Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: SC-DeMutt on February 08, 2001, 07:52:00 AM
-
You still swear by Voodoo5? Have you seen this? http://www4.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q3/000814/geforce2ultra-07.html (http://www4.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q3/000814/geforce2ultra-07.html)
I'd still like to hear what you have to say about the Voodoo's. I'm havin a heckuva time makin up my mind! (too much input, for too small a space!)lol
Thanks!
SC-Mutt
Sqdrn C.O.
Skeleton Crew
-
$338 vs $138 www.pricewatch.com (http://www.pricewatch.com)
that's the real difference (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Hehe eagler - right on the money (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) - don't forget the FSAA on V5, not the nVidia's "thing they like to call FSAA" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I'd like to see a monitor BTW that refreshes at 90Hz in 1600x1200 resolution or do you need a second mortgage for this babe? Keep in mind that, unlike Tomshadware, you have to pay for everything (hardware that is) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
-
I hate to sound completely stupid, But can you be more specific? I mean there's a HUGE gap in fps between the two, that seems to remain fairly constant in all the tests. What am I missing? (Assuming the tests aren't rigged, of course;p)
Thanks again;
SC-Mutt
(Dunder-Dog)
-
I can only speak for the Voodoo 5500. I get up to 85 fps as my monitor is set to 85hz at 1028 x 1024 32 bit color with v sync enabled. It's a Sony 19" flat screen. I don't think my old eyes could tell the difference with any higher frame rate as I can't tell the difference when it drops down to 42 fps (average fps in game from cockpit). I get better results running the FSAA thingy off and higher res, some of the ppl run a lower res and FSAA thingy enabled. 1028 x 1024 at 32 bit looks pretty darn good. Good luck with your decision.
Eagler
-
Mutt, you are missing the two really obvious points:
1. Image quality. The V5's rules, period. Only the Radeon can come close right now IMNSHO.
2. Price. The V5 is a great deal for the money. The ultra would have been comparable to the V5 6000 if it had every made it into production. Compare the performance on a per dollar basis, and the V5 is suddenly a better value. That's not saying the V5 doesn't have competitors in it's price range, it certainly does. For most folks the GeForce 2 MX is the best value right now, and compares very well with the V5 5500. It's the comparison I would focus on if I was buying right now.
The third, and not so obvious point, is how much speed and resolution is usable. For example, I have a toejamty 17" no-name monitor. It maxes at 1024x768 32 color at 75Hz. Anything at higher resolutions and framerates is a completely irrelevant to me. There are a LOT of folks in that situation in the market. The problem is to get the most I can within that limitation, and the solution is FSAA.
Now, since I am limited in resolution, I need to get the best quality I can within that resolution range. The V5 5500 with it's top quality 3D image and very good 2x FSAA just beats the pants off of everything I've seen. Now maybe an Ultra would do 2x2 FSAA at the resolution and speed I run, but the V5's 2x looks just as good as nVidia's hacked "2x2" FSAA. Also, when you get into FSAA, the V5 starts to catch up in speed pretty quick. This is Aces High I'm talking about here, but it applies pretty well to flying and driving sims in general. If your a Quake-head with a good monitor, buy a GeForce... no argument there. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
There is only one FSAA test in that benchmark, and it's screwed up for me. The graphic is pretty much un-readable for me. Try again in 1024x768 32 bit color 2x FSAA and see what happens. The Ultra might still be faster, but it won't be by a lot. It definately won't be enough for me to pay 3 times as much money for the difference. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Tom's benchmarks especially are very Quake-biased. Example, he discounts 1024x768 32 Bit 2x FSAA as a viable resolution. That's what I run with my Athlon 700 in every game I play, including Q3 Team Arena. Now if you are a hard-core quake player, that might not be "fast enough" for you. I'm more interested in how good Aces High looks and stays playable. For me that resolution and FSAA setting is the best I can do, and for the money nothing beats the V5 5500 at rendering it.
I might choose the Ultra instead of the V5... if it was the same price. Even then it would be a close call with my monitor limitation. If I was making a purchasing decision now, I think I'd be comparing the other GeForce 2 cards, the Pro and the MX, to the V5. If you can, try to observer the two side by side running a game you play. I'd be concerned about ongoing support though, so it might be best to stick with nVidia if you haven't purchased yet.
Oh btw, I was just reading how the latest nVidia 6.50 drivers break FSAA for a lot of folks. It's kind of entertaining that my "last drivers I'll ever get" for the V5 are better and more stable than whatever nVidia's creation of the moment is. Search through these boards and see how many folks there are trying to figure out which driver version in combination with obscure settings will allow them to play the game on their nVidia cards. I wish they'd get their driver act together, it would save me a lot of time helping folks on this board! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Lephturn - Aces High Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome! (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/)
[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
I know what you mean Lehpturn. Started benchmarking the GeForce cards this week, with the hopes of being completed by Friday. LOL! Looking at all the games I am testing, I have not been able to find a single driver that all the games I want to test recommend using.
I thought ATI had a bad reputation for driver quality. The hardware must be great to overcome the lousy software.
