rec.autos.simulators

by **Ronny Holmstr** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

I haven't seen anything in here on the performance of the Matrox m3D add-on
card with F1RS. Does anyone have any experience. The m3D is based on
the PowerVR PCX2 chip, and supports D3D not 3Dfx, but is much cheaper than
than the 3Dfx cards.

I have a Matrox Millennium (not II) with 4Mb. Is the m3D a good choice? I read
in one article that the D3D version of F1RS is not as good as the 3Dfx
version. Is this true in general - that 3Dfx is better than D3D ? Is it really
worth it ? I have a possibility to purchase the m3D at a really good prize
(under half the prize of the cheapest 3Dfx cards.). I can get the m3D for
under 100$ and would have to pay alomst 200$ for a 3Dfx card (Flash 3Dfx
voodoo, 200$, Orchid Righteous 3Dfx 300$, GUI MAxi Gamer 250 $ and so on...
(This is in Finland).

I am not a heavy gamer. Racing sims and Quake every now and then is about all
I ever have time for, maybe Tomb Raider II - but just for Lara :)

Thanx

Ronny

by **Eric T. Busc** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

No it's not a good choice. In GLQuake and GLQuake2 the framerate is too
choppy with a lot of action (bad for netplay) and doesn't have full
colored-lighting support (only entities and weapons work). It also has
noticeably lower image quality than the Rendition and Voodoo cards
because of its tile-based rendering architecture (textures show
checkerboard-like tiling). Also because of other hardware oddities,
even some Direct3D games require special patches to run properly.
Basically don't waste your time with the M3D.

--
Eric T. Busch

http://ebusch.akorn.net

>Is the m3D a good choice?

by **John Wehm** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> I can get the m3D for
>under 100$ and would have to pay alomst 200$ for a 3Dfx card (Flash 3Dfx
>voodoo, 200$, Orchid Righteous 3Dfx 300$, GUI MAxi Gamer 250 $ and so on...
>(This is in Finland).

>I am not a heavy gamer. Racing sims and Quake every now and then is about all
>I ever have time for, maybe Tomb Raider II - but just for Lara :)

>Thanx

>Ronny

I don't know if your equivalent Finlandian currency is expressed above in the
prices of the 3Dfx cards, but if you go to Pricewatch (www.pricewatch.com),
you can find Diamond Monster 3D cards for 145-150 (US) bucks. That is only
around 50$ more than the m3D card. And for that delta, I'd seriously consider
the 3Dfx option. I had F1RS with D3D (Intense 3D - I know, D3D isn't optimal
on that card) and it was a slide show...then switched to 3Dfx, and holy smoke!
Talk about breathing life back into a year-old P166. Same with TR2. I also
hear Quake II is incredible with 3Dfx, but I won't have that until sometime
later this week.

D3D (IMO) isn't up to speed yet to consider as a viable *** platform, so go
with the chipset that has the greatest dedicated games. You _will not_ rue
your decision (as opposed to what you may with the Matrox purchase).

Regards,

John Wehman

by **DPHI** » Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:00:00

I have to agree with Eric, the m3d is a huge waste of money. I wish I had found
this group before I bought mine. As soon as possible, it's going in the trash!

don

by **Ed Reynol** » Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:00:00

I have run both the m3D and 3dfx Monster3D with my own Millenium 2MB.
Go for the 3dfx card like the Monster3D... a little more money, but I get TWICE
the performance with the 3dfx Monster3D (I ran PC Magazine 3D Benchmark to
decide which to keep).

Ed

rec.autos.simulators

Matrox m3D ?

Matrox m3D ?

Matrox m3D ?

Matrox m3D ?

Matrox m3D ?

Matrox m3D ?