rec.autos.simulators

by **Mark Daviso** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

><snip>
>> colour effects, but it still looks fabulous and the framerate is superb.
>OTOH
>> I can run GPL (far more important than Q3test given that this is RAS)
>without
>> beta opengl drivers and without having to***around with mirror
refresh
>> rates.

>What opengl drivers? I wasn't aware of any. I know there is an OpenGL
beta
>RASTERIZER for GPL (aka, its exactly the same thing as the 3dfx rasterizer
>or Rendition or software rasterizers except for its for OpenGL and was
>released as an addon.) and I don't have to***around with mirror refresh
>rates either.

Oh, sorry, RASTERIZER. -Exactly- the same as the 3dfx, rendition or
software. Except that it's an unsupported beta add on that wasn't supplied
with the original product. Yes.
Good for you not having to***around with mirror refresh rates. There
are folks having to chop them down to 1in4 or 1in6 to get acceptable
framerates. Not aware of any voodoo users having to do that...

But he's the one with the disciples - an opinion former if you will. That's
the impression I get, anyway. And I have to say that as long as my driving
sims look good and have decent framerates (which they do with my v3) I
couldn't give a monkey's as to what features my card does or doesn't have.
When Acme Software House produces a driving sim that I want that requires a
graphics card with features I don't have (be it bump mapping, large
textures, dual head output or whatever), that's when I'll want a graphics
card with these features, and not before.

Mark
Reading, UK

by **Stev** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I've never seen a V3 commercial either, seems like UK computer users don't
count?

Ok, but according to PC Format (UK PC mag) the TNT2 outshines the V3.....

My guess is that the performance gap between the two cards is so small that
they are practically impossible to tell apart.

basically,
TNT2 = More features, more expensive, likely to be usable further into the
future (its important to people like me who still use a voodoo1 because they
can't afford to upgrade)
V3 = More support, cheaper, better for GPL (given the newsgroup this is in,
that has to be worth mentioning)

note: I am talking TNT2 Ultra and V3 3000 here, as for the standard TNT2 and
V3 2000, I don't know (or care) how fast they are.

Steve

by **Randy Magrud** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Note however that these benchmarks focus on 400 MHz machines and
higher. If you've got benchmarks on P300's for the TNT2 and Voodoo3,
I'd like to see them!

>> It depends.

>Yup.

>> I almost went with the well hyped TNT2, but decided to go with the
>> unfashionable non-boastworthy v3 3000 because, although it doesn't do
>32bit
>> colour and large textures, it is more suited to what I play - GPL and
>SCGT.

>Unfashionable? Heh, ok..you are going a bit out there on a limb with that
>one. And the Voodoo3 series was way more hyped than the TNT2s. Heck, I
>dont recall ever seeing any NVidia commercials on tv, but tons of (in some
>cases rather good) Voodoo3 commercials from 3dfx.

>SCGT runs better in D3D anyways. :)

>> There are folks out there who claim to get better performance from their
>V2
>> than their TNT2 in SCGT (ouch), and GPL supports Glide natively.

>Whats wrong with that claim? Its fact. A TNT2 outperforms a SINGLE Voodoo2
>in every game I've tried it on (except some older ones that are Glide only
>from the days when 3D acceleration was just emerging). It outperforms my
>Voodoo2 SLI (Diamond 12 meg cards) in every game too.

>GPL supports: Software, Rendition, Glide AND OpenGL
>SCGT supports: D3D and Glide

>Use the appropriate rasterizer for each game, for your card, that gives you
>the best performance, etc. And btw, GPL doesn't natively support anything.
>All the rasterizers, including yes the OpenGL, are contained in seperate
>dlls (dynamic link libraries) which basically translate the internal GPL
>engine calls into the appropriate calls for that particular 3D API.

