when it hit the streets, and could be had for $130 retail, the faster one $170. Cheaper than the competing TNT2's. This is because the Voodoo3 is competing with TNT, TNT2, ATI cards, Matrox cards, etc. And THAT competition is what drove the prices down on the original Voodoo2's - some companies were making $150 Voodoo2's not long after they came out, but a Diamond or Creative was still $200-$250 retail, UNTIL the TNT and Matrox G200 came along. Then, and only then did they start creeping below $200. Competition with other chips will keep the price in line for any future 3dfx product. Actually they can be cheaper than competitors since they get more profit per board than nVidia, etc. since they have no middlemen like Diamond or Creative taking a slice of the pie. And remember, it was NOT 3dfx who wanted to make the different brands of V2's incompatible with each other for SLI purposes, it was Diamond, Creative, etc., so they could make sure when you wanted another one, you had to kick out whatever THEY wanted you to spend on theirs - just so you couldn't get a $150 V2 to go along with the one you paid $300 for, you had to shell out another $300 to THEM. -- Ken's Sig 3.0 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi Go #43 and #44! volksy (at) geocities (dot) com volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com >Ken, >My big problem with the V3 is 3dfx's new marketing techniques, and the >lack of competition their current methods have imposed. >We now will pay whatever 3dfx wants us to pay :( >That model just doesn't cut it in todays computing world. >-Larry >> Any TNT2 is a good card, and gives you 32-bit color support which MAY be >> nice to have in the future, but you're sacrificing up to 40% performance vs. >> 16-bit color - unless you are WAY into Quake3 it's not that big a deal yet. >> Other than this, it is NOT far and away a better card than the V3 - the V3 in >> every benchmark I've seen, plus you get Glide support. >> Note, I'm not saying the TNT2 is not good to have, especially if you have a >> V2 or SLI to go along with it. But for bang for the buck and game >> compatibility it's hard to beat the Voodoo3 - especially if you look at the >> fact that TNT2 AND V3 are going to be old news when newer cards come out >> later this year. Better to kick out $100 for a V3 that'll hold you over >> than $250 for a TNT2 that you'll still need to upgrade the same time you >> would with the V3, IMHO.

Ronny, You missed my point :) There is NO competition in 3dfx land now. Unlike the VooDoo I and II, which had lots of manufactureres using those chipsets, the VooDoo III only has one. 3dfx. STB _is_ 3dfx now, so that one doesn't count :) With nVidia, you have at least half a dozen different manufacturers using the chipset, which should keep pricing in line. 3dfx wants it all for themselves, and they can have it. -Larry > Lack of competition? No, just one company using 3dfx chips, but lots of > companies selling boards with different chips.

We aren't getting your point because it doesn't make much real-world sense. Without going to a lot of obscure online retailers to find the absolute rock-bottom price, I looked at the prices of the TNT2 boards from various manafacturers. A 32meg Ultra model could be had from Creative or Xentor for $229, from Diamond or Hercules $249. These are retail prices at major stores, not saying you can't find them cheaper. Ok, all that wonderful competition between the boardmakers saves you a whopping $20. The top Voodoo3, with TV In/Out, and TV/FM tuner will be $249. The next in line V3 3000, almost as fast - and quite competitive or even faster than the top TNT2, is $179. And the cheapest you can find a retail Voodoo2 is from 3dfx - $100, brand new. Even with all the new cards coming out Diamond and Creative were trying to get $149+ for theirs a few months ago when they were still widely available. Where is 3dfx gouging prices? I for one don't see it at all. Seems to me eliminating the middleman has SAVED us money, not cost us. Even if they again come out with a card that is the leap over everything that the V1 or V2 was over it's competition (I doubt that'll happen again) - they won't price it at $350 just because they can - some *** folks that didn't blink at dropping $600 on SLI will buy it, but the mainstream won't. 3dfx is going to go after Joe Consumer going into CompUSA, who sees lot's of pretty boxes and then looks at pricetags. If a product is priced too high, he won't look twice - so 3dfx will continue to be competitive with the other boardmakers in price, so I don't see any validity in your argument. -- Ken's Sig 3.0 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi Go #43 and #44! volksy (at) geocities (dot) com volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com >Ronny, >You missed my point :) >There is NO competition in 3dfx land now. Unlike the VooDoo I and II, >which had lots of manufactureres using those chipsets, the VooDoo III >only has one. 3dfx. STB _is_ 3dfx now, so that one doesn't count :) >With nVidia, you have at least half a dozen different manufacturers >using the chipset, which should keep pricing in line. >3dfx wants it all for themselves, and they can have it. >-Larry >> Lack of competition? No, just one company using 3dfx chips, but lots of >> companies selling boards with different chips.

