Thanks from this Confused Canuck in Calgary , Canada!!!
Devon Hill
> I would say it depends on how long you intend to keep the card for. If you
> generally buy a new video card every 6 months then theres nothing wrong with
> either card, but if you will be keeping the card for two years, then maybe
> the lack of hardware T&L chips on the V5 will make you want to plump for the
> GeForce 2 GTS.
> It also depends on what features you view as most important. If you really
> fancy the idea of playing all you D3D games with anti-aliasing, then go for
> the V5.
> I'm currently trying to decide between the same two cards myself.
Having a 3D card for a year is quite possible, but 2 years? You can't or you
will stop playing AND enjoying current games at some point.
l8er
ronny
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
Thanks for your continued output from a still confused canuck in Calgary ,
Canada
Devon Hill
> > I would say it depends on how long you intend to keep the card for. If
you
> > generally buy a new video card every 6 months then theres nothing wrong
with
> > either card, but if you will be keeping the card for two years, then
maybe
> > the lack of hardware T&L chips on the V5 will make you want to plump for
the
> > GeForce 2 GTS.
> > It also depends on what features you view as most important. If you
really
> > fancy the idea of playing all you D3D games with anti-aliasing, then go
for
> > the V5.
> > I'm currently trying to decide between the same two cards myself.
> You should consider the fact that using fast CPUs the current T&L
implementation
> on the GTS cards is already slower than doing it on the CPU itself.
> Having a 3D card for a year is quite possible, but 2 years? You can't or
you
> will stop playing AND enjoying current games at some point.
> l8er
> ronny
> --
> |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
> ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
> |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
> '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
It's true that the T&L chips on a GeForce DDR perform T&L slower than a
P3-500, but that's totally irrelevant.
When running a real game a P3-500 only has about 15-20% of it's cycles to
dedicate to T&L, so in an actual game situation the GeForce T&L chips work
out to be *way* faster than a real world software T&L implementation.
Also, when you take the T&L load off the CPU and onto the on-board T&L
chips, you also free up that 15-20% of CPU time for other tasks.
Further, not only is the hardware T&L implementation faster, it is *still*
faster than software T&L if you double the polygon count.
The T&L tests that hardware sites do is testing the Hardware T&L chips,
against software T&L performed with a CPU that isn't doing anything else.
So the CPU is dedicated 100% of it's cycles to T&L whereas in a real game
situation it has no where near the same number of free cycles.
And the proof of the pudding, by the way, is that games like MDK2, which is
just about the first game to support Hardware T&L to hit the market, see
considerable frame rate increases and enhanced lighting when the feature is
switched on.
Thanks from a less kerfuffled Canuck in Calgary, Canada.
Devon Hill
