rec.autos.simulators

by **Randy Magrud** » Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>Benchmark? There are more ways to fudge (or just plain***up)
>benchmarks than you can possibly imagine. That is not, IMO, sufficient
>reason to say the Stealth 2 is faster than 3dfx.

I wonder if you'd be this cynical if I had come out and said that the
Rendition v2100 was 15% SLOWER than the 3DFX? At any rate, my
observations in Direct3D were based both upon the PC Player benchmark,
which renders a sci-fi style terrain & spaceship scene with all the
goodies turned on and a camera view that changes, along with stereo
DirectSound thrown in to load the system up. My v1000 Reactor scored
between 7 to 9, the v2100 based Stealth II scored between 14-15 and
the Stingray scored about 11-12. I admit I didn't do any exact
percentage calculations, just a rule of thumb estimate. Also, the
frame rate in CPR was noticeably slower with the Stingray than it was
in the Stealth II -- but the there's the draw-in bug in the Stealth
drivers that has to be fixed before I can make a final say.

Voodoo 2 is an announced product, not a shipping product. Its no more
relevant right now than Rendition was 2 months ago.

Randy

by **Eric T. Busc** » Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Actually its not that simple, so you have to ask them just what they are
looking for in a new card. If they need a new 2D card as well, one of
the Riva128 based cards might just be the best solution. Its Direct3D
performance is faster than the 3Dfx cards, and its 2D is between a
Millenium and a MilleniumII. If they are really interested in running
Rendition Ready titles like ICR2 and N2 then a Rendition card like the
StealthII or the upcoming Thriller3D would be best. Of course if they
already have a solid 2D card and only want add-on 3D, then a Voodoo
graphics card like the Canopus Pure3D is the only real solution.

--
Eric T. Busch

http://ebusch.akorn.net

by Jo » Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Just to step back to the big picture a bit, it's still amazing to me
how badly Microsoft has screwed up the generic 3D API so severely.
Really, all of this grief is caused directly by their screwup, and by
their continued refusal to support a decent 3d api like OpenGL.

Joe

by **Greg Cisk** » Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> >Benchmark? There are more ways to fudge (or just plain***up)
> >benchmarks than you can possibly imagine. That is not, IMO, sufficient
> >reason to say the Stealth 2 is faster than 3dfx.

> I wonder if you'd be this cynical if I had come out and said that the
> Rendition v2100 was 15% SLOWER than the 3DFX? At any rate, my
> observations in Direct3D were based both upon the PC Player benchmark,
> which renders a sci-fi style terrain & spaceship scene with all the
> goodies turned on and a camera view that changes, along with stereo
> DirectSound thrown in to load the system up. My v1000 Reactor scored
> between 7 to 9, the v2100 based Stealth II scored between 14-15 and
> the Stingray scored about 11-12. I admit I didn't do any exact
> percentage calculations, just a rule of thumb estimate. Also, the
> frame rate in CPR was noticeably slower with the Stingray than it was
> in the Stealth II -- but the there's the draw-in bug in the Stealth
> drivers that has to be fixed before I can make a final say.

Um right. How does the framerate of these 2 cards differ from
a *REAL* 3dfx card like the Monster3D? Since CPR has a
framerate counter I sort of expect real numbers. Pontification
is fine if that is your trip. But I am looking for real numbers/data.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

- Show quoted text -

by **Greg Cisk** » Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Am I to actually believe that you think Glide and Direct3D games have
the same performance? Have you ever ran UBI F1, Jetfighter3? Sure
flying corps is a Direct3D game with outstanding performance. ONLY
IF YOU HAVE A 3DFX CARD!!! As it makes Direct3D calls which are
explicitly used by 3DFX cards. Just simply having a Direct3D card
is far from all that is required.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

> those games that do use these features simultaneously is closing, but
> yes the Voodoo cards will probably always be faster.

> FYI, no one claimed it was 15% faster than the Voodoo Graphics cards.
> The earlier post was comparing it to the Rush cards, which would place
> it about on par with the Voodoo Graphics cards.

> --
> Eric T. Busch

> http://ebusch.akorn.net

by **Greg Cisk** » Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> > Would the Stingray happen to be a rush chip? If so it is hardly
> > a comparison. Next thing you know someone will say the graphics
> > in Jetfighter3 suck.

> The graphics in Jetfigter3 do suck btw.

Where did this FART come from?
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by Jo » Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>> Would the Stingray happen to be a rush chip? If so it is hardly
>> a comparison. Next thing you know someone will say the graphics
>> in Jetfighter3 suck.
>The graphics in Jetfigter3 do suck btw.

This is a Troll post, right? If not, I strongly recommend that you
have your eyes examined.

Joe

by **Randy BO** » Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:00:00

card like the Monster3D? Since CPR has a framerate counter I sort of expect
real numbers. >>

I'd be happy to give you the frame rate counters on CPR but for a few problems:

1. The driver bugs I mention probably skew the results somewhat, since I can't
control draw distance in the Stealth II version. I'll admit that its possible
the frame rate will drop when the corrected driver comes out.

2. The frame rate counter in CART is not a very static number. Its flying all
over the place as you drive. I'd love to say that I get 12 fps on the thing
or 20 fps or whatever, but the frame rate counter bounces all over the map.
Any attempt I make to give you a solid number from that counter is going to
fall flat because of this. I just said that the frame rate looked better on
the Stealth II, and until I get another driver that fixes the draw in problem
I'm going to stick to that view.

numbers/data. >>

The only real numbers I can give you are the results of the PC Player Direct3D
benchmark, because that does give a discreet score, and on the exact same
system it produced the values I listed in my post. Have you seen that
benchmark? I suggest you download it from www.gamecenter.com and take a look.
I think its a more accurate measurement of real game performance than a lot
of these "fill rate" benchmarks we see floating around

Randy.
Randy Magruder
Staff Writer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com/

by **Ricardo Ferreira aka Stor** » Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> If you want to play the next generation racing sims, then you
> would regret getting a PowerVR card.