As it stands right now I will have to use 3 different drivers to accomplish my task. Although, the latest release from NVidia is still an unknown quantity, so it will get thrown in for the benchmarking too.
Sheesh, 4 drivers, 4 different CPU's, and 5 different resolutions at each combination. Oy! 80 different sets of numbers, and that does not take into account FSAA. Oh, and 3 different GeForce cards,....MOMMY!
------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net
-
Skuzzy you gotta remember firstly that a lot of the Nvidia drivers are not Official releases but beta's aimed at fixing specific problems sometimes at the detriment to other programs so the fixes can be incorporated into an "official" release later, having said that it appears they screwed the latest "official" 6.50 release, but its only a problem if you overclock them.
I have been using the beta 6.50's and 6.49's for a long time with NO driver problems of any sort in any games, I dont even suffer the so called Nvidia blue screen flashes in AH that others suffer.
I would like to point out that the advantage of insane fps in AH and at 1600 res with Nvidias is simply this, I am not afraid to fight in clouds or fight through 3 pillars of smoke from a burning airfield cos the frames keep a coming (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Just to show i am a balanced and unbiased individual, oh and price had nothing MUCH to do with this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I recently bought a 3DFX voodoo 4500 PCI for the second comp using a P2 333 cpu (damn thats slow) replaced a voodoo 2 expecting a fps increase, err i was disappointed 13 fps on runway at 1024 res (monitor limited) same as the voodoo 2 managed.
What i will say is it was still worth it cos now i can use the 2x FSAA and after tweaking a few settings it looks a helluva lot better than before even if no faster. But i suspect its cpu limited.
As i have said before the 3DFX FSAA is better than Nvidia can manage on vertical surfaces, ie tailplanes and cockpit frames, on horizontall surfaces i still say theres no difference.
Hopefully the acquisition of 3DFX by Nvidia will bring us all closer to graphical perfection.
-
Mutt, you have to ask if the gap in FR justiies the gap in price.
plus all the other factors like the monitor and whatnot. I still stick to my guns (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
"I wish they'd get their driver act together, it would save me a lot of time helping folks on this board! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)"
Well, For what it's worth, This is one unit that will be better informed, And most of all, Eternally Grateful for your efforts!! The same goes for everyone who took time to give your input! THANK YOU Sirs!
And a king sized SALUTE! to Skuzzy!!
**BTW, I neglected to mention that MY personal goals are three: 1)Compatability. With my "Noname-FlatRound-p.o.s.17inch" and AcesHigh, Both Now and Later. 2) Image Quality, With room to grow into a newer display. 3) Frame rates! Nothing below 75 for a couple of years! LOL!
Again; Thanks!
S!
Doc "Mutt" Hoover
Commanding Officer
SKELETON CREW
FBI intercepted memo from Bill Clinton, to George W.Bush...
Dear George;
Two things; First; Hillary asked me to inform you that, Regretfully, in the "G.W.Bush White House", There will be no "Fancy Gold Urinal" like the one your wife said you were so fond of.
Second; We no longer think the "First Cat", is guilty of peeing in my saxophone.
Sincerely;
W.J.Clinton
-
Well I for one am gratefull for all the info.
Frankly was leaning towards one of the cheaper GeForce MX cards, but not so sure now.
-
***UNBIASED OPINION BY PERSON WHO HAS OWENED BOTH BOARDS***
I tested both cards on these system specs:
Duron @ 1Ghz
256 PC133 CAS-3 SDRAM
Abit A7V 100FSB
5400rpm ATA/66
Windows ME
DX8
I had the Voodoo first. I really loved the card, the FSAA is really good. I had problems with Aces High with stuttering, but when it was not happening, the board was actually very fast. On most games image quality was good.
Because of the AH stuttering problems I decided to change for a GeForce. FSAA *MAY* look better with the V5 but I noticed NO difference. Maybe with a better Monitor? I am using a "17 and play at 1024x768x32bit with 2xFSAA. The GeForce is faster than the V5 in Aces High. And the colors do look better in most games.
Unreal tournament and Deus Ex run like toejam on the gf compared to the V5. I really weep when I try to play Deus Ex, wich is an excellent game, then I really miss the V5. Other than that, I am glad I got the GF.
Its sad the 3dfx went belly-up. I really liked their products. But they made some not very smart business decisions.
-
What I lament is the loss of 3DFX's approach. The idea that it was better to implement top-notch FSAA because every game could instantly use it, is valid. I'm still waiting to see all these so-called "T&L Optimized" games. This was the second holiday season we were supposed to see "hundreds" of T&L titles. Yeah right. The industry just DOES NOT utilize new hardware features that quickly. Face it, the development cycle of most computer games is YEARS, so it will take at least that long to implement any new features. Well, at least now that nVidia and ATI are pretty much all that's left standing, we might see some support for the new hardware features... in two years time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I used to think that current cards were memory limited enough that we could not do 4x FSAA (proper 4x FSAA) with current cards and get acceptible frame rates. However, the recent hints at Hidden Surface Removal are encouraging. Still, 3D accelerators seem to have hit a wall in terms of memory bandwidth, so it looks like my V5 will last me a lot longer than I ever thought it would. I don't see any big developments on the horizon. Maybe BitBoys will save us. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
All I can do is hope that nVidia takes the good parts from 3DFX. Namely, their FSAA methods and their image quality. Oh, and hire all of 3DFX's driver writers too!