>> Also, from
>> what I've read (and I have to admit it's not a whole hell of a lot) it
>seems
>> that V3 3000 generally outshines TNT2 in benchmarking tests. So, do you
>want
>> features for what you -might- play tomorrow or performance for what
>you -do-
>> play today? If it's the former, you should probably go for the new
>Matrox,
>> if it's the latter then given you've posted to RAS, I'd recommend the V3.

>Outshines? ROTFL. Right, give me all these links and benchmarking reviews.
>And right now I do use the features of the TNT2 with Q3A. I'll use them
>with Rally Championship (even better if it was a G400Max), other games such
>as Expendable will use advanced features.

>And btw, the new Matrox G400 and G400MAX still has some driver issues
>especially in the realm of OpenGL so would be a bad choice if you really
>like playing GPL (and dont have 1 or 2 Voodoo2 cards handy). If all you
>care about is GPL and nothing else, then Voodoo3 is definetly the way to go.

>But nonetheless here is a variety of links on the subject to enlighten those
>who wish to know, and to enlighten those that obviously dont know. There
>are even more links to different reviews, as everyone has their own tilt, so
>I can't list them all.

>Its Quake3, but its the biggest test I know of different hardware (of course
>with Tom's bias).
>http://www.tomshardware.com/releases/99q2/9905111/index.html
>most notably this link
>http://www.tomshardware.com/releases/99q2/9905111/q3test-04.html
>Darn, so much for the notion, according to Tom, that the Voodoo3 outshines
>TNT2 cards.

>Rest of the links
>http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/video_june_99/
>http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/tnt-tnt2/
>http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/3dfx_v3_3000/
>http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/video/hercules_tnt2ultra/
>http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/video/elsa_erazor3/

>http://www.gamecenter.com/Hardware/Roundup/Voo3vstnt2/
>http://www.gamecenter.com/Hardware/Roundup/3dgraphics/

>http://www.anandtech.com

>http://www.zdnet.com

>P.S. Oh yeah, the lame matra of "features for what you -might- play
>tomorrow" is recycled over and over again. A couple of recent examples are
>a) the introduction to the mainstream of the 3D hardware accelerator.
>People didnt think you'd need or want it or it was too expensive, so there
>were naysayers. b) forcefeedback. Gee, how many folks just went out and
>bought new FF wheels because of GPL1.1? Mms. Of course there are always
>things like 3D glasses that just have either never worked, never worked well
>enough or just generally failed to catch.

Randy Magruder
http://members.home.com/rmagruder

by **David Mast** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>Note however that these benchmarks focus on 400 MHz machines and
>higher. If you've got benchmarks on P300's for the TNT2 and Voodoo3,
>I'd like to see them!

[admitting to not having read the previous post...]

I believe Tom's Hardware and/or Anandtech had some reviews on lesser machines.
The 3dfx cards tend to lose less fps than the TNT's. That is, they perform
relatively better than the TNT's as the CPU gets slower.

But my point is that basically these two cards have very similar framerate
performance. Whether one is 5-10% faster or slower on some shooter may
matter, or may not. Note that Computer *** Worlds "game gauge" (and new
version thereof) indicate that what has better performance in one game might
not in another. And that sims seem to be more processor dependent (ie, lower
framerate, and less difference(?).

So, I'd make my choice based on:
What games do you play? Do they support Glide? Glide only? How many old
legacy titles? Do they support the extra features the TNT has (32 bit color,
higher bit textures, AGP xx)?
How long do you plan to hold onto this new card? That is, if you are willing
to buy the next gen (which, surprise, will perform much better) in 6-8 months,
why pay for AGP 4x (which your MB doesn't support) or 32 bit now?
How much do you want to spend? Especially in light of how quickly you might
turn around the card.

Guess you can tell by my wording that I favor the 3dfx. But you may favor the
TNT2. Especially if looking to the future and not planning yet another upgrade
soon. I wish we could all get away from the TNT/3dfx religious wars and the
over-emphasis of 5-10% differences in games most of us don't play.

by **Randy Magrud** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>>Note however that these benchmarks focus on 400 MHz machines and
>>higher. If you've got benchmarks on P300's for the TNT2 and Voodoo3,
>>I'd like to see them!