> Most of the new racing sims are taking advantage of the 3DFX native
> mode (Glide), so you have to have 3DFX to utilize these games in their
> optimum "Full Glory" mode.

Sure the 3Dfx cards are good cards. But about the Glide native mode,
what will you do when a better chip comes out that is not compatible
with Glide ? The only chance is for you to quit playing those games.

If everybody used Direct3D(or OpenGL) only, not Glide (even if you only
used those functions that 3dfx uses), the games would always work with
any card that is D3D compliant.

3Dfx wouldn't loose anything because their games would still look
better, and you would not loose your software. The same reason SVGA
games that use Vesa 1.2 still work after so many incompatible chipsets.

Do you honestly believe 3Dfx is gonna be the top chip forever ?
--

WWW : http://dux.isec.pt/~9505001

by **Randy Magrud** » Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>I may try this, but I believe game performance is the bottom line. That is why
>I am *MUCH* more interested in the actual framerate numbers you are getting
>in CPR than how your super-duper 3D card runs some canned Direct3D
>benchmark.

If you want to call it a "canned benchmark", please look at it first
and then come back and say that. The reason why is that instead of
just slapping as many polys as it can onto a screen or doing 'behind
the scenes' benchmarking, an actual game-style environment is created,
complete with stereo sound explosions, a beautiful terrain with trees
and platforms with spinning objects, and space shuttles flying around,
along with a camera angle that pans and zooms and floats around the
whole scene while the frame rate is measured for several seconds. The
only thing that's not accounted for is the frame rate hit by a
joystick input, but that's not something that's going to vary from
video board to video board. (You can turn off the sound I think, as
well, if you'd like to eliminate that part of the load from the
system).

Anyway, go look at the benchmark and if you still feel it doesn't look
to you like the latest and greatest Sci Fi game running in various
resolutions and color depths, then I'm not sure what WOULD satisfy
you.

Randy

by **Greg Cisk** » Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Yes you do need a 3dfx card. IMHO the game will be a waste without.
A 3dfx card can cost anywhere from $100-$200. It goes into a spare PCI
slot in your MB. The output of your existing card plugs into the input
of the 3D card with a provided cable. Your monitor then connects to
the output of the 3D card. When 3D is not being used the signal is
passed through the card and is not altered. The card general will be used
on it's own after it is installed correctly in windows. The DOS games
generally find the card & use it without and problems...

After you get all this, you have to be happy in the knowledge that the
AI in the game completely sucks and may be unplayable for anything
other than HOT-LAPPING. If that is your thing then you are all set.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **Jim Getze** » Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:00:00

And now the rest of the story: a patch is due soon which will contain
improvements to the AI -- to what extent is unknown. However, the problem
*is* being worked on.

In the meantime, racing on the Zone against real people is a gas.

Jim Getzen

Unofficial CART Precision Racing HQ
http://members.home.net/getzen/

by **Ronald Stoeh** » Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:00:00

snip
> Sure the 3Dfx cards are good cards. But about the Glide native mode,
> what will you do when a better chip comes out that is not compatible
> with Glide ? The only chance is for you to quit playing those games.

You heard about Voodoo2? I'll be playing Longbow2 on it next year...

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!

by S » Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>Actually its not that simple, so you have to ask them just what they are
>looking for in a new card. If they need a new 2D card as well, one of
>the Riva128 based cards might just be the best solution. Its Direct3D
>performance is faster than the 3Dfx cards, and its 2D is between a
>Millenium and a MilleniumII. If they are really interested in running
>Rendition Ready titles like ICR2 and N2 then a Rendition card like the
>StealthII or the upcoming Thriller3D would be best. Of course if they
>already have a solid 2D card and only want add-on 3D, then a Voodoo
>graphics card like the Canopus Pure3D is the only real solution.

>--
>Eric T. Busch

>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

This is about the only rational post I've seen in this whole thread, but
still he gets flamed for it. Listen, you Voodoo-freaks, I've got a 3dfx
board too, and it kicks ass, but other boards that just came out (Riva and
V2200 in particular) simply beat it. They have BETTER 3d hardware. Plain
and simple. But if someone asked me which card to buy for 3d ***, I
would have to recommend a Voodoo. These new cards beat the voodoo by only
a small amount, and only in D3D games. There are just too many Glide games
coming out to ignore (example: Electronic Arts games this fall). Now, Mr.
Busch makes some good arguments above, but who knows what cool 3dfx only
games will be coming out next month that Joe Gamer won't be able to play
because he picked up a Riva128-based card that beats a Voodoo Rush by 15%?
As far as Rendition goes, it would be (IMHO) INSANE to get one just because
of the 2-3 specific games for it.
So, there are other choices out there besides Voodoo, but for most people,
they don't make any sense.
And I agree that it is kind of pathetic that only now are companies coming out
with 3d boards that beat the Voodoo. Of course now it is too late for them,
because games require the 3dfx.
Heh.
"..only now, when it is too late, do you relize the true power of the Dark
Side"

by **RREDLINE** » Sun, 16 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Nice...How many??I can think of about 15 off the top of my head(Unless your
refering to Rendition only titles,Not Rendition/3dfx titles)

rec.autos.simulators

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please

Power VR or 3DFX Your Opinions please