------------------
Lephturn - Aces High Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome! (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/)
-
Well Lephturn,...T&L is neat, but it will only really benefit games that have multiple "points" of light as opposed to multiple sources of light.
In other words a game like AH would not get anything out of T&L as the source of light is not a point (a point of light creates a distinct cone of light, requiring many angular calculations for it), it is in fact the sun/moon, which does not project a cone, due to the distance from source.
Oh, bthe way, the GeForce cards only really support one light point in thier T&L support. Adding more points of light causes even the Ultra card to drop to incredibly low frame rates. The ATI Radeon supports at least 8 points of light in thier implementation without much of a frame hit.
Anyway,..just thought I would share this.
------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp. http://www.applink.net (http://www.applink.net)
skuzzy@applink.net
[This message has been edited by Skuzzy (edited 02-12-2001).]
-
Good info Skuzzy.
So T&L is even more marketing vapour than I thought. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
FSAA is the only instantly applicable to every game feature I've seen in a long time. It makes a big difference. If nothing else, 3DFX has made "must have" feature for future cards.
------------------
Lephturn - Aces High Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome! (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/)
"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know." - Michel Eyquem, seigneur de Montaigne. (1533–1592)
-
Well,...there is one more feature that could have a dramatic impact on the "eye candy".
Environmental Bump Mapping. Right now, ATI's Radeon is the only chip that supports it.
This is the feature that finally causes computer graphics to appear more life-like.
What is it? Well,..in the most simplest terms..it allows light to be reflected off of the texture of an object rather than reflecting light off the object, which is what software does today.
This is an expensive feature, in terms of processing power required. The ATI card suffers about a 40% decrease in frame rates when this feature is used, but images suddenly take on life-like characteristics.
This is the first time this feature has been brought into the PC realm. It has been on very high end graphics co-processors used in video editing for the last couple of years.
If the video chips get fast enough, this feature promises to offer more life-like images than we have ever see before. Of course, the software will have to take advantage of it.
------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net
-
Why do I get this feeling the Skuzzy has got his hands on the lot of Radeon cards on the cheap and he's trying to flog them for top dollar now? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Well after reading what seems like endless benchmarks compareing every Geforce chipset vs the Voodoo 5500. Dollar for dollar I think I'm going to have to give the voodoo a shot.
While the Geforce Ultra may be able to top the voodoo nothing else even close to it's price range seems to.
Getting antsy waiting for 32 bit sunsets! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Skuzzy I thought Matrox G-cards can also do some "environmental bump mapping"(It was first capable to do that btw) thought its not a players No.1 choice.
ps:I have no problems with my GF2 MX card, Overclocked to 220/230 it gives 60..90fps in 1024*768 32bit colors.
Leph 3Dfx is gone; Too late to promote its products...
I stopped using its products when they stopped to sell their chips to other manufacturers and after all Nvidia's chips could do more 3D tricks than 3Dfx's cards. I voted with my wallet like few million other gamer too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Thanks to us the witch is dead (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Nvidia's chips could do more 3D tricks than 3Dfx's cards
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
Originally posted by -lynx-:
Why do I get this feeling the Skuzzy has got his hands on the lot of Radeon cards on the cheap and he's trying to flog them for top dollar now? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Geez, I hope I am not giving that impression. Just trying to impart some facts about the various video cards. They all have weaknesses and strengths.
The Matrox card may support environmental bump mapping. I have not looked at the data nor the cards.
A little more tidbit. The default video display setting for the 6.50 GeForce drivers is "Best". If you set it to "Highest video detail", you get images equal to the ATI Radeon without the darkness. Also, using this setting I have noted substantially less vertical texture tears when running with vsync off. Best news, is the performance does not suffer much (about a 1 fps frame hit) when using this mode.
Also, from what I have seen so far, I would not invest in a GeForce MX 32MB card.
The differences in performance between the GeForce GTS Pro 64MB and GeForce Ultra is very slight. With the price delta between the two, I would opt for the GTS Pro 64MB,if you are considering a GeForce product.
------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net
-
Staga,
I'm not here to promote anything.
Read up the thread and see where I recommended a GeForce or a Radeon except in the case of a not-great monitor and a limited budget. I didn't tell anyone what to buy, I simply gave a situation where the V5 5500 still may be the best value. If you disagree, fine, but don't accuse me of just trying to promote their stuff. I'm trying to help folks make a good informed decision here, and I think I've done that.
And "ps:" as you put it, my V5 5500 runs 30-50 FPS at the same resolution and color depth as you run. Oh yeah, and that's with 2xFSAA and an image quality you could only dream about with a GF2 MX. But that's ok, you can take comfort in seeing those two digits at the top of your screen change to higher numbers. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Lephturn - Aces High Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome! (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/)
"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know." - Michel Eyquem, seigneur de Montaigne. (1533–1592)
[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 02-13-2001).]