>[admitting to not having read the previous post...]

>I believe Tom's Hardware and/or Anandtech had some reviews on lesser machines.
>The 3dfx cards tend to lose less fps than the TNT's. That is, they perform
>relatively better than the TNT's as the CPU gets slower.

Exactly. Unfortunately, I can't find any TNT2 vs. Voodoo3 benchmarks
on his site that use anything less than 400's! It's one thing to
compare the original TNT and Voodoo2 on a P300, but what about the
newer boards. I think when you have a lot of people trying to extend
the life of their machine by updating graphics cards, knowing which
card is best for THEIR CPU speed is very important, and those that
tout the TNT2 often use 450-500 Mhz benchmarks for their comparisons,
but even Tom's Hardware site shows a slope beginning with the 400's
and going up through 550's in which a level playing field turns
lopsided towards TNT2 as you go up from 400. Below 400? Who knows?

Were it not for GPL, I might have waited for prices to drop and bought
a TNT2.

Randy
Randy Magruder
http://members.home.com/rmagruder

by **Paul** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I use a Voodoo 3 2000 PCI and A Diamond Viper 770 in the same Win98 System,
256mb ram, 30GB HD's, AbitBH6, PII400,SBlive, blah blah blah.

I sold my Voodoo2 when I bought the TNT2, only to find that I couldn't get
GPL to properly with the openGL patch. Didn't want to get a Voodoo2 again so
got the Voodoo3PCI.

I have a few games that run better in glide ie GPL,SCGT,Alien Vs Predator.

So to change cards I reboot, change the Bios setting to AGP or PCI video
card, go into windows and change the display adapters and reboot again.
Doesn't take long a couple of minutes.

I play GPL a lot (everynight), and there is nothing like playing it in
1280x1024 mode at 36fps. it flys with the Voodoo3. To many problems for me
using the TNT2. Some people don't have any problems.

I've used both cards a lot, both have the same clock settings and I can
honestly say I use the TNT2 90% of the time because I think its the better
card. If all you play is GPL, SCGT then stick with the V3, its much better.

There is *** all difference between the cards when it comes to speed, the
quality/Colour and look of the game images when using the TNT2 shits all
over the V3. You really notice it when you get up close to objects.

In this country you can buy a Viper770 32mb ram for $319.00 and a Voodoo3
3000 16mb for $450.00.........I think the TNT2 is the better value for money
out here.

Well that's my 2cents worth from someone who is using both cards......you
guys can make up your own minds.

> > I think you chose well. I own both cards and the TNT2 is better then my
> > Voodoo3.

> What, do you swap the cards when you want to play GPL? What are your
system
> specs? Generally V3 seems to get higher benchmarks, and all it doesn't do
> are 32 bit colour and large textures. Let me assure you Q3test (the one
all
> TNT2 owners bang on about) still looks mighty fine on my v3

> colour effects, but it still looks fabulous and the framerate is superb.
OTOH
> I can run GPL (far more important than Q3test given that this is RAS)
without
> beta opengl drivers and without having to***around with mirror refresh
> rates.

> Unfortunately, it seems that the Voodoo has dropped out of fashion because
it
> doesn't have the features Carmack wants.

> Mark
> Reading, UK

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

by **Nathan Wo** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:10:49 -0500, "Chris Schletter"

>I dont remember anyone stating that a V2 outperformed a TNT2. I'd like to
>reread it and see what the person has.

From Mark D, 17/7/99 1:17am

"There are folks out there who claim to get better performance from
their V2 than their TNT2 in SCGT (ouch)"

from your reply to Mark I think you actually read it back to front.
And FWIW, It was ME that said V2 runs better than TNT2 in SCGT. I have
a 12MB Voodoo2, and a 32MB Asus V3800TVR running at default speed for
both. The Glide version of SCGT is smoother than D3D, the only thing
D3D and the TNT2 give me is an incredibly high resolution, which I
don't really care about seeing as it slows down too much for real
***.

Rest of system specs: Celeron 450A, 128MB RAM

Ive played the demo for Expendable, and it's just eyecandy wrapped
around one of the old top-down aracde shoot-em ups. NOTHING to compare
it to Q3Arena.

--
Nathan Wong http://www.racesimcentral.net/~alfacors
Super Touring - Club Cars - Alfa Romeo

http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Australian Super Touring News and Information

by **John Walla** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>TNT2: 17 fps
>Voodoo2: 31 fps, and running rock stable

Not exactly the fairest test given that the OpenGL is beta and that
the Voodoo's Glide is native - how about trying the Voodoo2 in OpenGL
mode... ;-)

Cheers!
John

by **Eric T. Busc** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Or run both from the F10 view so the mirrors aren't a factor...

Eric

by **_Banjo** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>>TNT2: 17 fps
>>Voodoo2: 31 fps, and running rock stable

>Not exactly the fairest test given that the OpenGL is beta and that
>the Voodoo's Glide is native - how about trying the Voodoo2 in OpenGL
>mode... ;-)

>Cheers!
>John

Damn right I say we trash this voodoo head!

He should LOWER the clock rate on the computer when using the V3!

THIS TEST IS NOT FAIR!

EVERYONE KNOWS THE TNT2 IS THE FASTEST CHIP OUT THERE .

How about testing the TNT2 at 800x600 and the voodoo at 1024x768 and
see what the reasults are!

HA!

Those *** voodoo heads are always running their games in glide mode
and bragging that they get 10-20 fps more than the TNT2. It's just
not fair!!!!

We should *** their mothers and force them to use software mode, HA
HA HA, Then let's see if they keep bragging!

by **Mark Daviso** » Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Nice that Papy addressed those issues. Benefits of supported hardware, I
guess.

CPU.

I am not disputing that the TNT2 is a more technologically advanced piece of
kit than the V3. I very nearly bought one, but decided that as the whole
reason I was buying a new PC was to play race sims - primarily GPL - it
would be a bad move to risk having problems for the sake of features
that -I- don't need for the foreseeable. I may be mistaken but I'm pretty
sure the latest RC shots were taken using a V2. I read that on the high
gear forums, so you can check it out there if you like.

I know they've had more than two efforts, but I've only played the last two,
and IMHO they both were very poor - RC being worse. Learning from mistakes
does not seem to be one of their strong points up to now.
I really want a decent rally SIM but I don't think I'll get one soon. This
is one area I truly hope I'm wrong on, though.

Ugh! No thanks ;-)

They could have posted on an action game forum, or a flight sim forum, or a
graphics hardware forum. They chose RAS, so I reckon it's a fair
assumption.

For me, these are the only sims worth owning right now. I can't think of
anything else that pushes hardware like them, either. TOCA2 (which I really
don't like) is not exactly pushing hardware. Neither is Viper. I couldn't
vouch for any two wheeler sims as that's not my bag, baby.

I must admit that I find it easier dealing with what exists than predicting
the future, so I guess we're opposed there. For example, in all the
pre-release hype I was sure PowerVR would come out on top of 3Dfx all those
years ago (I've worked for NEC in the past, so maybe there was bias there).
I'm just glad I waited before I leapt.

I guess people like me need early adopters like you to beat the path so that
the more technically inept like myself can reap the benefits of tech that
has been proven.

So you bought FF because there were games that you played at that time that
made use of it (like Viper, F1RS maybe, CMR). You didn't buy it in
anticipation of it's features being used.
You wouldn't -have- to buy a FF wheel if you hadn't back then. I don't have
one and have no intention of getting one in the near future. I can play GPL
just fine without it. Something I -might- not have been able to do had I
bought a TNT2 (and I'm stessing the 'might' - 150 for me is a big gamble,
no matter how 'sure thing' some say) .
I also got a T2 replacement (as a gift from my wife) about 3 months ago.
I went for the split axis, guaranteed dos compatible TMF1 (I'm not saying
you can't use FF wheels with DOS, but I'm under the impression that, like MS
Sidewinder stuff, they're win9x devices). I specifically didn't want FF
because knowing how often I'd had to tinker with the T2 I didn't fancy
having to repair anything more complex. What I'll do is wait for those more
brave/with higher expendable income than myself to give verdicts on their
long term durability.

If someone asked me what the best console they could buy right now was I'd
probably tell them 'Dreamcast'. But if they asked what's the best console
for playing racing games I'd say IMO PSX. That may change in the future (by
which time we'll be thinking about PSX2...)
Likewise someone asks what's the best all round gfx card for *** I'd say
TNT2 without hesitation, but the best for racing? Well, IMO it's v3. That
may change in the future (by which time we'll be thinking G600 [or
whatever], TNT3, v4...)

Probably the best thing to do is agree to disagree, yes? We're both racing
sim fans with different outlooks. You get good performance with your TNT2,
I get good performance with my v3. Let's shake hands and move on.

Mark
Reading, UK

by **Terry Welc** » Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Will you please get a prescription for Ritalin or something?? Please,
please stop this garbage where you totally trash one system and the
people that use it just because you think what you got is better
(whether or not it actually is!). You just took a decent technical
discussion and came into the room shouting your slogans. Please shut
the f*** up !!!!!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

by **Mark** » Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:00:00

That's a bit harsh! The discussion turned into 'which card is best for GPL'
and a TNT2 owner complained that the results weren't valid because the V2
wasn't running the openGL version!? I think sarcasm was a fair response...
No-one disputes that a TNT2 is superior tech, but if only playing GPL is your
thing... You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Cheers
Mark
Reaing, UK

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

by **Ren** » Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:00:00

On MY system this is a fair test!! In other games the TNT2 runs really
better, and I suppose if TNT2 Opengl was native in GPL it would run
faster and at least better graphics.

But GPL does not!!

So -because I want fast graphics in GPL- I use the Voodoo2. Period.

Rene

>>>TNT2: 17 fps
>>>Voodoo2: 31 fps, and running rock stable

>>Not exactly the fairest test given that the OpenGL is beta and that
>>the Voodoo's Glide is native - how about trying the Voodoo2 in OpenGL
>>mode... ;-)

>>Cheers!
>>John

>Damn right I say we trash this voodoo head!

>He should LOWER the clock rate on the computer when using the V3!

>THIS TEST IS NOT FAIR!

>EVERYONE KNOWS THE TNT2 IS THE FASTEST CHIP OUT THERE .

>How about testing the TNT2 at 800x600 and the voodoo at 1024x768 and
>see what the reasults are!

>HA!

>Those *** voodoo heads are always running their games in glide mode
>and bragging that they get 10-20 fps more than the TNT2. It's just
>not fair!!!!

>We should *** their mothers and force them to use software mode, HA
>HA HA, Then let's see if they keep bragging!

by **Jason Litt** » Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>You should both qualify this by stating what system you're running on.
>If you go to toms hardware you'll see that the advantage of the TNT2
>is minimal on slower machines (and I'm sad to say my P300 is now a
>"slower machine"), whereas as you get to 400's and 500's the TNT2
>takes off like a rocket. So if you're stuck with a slower machine,
>the TNT2 hardware may not be worth buying at this price point.
>Besides, the Voodoo3 can be had REAL cheap from Buy.com, and it runs
>everything great in 16-bit color, and was a great AGP solution for me.

First off anyone who believe what Tom Pabst has to say needs to get a
check up. It has been proven over and over, not only by the normal
people but by the industry that Tom is full of balony.

Toms Vaporware Review

http://www.tomsvaporware.com or http://tomsvaporware.com

Home of the "UNBIASED" review!

rec.autos.simulators

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3

TNT@ vs. V3