Check out www.sharkyextreme.com's latest shootout. Its all FPS games they did demos on, well is decent3 an FPS? ;), but still. Also, before comparing prices you need to look at amount of onboard memory too...I believe the v3 3000 is only 16megs compared to most ultra's 32 megs, etc, etc. $250 for a part that isn't full AGP 2x complaint, does not have full 32 bit output, etc, etc, etc. is gouging and isn't competitive. Look at the cost of a lot of standard TNT2 parts out, they are pretty cheap. Now I don't think 3dfx is gouging their prices, but still they are a bit high. Joe Consumer also doesn't generally know the difference between cards...so 3dfx has to keep the prices the same, but they CAN increase them to the same level as the cards that have more features, offerings, etc than the Voodoo board because JC doesn't or hasn't done the research in most cases to know better.

Competition doesn't make real world sense? Please review the way computers and purchasing computers have changed over the last 10 years :) There _is_ a reason why Mac's cost more than PC's... -Larry > We aren't getting your point because it doesn't make much real-world sense.

Question? What is the sales ratio of Macs verses PCs? Either per 100s, 1000s etc.. Tia Thom_j.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Competition doesn't make real world sense? > Please review the way computers and purchasing computers have changed > over the last 10 years :) > There _is_ a reason why Mac's cost more than PC's... > -Larry > > We aren't getting your point because it doesn't make much real-world

sense.

And will you show me where you CAN'T buy a video card from someone other than 3dfx? Certainly looks like competition on the shelf at the local CompUSA. Not 10 years ago, but early 90's you had Soundblaster soundcards, only made by Creative. But you could buy souncards from other manafacturers that did mostly the same thing, some even better. That was competition, and the prices were close, even though there was no competition for an actual SoundBlaster card from anyone other than Creative. You can't buy an Intel CPU from anyone other than Intel, but you can buy a compatible CPU from AMD, and THAT keeps Intel from charging more than they do - I well remember the periods when CPU competition was weak and we most definitely paid Intel whatever they wanted and computers were much more expensive then. I fail to see any way that 3dfx is monopolizing anything, as I can quite easily go to the store and buy a graphics card from someone else. 3dfx is doing no different than Matrox or ATI, and they always seem to have reasonable prices on their cards although NOBODY else can make a Matrox or ATI card. I paid much less for my Voodoo3 than I paid for my Voodoo2, even with what you say is no competition. I have yet to see any significant price differences among the TNT2 boards, when you consider the speed and other specs. I never saw that much price difference on the V1's or V2's, or the original TNT, especially not on brand-new products. So to say that I can't see any validity to your argument would be an understatement. The real-world as it is plain to see in front of me is the 3dfx products are priced reasonably in regards to the competition, and that there IS competition since I can buy something not made by 3dfx. How much simpler can that be? -- Ken's Sig 3.0 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi Go #43 and #44! volksy (at) geocities (dot) com volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com >Competition doesn't make real world sense? >Please review the way computers and purchasing computers have changed >over the last 10 years :) >There _is_ a reason why Mac's cost more than PC's... >-Larry >> We aren't getting your point because it doesn't make much real-world sense.

