>> you will get better framerates or visuals with a 3dFX card
>> than with any other 3D card. This being due to a large user base and
>> widespread card specific support.
>John, John, John!
>The size of a base and the width of the spread have absolutely no
>bearing on the speed of frame-rates nor the quality of visuals!!!
>Once again, per analogy, this is like saying that the size of your
>underpants and the length of a cricket pitch determine how well the
>Queen looks in her official photograph!
>Think, lad, THINK, before you put these 3:00AM words down on plastic!!
Bruce, in fairness you should quote the complete relevant passage of
what John wrote. It started with:
"[O]n average across the software you can buy today or in the near
future, you will get better framerates or visuals with a 3dFX card
than with any other 3D card."
On average. Out of 100 3D accelerated games, maybe 60 will have native
Glide support. Another 35 or so support D3D (but not Glide), which
also looks ok on a Voodoo based card. Maybe 5% will support another
chip exclusively (like ICR2) and will not use the Voodoo card. If you
now take the average of graphics quality delivered by a Voodoo card
and divide it by the total of 3D accelerated games, you get a pretty
good average.
OTOH, other graphics chips deliver arguably better results with their
native ports. But there are fewer native versions for those other
chipsets. In most cases, those cards have to use the D3D version,
which often (always?) is inferior in image quality and frame rate to a
native version. And there are games that are Glide-only. If you do the
same calculation as above, you will get a lower "average quality
index" than for a Voodoo card.
This is what John said (only less verbose), and I happen to agree with
it.
--
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.
