rec.autos.simulators

by **Steve Smit** » Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:00:49

L(TOL),

Yer point being...???

*My* point was that compared to a GF2 Ultra it's ***y expensive, and
compared to a GF4 4400 it's not as fast...nor does it take full advantage of
DX8x. On its own, tho, it's a very fine video card.

--Steve

> Um, excuuuuse me :).....

> I'm running a GeForce 3 Ti500 (VisionTek) and can pull over 100fps in
NR2002
> without working at it too hard...

> I'm not saying it's the best buy right _now_, but it's hardly lame!

> -Larry

> > Don't bother with any GF3; they're all lame. Bucks up? Getta GF4 Ti
> 4400.
> > Bucks down? Getta GF2 Ultra. IMO.

> > > ***y pile of poo that is the 64mb Hercules 3D Prophet 4500 (AGP) has
> now
> > > been taken back from wence it came and a full refund obtained.

> > > Now to buy a decent vid card.

> > > Regarding the GeForce 3 Ti200....

> > > There seems to be many variants? are they all the same or wot?

> > > I've just bought Micro Mart (June 20th Edition) and it has loads of
ads
> > > for mail order/net purchase.

> > > Many companies have more than one GeForce 3 Ti200, eg: www.aria.co.uk
> have
> > > an ad which has:

> > > Hercules Prophet III GeForce 3 Ti200 64mb = 142.00
> > > Sparkle SP700T GeForce 3 Ti200 64mb DDR = 83.00

> > > Whats the difference apart from the maker? is performance different?

> > > 8-)

> > > *Peter* - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **na_bike** » Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:05:44

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:00:49 GMT, "Steve Smith"

>L(TOL),

>Yer point being...???

>*My* point was that compared to a GF2 Ultra it's ***y expensive, and
>compared to a GF4 4400 it's not as fast...nor does it take full advantage of
>DX8x. On its own, tho, it's a very fine video card.

You sure you're not mixing GF3 series with the GF4MX series?

$90 for a GF3Ti200 is hardly '***y expensive' either... IMHO.

by **Steve Smit** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:58:22

Is it me...or did the target just move? I thought we were discussing the
GF3 Ti500. Apples or oranges; YOU make the call!

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:00:49 GMT, "Steve Smith"

> >L(TOL),

> >Yer point being...???

> >*My* point was that compared to a GF2 Ultra it's ***y expensive, and
> >compared to a GF4 4400 it's not as fast...nor does it take full advantage
of
> >DX8x. On its own, tho, it's a very fine video card.

> You sure you're not mixing GF3 series with the GF4MX series?

> $90 for a GF3Ti200 is hardly '***y expensive' either... IMHO.

by **na_bike** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:46:17

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:58:22 GMT, "Steve Smith"

>Is it me...or did the target just move? I thought we were discussing the
>GF3 Ti500. Apples or oranges; YOU make the call!

Umm... I'm not trying to pick a fight but the original post you
responded to talked about Ti200's. -"all GF3 are lame".

Besides, a quick look at pricewatch quotes the cheapest Ti500's at
about $140 and the cheapest GF2 Ultra at $213. GF2Ti's at $60 though.
IMHO, it's $30 well spent to get a Ti200 instead.

But whatever, really.

by **Steve Smit** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:23:35

Ok, no fisticuffs.

I got my GF2 Ultra from eVGA (a great company, BTW) for under $100. It's
fabulous for GPL, but feels increasingly stressed out with later games (like
N2002, MoH:AA, etc.). I'll probably hang onto it until I go for a GP4, but
I'm complusive abt. my Golden Oldies (still have a pair of Voodoo 5s).

--Steve

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:58:22 GMT, "Steve Smith"

> >Is it me...or did the target just move? I thought we were discussing the
> >GF3 Ti500. Apples or oranges; YOU make the call!

> Umm... I'm not trying to pick a fight but the original post you
> responded to talked about Ti200's. -"all GF3 are lame".

> Besides, a quick look at pricewatch quotes the cheapest Ti500's at
> about $140 and the cheapest GF2 Ultra at $213. GF2Ti's at $60 though.
> IMHO, it's $30 well spent to get a Ti200 instead.

> But whatever, really.

rec.autos.simulators

Best graphics card?

Best graphics card?

Best graphics card?

Best graphics card?

Best graphics card?

Best graphics card?