And a few posts up in this thread you said you didn't agree with Sharky's earlier review - now he's reliable? I get higher Quake2 numbers than him on my V3 and a P2-400. And that selection of games is, as these always are in these, laughable. And you can say with a straight face you trust anything Pabst says in the earlier post? There is so much blatant misinformation on that site it's laughable. And, you're going on again about "non-AGP2x compliant, etc.". Who the hell cares? Last I checked, the Voodoo3 does just fine with texture-management without using the AGP method, and when everyone was hyping AGP texturing last year all the AGP cards were getting smoked by SLI running on a bus half the speed. I don't care HOW a card does the job, just HOW WELL. The ONLY issue with the V3 is 32-bit color, and I've yet to see a game that requires that. I've seen Q3A test on mine, and it looks pretty good. I've seen it on a TNT in 32-bit color, and it looked somewhat better. Enough for me to run out and drop $250 on a TNT2? Not hardly. Especially since many of the effects in Q3A in 32-bit still didn't look as good as some I've seen in Unreal in "lowly" 16-bit. Again, it's not HOW you do it, it's HOW WELL. The guy who wants all the TV and radio and stuff will think he's getting a great deal, as "TV and Radio Tuners" mean a helluva lot more to him than AGP 4X. For the guy who doesn't need that, the $179 Voodoo3 3000 looks more attractive than a $249 TNT2, again, as none of the little buzzwords mean much to him. The Voodoo3's are cheaper than the competition, and offer almost the same real-world. Joe Consumer is just not going to notice the difference in 32-bit and 16-bit, it's all gonna look 10 times better than his Playstation did, and he won't have any basis for the speed comparisons either - especially since on his system that is most likely NOT a PIII-500 the V3 is usually going to be FASTER. Sorry, I've been in the stores and seen people not look twice at the TNT2's due to the sticker shock, and get a V3. I doubt seriously they returned it because they found it didn't support AGP4x or something like that. Face it, nobody is going to go far wrong with any of these cards, and 3dfx is selling them under what they could so is going to get a lot of the price is everything crowd. I guarantee if Diamond and Creative had been selling Voodoo3's with a month lead time on the TNT2's, they would've jacked the price up for a while to milk the early adopter market, then dropped them a bit at the TNT2 launch, and that was the crux of the orignal argument. -- Ken's Sig 3.0 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi Go #43 and #44! volksy (at) geocities (dot) com volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com >> The top Voodoo3, with TV In/Out, and TV/FM tuner will be $249. The next >in >> line V3 3000, almost as fast - and quite competitive or even faster than >the >> top TNT2, is $179. >Check out www.sharkyextreme.com's latest shootout. Its all FPS games they >did demos on, well is decent3 an FPS? ;), but still. Also, before comparing >prices you need to look at amount of onboard memory too...I believe the v3 >3000 is only 16megs compared to most ultra's 32 megs, etc, etc. >> Where is 3dfx gouging prices? I for one don't see it at all. >$250 for a part that isn't full AGP 2x complaint, does not have full 32 bit >output, etc, etc, etc. is gouging and isn't competitive. Look at the cost >of a lot of standard TNT2 parts out, they are pretty cheap. Now I don't >think 3dfx is gouging their prices, but still they are a bit high. >Joe Consumer also doesn't generally know the difference between cards...so >3dfx has to keep the prices the same, but they CAN increase them to the same >level as the cards that have more features, offerings, etc than the Voodoo >board because JC doesn't or hasn't done the research in most cases to know >better.

That number (as always) is debateable :) It's a forgone conclusion that PC's outsell Mac's, and that Wintel marketshare is upwards of 90%. An interesting question that is never asked, though, (maybe because it can't be answered) is how many legacy units of each platform are still in use? My own personal experience is that I see _far_ more old Mac's in use than PC's, when only taking into consideration machines 5 years old or older. People seem much more willing to throw away an old PC, or donate it away. -Larry > Question? What is the sales ratio of Macs verses PCs? > Either per 100s, 1000s etc.. Tia > Thom_j.

