Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Bullwinkle on October 29, 2000, 01:47:00 AM
-
I am looking to get a Geforce card. Is any of them faster than others? I know very little about them. Thanks!
Bullwinkle
"Don't you dare touch my Bullwinkle."
-
It depends on what your budget is. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
If you want the best, and you don't mind spending a bunch (I'd guess like $300, but I don't know the US prices), look at the Voodoo 5 5500. I chose it for the Full Scene Anti Aliasing quality, even though it is slower than a full-on GeForce 2. Here is why I picked it: http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/fsaa/ (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/fsaa/)
If you want the best value on the market, it would have to be the GeForce 2 MX. You can get those things for under $150 from what I hear, and you'll get great power for that price.
Note that no matter which direction you choose to go, you will need a very good quality power supply in your computer to handle the drain these big cards put on the system. If you experience problems after upgrading, you may have to go to a 300 Watt power supply, a good quality one, if you don't already have one.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
(http://tuweb.ucis.dal.ca/~dconrad/ahf/lepht.gif)
"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl
-
OK, the v5 has fsaa, great. But the geforce and radeon also have fsaa. Yes, the v5 is supposed to have the best fsaa, but what I want to know is, is the geforce/radeon fsaa good enough? I havn't seen any examples.
If a gfmx were fast enough while giving enough releaf from the jaggies then that would be the bomb, but we don't know cause no one is saying.
-
bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum10/HTML/000433.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum10/HTML/000433.html)
Pretty much made up my mind,(thanks staga).
Now if I could only find one (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Some more screenshots of the V5 5500... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum10/HTML/000361.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum10/HTML/000361.html)
I'd also be interested in some FSAA screenshots with the other cards to see what they can do. I had the GeForce 256 DDR from Creative Labs and it didn't look or perform nearly as good as the V5 when using FSAA.
SOB
-
Screenshots do not do justice to FSAA. You have to see it.
-
All I know I'm getting 69-75fps in 1024*768 32bit (~28-32 in smoke) with p3-700@933 with my Prophet2 MX card (costs about 150-160$ here)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Personally, I can tell the difference between 2x FSAA on a V5 and a GeForce2. If you run 1024x768 and 2x FSAA at 32 bit color in everything, like I do, then the V5 is the ticket. It will do it better and faster than the GeForce if you are looking at FSAA. I'll never play without FSAA again now that I've seen it.
qts is right though, you really have to try playing AH on both of these to see the difference. The nVidia method of FSAA just doesn't work as well as the Voodoo method, especially with a moving picture. If you look around on the web you can find articles that will show you comparative screenshot, but they really only tell half the story. The thing the Voodoo does really well IMHO is remove the flashing and crawling you get from movement. Static screenshots can't show you this.
As for the Radeon, it's FSAA implementation is quite good, and overall visual quality I would rate pretty close to the Voodoo. I don't think it's as fast at FSAA, but I don't really know. I don't trust ATI's drivers, they generally suck, so I won't personally consider them. I do know a couple of guys that have one though, and they are happy with it.
BTW, I checked on the web a bit. You can get a V5 5500 as low as $230 US if you look on www.pricewatch.com. (http://www.pricewatch.com.) I couldn't find a price on the radeon though...
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
(http://tuweb.ucis.dal.ca/~dconrad/ahf/lepht.gif)
"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl
-
Don't worry about the Radeon, it's not up to par with either the V5 or the GF2.
The GeForce 2 card is more powerful than the V5 by quite a good margin. (There is also a GF 2 Ultra out soon that is even faster. It will also be even more expensive.) Currently the GeForce 2 GTS is the most powerful card on the market. The GeForce 2 MX is probably the best value. The only thing the V5 has is better FSAA. (This is really only a good thing if you have at LEAST a 600 Mhz processor, frame rates will be horrible otherwise.) The GeForce 2 also has FSAA, but currently it isn't quite as good as the V5.
Both the V5 and the GeForce2 are good cards. Personally I would buy a GeForce 2, but there is nothing wrong with the V5. (The voodoo 4 is a waste of money though, it's not any faster than a V3 3500.)
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
I just read an interesting (and impartial IMO) article on video cards. http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/creative-geforce2ultra.html (http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/creative-geforce2ultra.html)
I'd take a look at it. Basically they found that the new GeForce 2 cards are actually capable of MUCH higher speeds than they are now running at. Today's processors (and graphics card ram) are just not fast enough to unleash their true potential. Note: Their PIII 866 was not fast enough to even run the GeForce 2 Ultra at 1/2 of it's max fillrate. The Voodoo 5 and Radeon look pretty slow in these tests. (Voodoo 5 only 1/2 the speed of GF 2 GTS in a couple tests.)
Here's another interesting article concerning Radeon vs GeForce 2 MX: http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q4/001019/index.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q4/001019/index.html)
(I might add ATI's drivers have been poor in my experience as well. This seems to be what Tom's Hardware Guide found as well.)
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
[This message has been edited by bloom25 (edited 10-31-2000).]
-
Staga, since you're here playing ah with a gf2mx, what's your framerate when you use fsaa? Anyone else with a mx, v5, radeon by all means respond with your framerates as well(along with resolution, bit depth, & cpu speed like Staga did the first time).
-
I'll take some screenshots and send a link when I'm back to home.
-
Screen-shots are here (http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/prophet2mx/mx.htm).
Pics in that site are from 160k to 300k gifs.
-
gonna experiment with this one tonight!!
i'll post screenies later!
(http://www.wlion.com/prototypes/jsa/ultra.jpg)
YES! that's a Geforce2 Ultra 64meg
muahahahaha (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
mason, what you need is a wife that can stop those shopping excesses of yours, if you'd have to pay an equivalent amount of money for clothes, jewelery and shoes you spend on your toys (normal ground rules ;-) you'd literally think twice about buying such expensive toys ...
-
i use a prophet II 64 meg DDR. i get 70 fps
1600 res 32bit 2x2 high fsaa with p3 600 @ 600mhz.
Whels
Originally posted by Cornholio:
Staga, since you're here playing ah with a gf2mx, what's your framerate when you use fsaa? Anyone else with a mx, v5, radeon by all means respond with your framerates as well(along with resolution, bit depth, & cpu speed like Staga did the first time).
-
Don't count the ATI Radeon out.
I use a 3DfX 5500 on my main computer because it has excellent Windows 2000 drivers. However, when I want to run my computer at 1600x1200 res and 32bit color, I use the radeon. It gives about 28fps on the ground at a typical airport in fighter, and approx 37fps in flight at 1600x1200 res and 32 bit color. I only use the radeon in Win98, the Win2000 drivers really are lousy on that video card at this point.
I can assure you that at 1600x1200 res and 32 bit color, the radeon leaves the 5500 behind in the dust.
I bought my Radeon at Best Buy for $199 and then received $50 off that price with a rebate card. If you want really high res for a decent price AND you use Win98, consider the radeon.
-
The links I posted above seem to show that the Radeon is faster than the v5 for most things. The Radeon's and ATI's biggest problem is their drivers. Just about all of ATI's latest drivers have either poor performance, bugs, or texture problems.
For all out speed, Nvidia's products have no equal.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS