>Oh? Is that so...hehe
Wow, man. You really seem to think you're less of a man if you don't
leap out to spend however many hundereds as soon as possible? Wow. You know,
you can get surgery to help a little bit.
-Tim
Speaking as an observer, I'd say it's the brainless few that jumped
up to insist that everyone who doesn't overspend on the latest and greatest
like them obviously is much less potent.
-Tim
Speedwise yes the GF3 (given a really fast CPU) will stomp the VooDoo
5 in most games.
]
>Well...keep telling yourself that. Some people say a V2 plays Wolf ok but
>that is just opinion....hehe..and not very realistic.
>The market already knows where the power is and all you have to do is sit
>behind a GF3 to see how superior it is in comparison to any Voodoo card.
>> hehehehe....Man Oh Man you are fun...even the insults at the end are
>> so fun to read. You are a funny funny man.
>Wish I could say the same bout you, however there is nothing entertaining
>about what you're writing. It's just SAD to witness a man arguing plain
>futility and trying to make it out as the truth.
>> Maybe you didint notice the other apps that were tested along with
>> 3dMark.
>Doesn't matter one bit when speaking about *3DMark*. You can't, repeat:
>*CAN'T*, compare non-TnL performance out of a TnL-enabled/optimized
>application on TnL-enabled/optimized hardware by disabling TnL on said
>program/hardware. You just get bogus numbers from doing that.
>> But first off your position that no one should use 3D Mark to
>> benchmark video cards without TnL enabled is absolutely hilarious
>> given that it is an option in that app.
>That's not what I said, dude. (And you accuse ME of lacking reading skills?)
>What I said is that you don't get any meaningful numbers from doing so.
>Anyway, the only thing 3dmark2001 measures is 3dmark2001 performance, not
>d3d performance, TnL performance or 3D performance in general for that
>matter. It ONLY measures 3dmark2001 performance, which makes it a pretty
>useless benchmark, a position I've maintained for, like, forever.
>> It was a very useful benchmark...as well its very easy to run.
>It's easy to run, I'll give you that. But it's not useful for any kind of
>performance comparisons. You don't do a lot of playing 3dmark2001, do you?
>So why use it as a performance comparison tool? It's a fake benchmark,
>pretty to look at and nice for testing 3D card stability but not much else.
>> You are like the proverbial room full of monkey's you get it right
>> from time to time even though its plain that you stumble on it.
>"Monkey's"? Monkey's WHAT?
>Please make more grammatical sense than this.
>> Well thats what I started out believing but the numbers dont prove it.
>If you didn't get the numbers to prove it, your system is screwed up. It's
>that easy.
>GF3 is two years more recent than the V5 (architectually, it's more than
>that, since V5 basically is two TNT2s stuck on one board), if you seriously
>believe the two products are equal, then you are more screwed up than I'd
>like to imagine.
>> Oooh you big man call me names, make me write bad checks. Is english a
>> second language for you...? Apparently the simplest of sentences
>> escapes your ability to decipher it.
>Translation: "Blah, blah, blah. Yadda-yadda. I'm full both of myself and hot
>air."
>> For instance in the sentence you
>> are screaming about, so uncreatively, I dont claim that they are
>> equal, only that with a app that does not have TnL both cards are only
>> dependent on the native abilities not on the GPU of the Geforce so
>> they are on EQUAL footing...meaning no advantage to the GF3 for TnL
>But they're not on EQUAL footing. GF3 has both greater raw fillrate and
>greater fillrate efficiency. So they're really not equal at all.
>> which is relevent today because of many games that dont take good
>> advantage of TnL hardware.
>But you're not putting them on EQUAL footing by disabling hardware TnL in
>3dmark2001. That's what I've been trying to tell you for a while now, but
>you seem incapable of changing your dim views once you've gotten an idea in
>your head. Typical zealot behaviour, you desperately want to see your aging,
>obsolete hardware on the same level as the latest and greatest of today, and
>you look everywhere, turn every rock in search of evidence to back up such a
>pre-made conclusion.
>Too bad it's all a house built of playing cards. It can all go *poof* just
>by someone breathing on it.
>> >Oh, but it is enabled, you just have to turn it on yourself. It's like
>> >electric lights in a building, Pierre. The house is wired and connected
>up
>> >to the electric grid and all, mmkay, but it doesn't mean every electric
>> >appliance in the house is running constantly 24/7. It's a fairly simple
>> >concept, I'm sure you'll grasp it eventually. ;-)
>> Ooooh I love it when you try to be clever...its such a pitiful sight.
>> Nvidia does not enable it because it doesnt work reliably...
>Where's your evidence to back up such a claim?
>> if it did
>> work they would enable it like it is enabled in the OGL page. That is
>> part of the driver release as well loon...so if MS didnt like it that
>> wouldnt be there either.
>MS has no say in what is, or isn't present in the OGL page of the video
>properties. It's not for them to decide such things, and hence they don't.
>So there.
>> but they cannot get it to work reliably.
>Just like your head, perhaps?
>> Unlike you I dont
>> depend on signals being recieved by the antennas on my head for my
>> information....instead I test it myself.
>That could have been a creative insult, except for the fact I use telephaty,
>not antennas. Like I said, *poof*.
>> Oooopsy someone forgot to tell the Geforce 3 to be faster in Nascar,
>> Ghost Recon, Operation Flashpoint, Falcon, Janes F/A-18....quick
>> someone go tell them.
>There are examples of software written that runs poorly on one product or
>another, but as ANYONE with half a brain could tell you, that does not make
>a soon three year old piece of hardware from a bankrupt company level with
>the best of today. It's a SOFTWARE issue, not a hardware one.
>You're going to play Nascar for the rest of your life? By all means, go
>right ahead, keep your V5 forever and never switch to anything newer and
>better. The rest of us probably don't have such limited vision...
>> >When I see flagwaving, chestthumping BS like this, I keep wondering when
>all
>> >those US (ex) military/CIA officers, presidents etc will be arrested and
>> >charged with crimes against humanity for meddling in SO MANY south
>american
>> >countries they had no business sticking their *** noses in, causing
>the
>> >death of countless innocent civilians.
>> Well that does it, now Im gonna stomp my diddle foot and get all
>> political on you. Careful the waters you step into there are much
>> deeper than the deeper than you can handle waters you are in now.
>You are so scary, man.
>...No. Not really. Pathetic is more like it. I envision you much like an
>irate armchair quarterback sitting in front of the TV, screaming with glee
>at the sight of George Dubya firing $2 million missiles at $10 empty tents
>and hitting a camel in the butt, while the voice commentator delivers
>patriotic statement of how great America is.
>Anyway, when will those US (ex) military/CIA officers, presidents etc be
>arrested and prosecuted?
> Bye!
>/HB.
As far as visual quality in older open GL games the VooDoo using
wicked gl drivers looks better hands down.
Now potentially the Radeon should wax it once games take advantage of
the special features. But for now all I want is stable drivers and
eye candy later.
The VooDoo 5 is not as outdated as one would think. I know cause I
have both ATI and V5 and Gforce Mx (not in same league as either card)
>>Actually with the options currently availble on the GF3 its not
>>possible to turn them on! Since Anisotropic filtering is such a
>>godsend to the world you would think that you wouldnt need a 3RDparty
>>app to turn it on...
>>But even with them on....same old same old V5 is better. Try it one
>>day...line up two computers side by side and watch them.
>The V5 cannot match texture clarity when anisotropic is enabled on
>the GF3 (or on the Radeon 8500 for that matter).
>Pretending otherwise is sheer delusion.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Never Forget Never Forgive
September 11, 2001
We Will Find You
www.papadoc.net
Besides you cannot turn on Anisotropic filtering without a 3Rd Party
app...wonder why?
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Never Forget Never Forgive
September 11, 2001
We Will Find You
www.papadoc.net
Did I say that? I don't think so... Dunno why you'd want to mix in ***
envy into this, I was just stating facts.
Anyway, the GF3 has been out for almost a year now, so I don't really
understand where that "as soon as possible" came from. You a bit behind the
times maybe?
GF3 Ti200:s are fairly cheap anyway, and beat the pants off of that old V5
so you needn't spend no 'many hundreds'. That's good, wouldn't you say?
Bye!
/HB.
>> Wow, man. You really seem to think you're less of a man if you don't
>> leap out to spend however many hundereds as soon as possible?
>Did I say that? I don't think so... Dunno why you'd want to mix in ***
>envy into this, I was just stating facts.
>Anyway, the GF3 has been out for almost a year now, so I don't really
>understand where that "as soon as possible" came from. You a bit behind the
>times maybe?
The point is, however, that you reacted to a very good comparitive
review with the same sort of defensiveness that I see with all the idiots
that actually debate Ford vs Chevy. I think it's pretty obvious that those
Ford vs Chevy types are doing some compensating, thus it seems the same to
you.
True, the Ti200 is nice if you want to overclock it. Almost enough
to get me to shell out some more money. The problem is, $160 is still $160
that I can't spend on other things, and the upgrade just isn't enough,
considering that it will be a downgrade in some games and, IMO, 2d visual
quality. That, and I don't play enough FPS games.
-Tim
Yes, but some people ACTUALLY have the cash to buy new video cards ;-), just
pretend I was speaking to them, mmkay. No need in bringing in the size of my
male member or such (which I am quite satisfied with, btw).
I didn't think it was "very good". Alright, if all one wants is running a
limited set of mainly flight sims and racing games from now and to the end
of time, then the V5 might be the preferable choice, but one also has to
consider which card(s) that software companies are optimizing for these
days.
I have no experience of such debates, I'm sure that both brands have their
merits. As for defensiveness, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Would
you mind very much pointing out any examples of such percieved defensiveness
on my part?
While cars may help in scoring with chicks to some extent, video cards DO
NOT. So much for that "compensation" theory of yours. ;-) Anyway, all I got
is a plain-jane GF3 which refuses to overclock very much at all. There are
many examples of Ti200:s which clock faster than my card, and as we all
know, the GF3 Ti500 is out since a couple months. Also, the GF4 is right
around the corner, so why would I want to compensate using what essentially
is inferior tech anyway? This does not compute, Enigmatic...
$160 is not "many hundreds" of $ which you claimed at first. Seems you are
backtracking here, and fast! ;-)
Very few games, and I can guarantee you that the follow-ups to said games
will not run faster on a V5 than on a GF-series card.
There's nothing wrong with the 2D quality of the GF3 chip itself. If there
are any image quality issues, it's because of low-grade board components and
I can assure you that is not the case with all GF3:s. Mine for example gives
the thing on a DVI flatscreen monitor - something which is not possible on
the V5 afair - so I sidestep the analog side of the circuitry completely.
Bye!
/HB.
In modern 3D titles, V5-series cards may look nice when 4x-antialiased, but
they certainly do not perform up to snuff, as fillrate is severely lacking.
Bye!
/HB.
http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2481225