Well, you continue to miss the point, and I don't have time to try and nail it in, so I'll just say thanks for the conversation, and enjoy your single-source 3dfx board :) -Larry > And will you show me where you CAN'T buy a video card from someone other > than 3dfx? Certainly looks like competition on the shelf at the local > CompUSA.

And you fail to miss the point of the overall market. Prices of multi-source boards have always taken into account the competing chipsets, yet you look at this in a vacuum like the only factor is what someone is charging for another board with the same chipset. With few / no competing chipsets, we paid $300 for a new 3dfx product. As newer products that competed with them came out, the prices came down. Since there is good competition in today's market, we paid $179 tops for the fastest 3dfx product out. If you think a Voodoo3 3000 from someone other than 3dfx would've been significantly cheaper, I think you're greatly mistaken - and looking at the minor price differences from the competing TNT2 products should prove that to you - and if you look back at the competing V1, V2, Banshee and Rush products and the minor price differences then you should see it also. Based on how they've always done, I'd be shocked to not see Diamond price a V3 3000 at $229 and then dropped it a bit when the TNT2 came out. 3dfx had it at $179 from the start, and I fail to see how anyone would've made it for much, or any, less than that. When a V2 was $300 from Creative or Diamond, sure there was a lot of room for someone to undercut them, as there was a huge profit margin there. Especially considering that 3dfx did all the design work for them, as most everyone just copied the reference design, and packed it in a box. With $200 and under cards, there isn't nearly the margin there so price differences are going to be much smaller. Watch the TNT2 prices, until the next-gen 3dfx and nVidia cards come out, I bet you'll be shocked to see there won't be much of a price drop on any of them, or much price differential. And it looks like the single-source Matrox G400, with more features and speed than the TNT2's, isnt' going to be more than the top TNT2's, so there is another knock on your argument. If you don't like what 3dfx has, fine, but to say you won't buy one simply because they won't let anyone compete in making the exact same card to save you a whopping $10 (or charge you MORE for all you know) is basically ludicrous. With the pricing of their current product line vs. the competition, 3dfx disproved this theory (which has been going around since they bought STB) months ago. -- Ken's Sig 3.0 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi Go #43 and #44! volksy (at) geocities (dot) com volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com >Well, you continue to miss the point, and I don't have time to try and >nail it in, so I'll just say thanks for the conversation, and enjoy your >single-source 3dfx board :) >-Larry >> And will you show me where you CAN'T buy a video card from someone other >> than 3dfx? Certainly looks like competition on the shelf at the local >> CompUSA.

Thanx for the info Larry! Another Question/Comment. Don't you think the PCs are in & out more than Macs because of the quick 'turn-over upgrade rate' of PCs? Of course I'm un-aware of Mac & the upgrades that has been done in the past 5yrs or more.. Thom_j.

Quoted text (22 lines)

> That number (as always) is debateable :) > It's a forgone conclusion that PC's outsell Mac's, and that Wintel > marketshare is upwards of 90%. > An interesting question that is never asked, though, (maybe because it > can't be answered) is how many legacy units of each platform are still > in use? > My own personal experience is that I see _far_ more old Mac's in use > than PC's, when only taking into consideration machines 5 years old or > older. People seem much more willing to throw away an old PC, or donate > it away. > -Larry > > Question? What is the sales ratio of Macs verses PCs? > > Either per 100s, 1000s etc.. Tia > > Thom_j.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here... Are you asking if the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is higher with PC's because because they have to be replaced more often? Not really. Businesses generally keep PC's quite a whiles. The larger the company, the longer a PC will stay in use. Hand-Me-Downs :) However, most reports I've seen (and it has been several years) indicated a higher TCO for PC's (even though they are initially cheaper) due to higher IS and maintenance costs. I'm certain not here to debate this, so leave me alone people :) > Thanx for the info Larry! Another Question/Comment. > Don't you think the PCs are in & out more than Macs > because of the quick 'turn-over upgrade rate' of PCs? > Of course I'm un-aware of Mac & the upgrades that > has been done in the past 5yrs or more.. > Thom_j.